On Mar 16, 6:02*am, wrote:
I have no doubt that I _could_ execute him by whatever method I wished or was
instructed to use. *The difference is that I'd have no desire to (absolutely
pointlessly) "torture" him while doing it, nor would I follow what I know would
be illegal and I personally believe to be immoral instructions to do so.

HTH,
R





Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMHO a big part of the problem is the anti-death penalty folk drawing
an absolute line and using phony and frivelous appeals to jam the
system. AFAIK most states that still have the death penalty, limit it
to aggravated situations. For example, the US Supreme Court has
decided that firing squad and electric chair methods are
Constitutional. However, as in Washington's case, the tactic of the
"antis" is to challange in the courts ANY method as "cruel" and
"unusual," and in this case the method is lethal injection. And as I
said before, their tactics fill the prisons with violent repeat
murderers who rise in the prison hierarchies, maintain a regime of
continued murder and violence against other prisoners and make
rehabilitation of lesser criminals in prison an impossibility. The
"antis' also use endless delays to run costs of a successful execution
thru the roof, even after DNA testing, and sabotage the rule of law.
For the life of me I cannot see how these folks equate the horrors
they actively work to perpetuate, with taking a "moral position."

I am beginning to think that perhaps the only effective way to fight
the antis is to boycott attorneys who focus their pro bongo activities
on defending murderers convicted of aggravated murder, and explicitly
punishing complicit elected and appointed functionaries at the polls
and thru published exposure.

Dave
I guess some kids had guinnea pigs and other kids collected
monsters. . . and still do ;-))