Firing squads called for by US politicians

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

In theory, no, but not all lifers are in solitary, so the argument is false.

You are mixing your tenses, deal with what is written.

That's a good argument for executing them now.

So you are in favour of removing safeguards that aim to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice?

I very much doubt that given your stance on capital punishment.
But I see again that you still don't understand what you are argueing for or argueing against.

But it has been adequately shown that the alternative solution does indeed offer opportunities for the convict to get out and kill again, so the claim is true.

Since that is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the bill all you are showing is that you havn't understood the initial statement.

A one-liner, even if not meant to be funny, is not the asked-for explanation. This is no more than banter.

No, you are just failing to read.

More banter. You haven't explained anything; you've just declared it to be so and expected everyone to understand. Still waiting for you to actually explain something.

All explained, you just keep missing it.

That refreshes nothing. You make declarations, but you don't show facts. Please prove the truth of your claims.

The proof there on that angle is self evident.

Still more banter. I'm waiting for you to actually show something. Anything. All you've given so far is claims.

Nope, you still havn't read and comprehended have you.

No mind-reading involved. You used a personal appelation to enforce a point, something that is only done when the user is talking down to another. Not becoming, not polite and certainly not warranted.

As I said already , don't rely on your mind reading, it doesn't work.

So you say, but again you don't actually bother to explain why it is so.

It has been explained repeatedly , you have missed it from the first and still keep building on your miss instead of stopping and thinking.

Again a good argument for performing the execution now, rather than later.

No, that is irrefutable proof about the "only" being a false claim

Only, as you have pointed out, after the execution is accomplished.

Indeed.

Only if you are actually jailed for the rest of your life.

Bingo
So that's life without parole meaning life without parole
I think someone may have mentioned that repeatedly

Actually August's quote was "the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is."

Yes, your problem seems to be that you are missing on the bolded words.
All your attempts without dealing with both of those is nothing but banter and bluster.
And lets face it all of your attempts have shown that you don't get the second, as in the same way as your previous Bundy theme you are getting events out of sequence

...and as long as "without parole" can have flaws in it, it still is

Which flaws?
Those you are bringing up which fall outside those defined in the statement in question or those which can be fixed.
So are those actually strawmen you are building?

Not one single counter or argument in all of that, just condescension.

Really ? I thought all of them countered the positions put forward in the post.
The last bit is fitting too as "every" can have the same problems as "only" does.

@donna

Tribesman, you don't even live in the USA, so don't worry yourself with what we do with our criminals. Worry about your own.

Isn't it amazing how often something along those lines is trotted out when someone is unable to counter.