It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by TheRegal

Actually, you did quote from the ACLU page and bolded the contents you cited. I merely linked it. Don't be daft. The feeling is mutual. I can't hold your hand through the logic train enough for you to get it. It is becoming clear you are reaching the limit of your intelligence in this argument.

You're telling me what is a quantifiable worse sentence from a justice perspective, (do I have to walk you through the appeals process for the two again?) with a statistically worse rate of reverseal 10% for LWOP vs. ~30% for DP is more ethical?

Okay, then let me put it in another light. convicted murders spending LWOP murder again in prison at the rate of about 90%. So not only committing a possibly innocent man to life in hell with a very small chance to clear his name, you are also putting him in an environment that statistically compels them to murder again at an insanely high rate.

In another light, you champion the dollar savings to put this individual through hell, increase the chance of another murder, decrease chance of reversal (if indeed the case was fudged), all under the guise of "ethics".

If someone came to you and said you are being charged with murder, There are two options: if you are given the death penalty you have on average about 17 years and a 30% chance to overturn your sentence if you are convicted and a quick painless death at the end if you fail. If you are given life without parole, you will live in what basically amounts to structured hell for the rest of your life and you'll more likely than not be put in a position where you will have to kill again, and if convicted this way you have about a 10% chance to reverse the sentence. You will likely die painfully of cancer, a heart attack, or some other maladie with little to no treatment in your mid 50s. What would you pick?

Lets not talk about the morality. Morality is subjective.

I'm not trying to sell you on some society as it ought to be, I'm only trying to tell you how it is. And right now, the death penalty can be an ethical option.

To you it only seems to matter that someone dies by the hands of society, not the matter in which they are separated from society or their fighting chances at redemption. I would like to know your outlook on abortion. I'm pro choice, I think a society with self determination can sanction murder given that very specific criteria are met. It also makes me wonder how you feel about protecting your own life. You're nutty. This will end our back and forth as there is no getting past your indoctrination. Feel free to have the last word.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:42 PM
Humane? Rubbish! The question should be, what is the most painless way to kill a human being? To which I suggest the Dr. Kevorkian method.
Unless you prefer the sadistic route.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 06:08 PM


I think that if a jury finds you guilty of certain crimes (murder, rape, etc)

Yes, okay.

Rape is bad and all but if you actually think that killing someone is less serious than rape then you, my friend, make me very uncomfortable to be in the same hemisphere as.

I'd hang out with a convicted rapist over someone this enthusiastic about killing people any day.

WAY TO GO on making such a personal declaration about me, my character, an the general overall safety of being even on the same side of the planet as you....

simply based off of how YOU interpreted a post....

edit on Fri Jan 24 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

edit on 24-1-2014 by _BoneZ_ because: removed unnecessary adjective

new topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in