And to the final point I want to bring up, which is the remedy here.

You know, they're asking that the death penalty be struck because these methods are unconstitutional,

but that's not how it works.

If you show that one method is unconstitutional, part of the reason you have to present a viable,

readily implemented alternative is so that the state can then use that method for the execution.

You don't get to at the beginning short circuit the whole thing and say death is off the table

because the current method is unconstitutional.

As I said before, the method could change.

And so if they came in and they had evidence and they

could show that there was another method that's not lethal injection, that's not firing squad,

that severely or significantly reduces the pain and it's readily implemented, the answer isn't

to strike it, definitely completely, it's to say, okay, you can move forward with the trial.

We can see if he's sentenced to death, but you can't use those two methods to do it.

I want to bring in Michael Lashir.

He is a debt penalty.

So, you know, interesting points of view.

Sandra Preston from the chat, I wanted to just read this because they thought the same on Richard

Allen.

Here is my huge concern. Who are you people

to convict someone? This is the United States of America and you were innocent to proven

guilty. Sandra, you're 100% right. However, you're right. This is the United States of America

and people are allowed to give their opinion without the addendum he's innocent to proven

...