Firing squads called for by US politicians

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If life without parole means life without parole then it does on the release front.

And yet people do get their sentences commuted, and some do escape.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm

So "Life without parole" really means "unless someone decides to let him go", or "until he escapes".

That is the only argument that is needed, that has been established and accepted, and cannot be countered, yet people still argue for the death penalty despite accepting that fact.

Not really. What we need is a better way to make sure we have the right person.

Not invalid at all, the claim was focused on "only" and "cast iron", yet clearly it was neither.
The fact that the alterantives are also not the "only" or "cast iron" does not remove the invalidity of the original statement.

The statement was that executing the murderer is the only way to guarantee that he doesn't kill again. Ted Bundy did escape the authorities more than once and while he was free he did kill again, so imprisoning him some more did allow him to keep killing. Putting him to death was indeed the "only" way to stop him, and it was very much "cast iron".

So....no it isn't.

So in Ted Bundy's case, yes it is.

[TarJak]

It's clear that execution is not a deterrent so it must be a punishment of some sort.

Killing the killer is the key though. As tribes pointed out if you get the wrong guy the killer can kill again.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by donna52522

Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.

If they have a toothbrush they're armed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TarJak

It's clear that execution is not a deterrent so it must be a punishment of some sort.

That's true. It also seems that no punisment is ever a deterrent to others. Should we not administer punishment then?

Killing the killer is the key though. As tribes pointed out if you get the wrong guy the killer can kill again.

That's true no matter what the punishment is.

Originally Posted by donna52522

Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.

Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And yet people do get their sentences commuted, and some do escape.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm

So "Life without parole" really means "unless someone decides to let him go", or "until he escapes".

The former can be changed, the latter isn't relevant to the claim that was made.

Not really. What we need is a better way to make sure we have the right person.

Good luck on that.

The statement was that executing the murderer is the only way to guarantee that he doesn't kill again.

Read the statement.

Ted Bundy did escape the authorities more than once and while he was free he did kill again, so imprisoning him some more did allow him to keep killing.

Irrelevant.
BTW do you remember the last time you tried using Bundy in a death penalty topic?
Do you remember why it didn't work for the argument you were trying to put forward then?
Same applies again, it doesn't work for what you are trying to argue.

So in Ted Bundy's case, yes it is

Those crimes do not fit the bill.
So ....no it isn't.

Its very simple Sailor, for you to make a case that execution is the only cast iron way to prevent re offending after completion of sentence is for you to find someone who committed a crime after they had been imprisoned until they died.
Anything else doesn't address the fault in the initial claim.

As for escape and committing crimes in prison, that was already dealt with....
Plenty of time for that while waiting years on death row.
Though of course neither would be recidivist crimes would they.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?

Because it usually isn't.

The former can be changed

But will it be? Unless it is changed then that's not a valid argument.

the latter isn't relevant to the claim that was made.

Really? Please explain why.

Read the statement.

I did. Why don't you answer it instead?

BTW do you remember the last time you tried using Bundy in a death penalty topic?
Do you remember why it didn't work for the argument you were trying to put forward then?

No. Why don't you bring it back and explain it in detail rather than make vague claims you can't or won't back up with fact?

Same applies again, it doesn't work for what you are trying to argue.

Prove it. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Those crimes do not fit the bill.

Guy murders people. Guy escapes prison and murders again. How does that not "fit the bill"?

Sailor

Trying to emphasize a point by using personal names? Major fail from the start.

The problem here is the same as always. I'm not sure what your true position is on the subject, but that's not really important either. My position is uncertain, as in I don't support the death penalty but I don't stand against it either. I just see your own arguments as vague and unsupported, and that makes me respond.

[donna52522]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?[/I]

Yes, it's called budgets. Not every prisoner can be dealt with on a one on one basis. You would need to hire more guards, build new facilities with single person cells for all lifers. Not to mention the psychological problems for the prisoner which bring back the cruel and unusual punishment debate....easier on everyone including the prisoner to just execute them. But you disagree with that solution as you disagree on every topic.

[donna52522]

Originally Posted by TarJak

If they have a toothbrush they're armed.

Yes a toothbrush could be, but the guards are prepared when they need to deal with him/her in person. The guards know that a person sentenced to die has nothing to lose, so they don't take dealing with them lightly....it's not a game.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Because it usually isn't.

So you have no reason why it cannot be then.

But will it be? Unless it is changed then that's not a valid argument.

It 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.

Really? Please explain why.

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

I did. Why don't you answer it instead?

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

No. Why don't you bring it back and explain it in detail rather than make vague claims you can't or won't back up with fact?

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.

Prove it. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Already proven.

Guy murders people. Guy escapes prison and murders again. How does that not "fit the bill"?

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.

Trying to emphasize a point by using personal names? Major fail from the start.

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

The problem here is the same as always. I'm not sure what your true position is on the subject, but that's not really important either. My position is uncertain, as in I don't support the death penalty but I don't stand against it either. I just see your own arguments as vague and unsupported, and that makes me respond

The problem here is that you failed to properly read and comprehend the initial statement.
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.
Life meaning life means they are dead when the term has finished.
Execution prevents recidivism.
Being jailed for the rest of your life also prevents recidivism.

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

Originally Posted by donna52522

Yes, it's called budgets. .

Can you really put a price on justice?

Not every prisoner can be dealt with on a one on one basis.

Every prisoner?
Are you saying every prisoner should be jailed under those terms?

You would need to hire more guards, build new facilities with single person cells for all lifers.

And?
Aren't those damn wishy washy liberals already clamouring for single cells for all prisoners?

Not to mention the psychological problems for the prisoner which bring back the cruel and unusual punishment debate....

Going soft on the convicts now?

easier on everyone including the prisoner to just execute them.

Any proof of that?

But you disagree with that solution as you disagree on every topic

You really should avoid the definitive determiners, it is so easy to prove it false.

[Oberon]

[donna52522]

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.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you really put a price on justice?

Every prisoner?
Are you saying every prisoner should be jailed under those terms?

And?
Aren't those damn wishy washy liberals already clamouring for single cells for all prisoners?

Going soft on the convicts now?

Any proof of that?

You really should avoid the definitive determiners, it is so easy to prove it false.

Not one single counter or argument in all of that, just condescension. Insulting people is not the way to conduct a proper debate.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by donna52522

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.

On an international forum anyone is free to say anything they want, within reason and within the rules. I've defended others on that charge in the past, so now I have to defend him. Besides, he's guilty of plenty of other bad arguing tactics so we don't really need to worry about that one.