Firing squads called for by US politicians

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you have no reason why it cannot be then.

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

[quoteIt is valid as the initial quote was about the "only" solution giving that result, an alternative solution which gives the same result proves that claim to be false.[/quote]
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.

Because they don't fit into the category of crimes August talked of.

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

You did, but you clearly didn't understand the words.
It has already been answered.

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.

That is simple, you attempted to use Bundy as an example where it didn't actually fit your argument, you are doing exactly the same thing now.
To refresh your memory you tried to use it as an example of someone convicted of certain crimes escaping to commit the very same crimes, you failed in the matter of the time line of the convictions.

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

Already proven.

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

[quote]At what point in the legal process does part of Augusts claim become true?
Until those conditions are met any other crime committed does not fit the bill.
Easily demonstrated by the fact that prisoners awaiting execution can do all those things too.[quote]
That's a good argument for executing them now.

Major fail on your part.
Please don't try your mind reading powers, they really are not very good.

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.

The problem here is that you failed to properly read and comprehend the initial statement.

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

It is very very simple, recidivism is impossible when you are dead.
It is why people trot out that line in support of the death penalty as it sounds good.
However recidivism can only occur after the terms have been fulfilled.

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

Execution prevents recidivism.

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

Being jailed for the rest of your life also prevents recidivism.

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

So, is execution the only path that gives exactly that result?
Which comes back to my initial post on that very thing
....no it isn't

Actually August's quote was "the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is."
...and as long as "without parole" can have flaws in it, it still is.