• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty....

AngelOfDarkness

AngelOfDarkness

Verified
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
5,280
Points
38
I agree with eclipse...death penalty = revenge motive only and shows what an uncivilized country we really are.....

Total solitary confinement....no TV no computer no phone no newspapers fot the rest of her natural life....

THIS would be real punishment and if enacted on a regular basis might actually deter the heinous acts of murder and other crimes against kids and society at large...
 
costs us quite a bit of money to keep someone in that solitary cell, if you actually want to keep them alive and just ensure they never know any pleasure for the rest of their natural life. that is certainly crueler IMO.

but from what i understand, executions are expensive too. for the life of me i can't understand some of the methods used.
 
End the bitches life, the sooner the better. It will be at least 10 years even if she gets the death penalty before its cast anyway.
 
Eyeshine said:
End the bitches life, the sooner the better. It will be at least 10 years even if she gets the death penalty before its cast anyway.
Click to expand...

don't be ambiguous my man. people here appreciate candid people who say exactly whats on their mind.
 
I'm also against the death penalty. If she did it I say we just throw her in a prison somewhere and forget about her.
 
That's a fuckload of money we will pay to keep people alive just to rot.

I'm not pro-death, nor am i against it. I'm not sure. But I don't think people give due consideration when they just say "eh just toss them in prison forever and ever, it's not barbaric and it's a worse punishment"

It's arguably more cruel if there is no possiblity of parole. My problem with killing people isn't their dying, it's how systematic it is. That is troubling to me. I would find it much more natural to throw the person hog-tied in the room with the family of the victims and let them go to down. That would be more violent and brutal, but at least it would be human. Having a bunch of signed papers that result in a person being strapped down at a certain time on a certain day and injected with special chemicals to execute, that just doesn't sit well
 
Radiohead 7140 said:
That's a fuckload of money we will pay to keep people alive just to rot.

I'm not pro-death, nor am i against it. I'm not sure. But I don't think people give due consideration when they just say "eh just toss them in prison forever and ever, it's not barbaric and it's a worse punishment"

Having a bunch of signed papers that result in a person being strapped down at a certain time on a certain day and injected with special chemicals to execute, that just doesn't sit well
Click to expand...

Many people's fear of the death penalty (aside from my revulsion towards the idea of promoting the killing of another creature), is that by some terrible mistake the wrong person will be executed. That they literally, caught and killed someone who was completely innocent. And because the justice system is not perfect now, nor has it ever been, it's up to people's conscious to decide if that's a risk worth taking.
 
eclipse said:
Many people's fear of the death penalty (aside from my revulsion towards the idea of promoting the killing of another creature), is that by some terrible mistake the wrong person will be executed. That they literally, caught and killed someone who was completely innocent. And because the justice system is not perfect now, nor has it ever been, it's up to people's conscious to decide if that's a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, though that's low on my list of arguments against it. I don't think you should be liable for death if you're found guilty. It should be for cases of irrefutable evidence - ie caught on tape, confession (though a guilty plea is generally in exchange for lenience) - i understand that this is still a grey area, and there is always the remote possibility of executing an innocent person. That's a terrible byproduct of a decision to run a society a certain way, and again, not a way i necessarily support.

if an innocent person were incarcerated for the rest of their life (and if an innocent person was executed, it's doubtful that (s)he would be discovered innocent any time in the near future, if at all), would that really be much better?
 
Not that I think certain people deserve to live (the so-called "right to life" is a complete myth/fabrication anyway, George Carlin, for one, having pointed out just how self-servingly selective it is), but I'm not sure that the death penalty really ultimately accomplishes anything, and I believe that whatever deterrent effect it may supposedly have is offset by the fact that it demonstrates that the government itself sanctions killing (which is obvious anyway, in time of war for example, but the death penalty brings it closer to home, so to say).

In fact, unfortunately I don't believe that any punishment for murder, or for any other crime for that matter, has much deterrent effect, if any, since most criminals don't plan, or expect, to get caught anyway. Although I do believe that any punishment for crime is as much for the sake of exacting retribution as anything else, and I'm not sure that's completely unreasonable (ignoring for the moment the many people convicted for victimless crimes).
 
The death penalty would be much more efficient if they stopped allowing people to appeal repeatedly. Granted 20 years ago there were mistakes made with trials. Innocent people went to prison and all that. In those cases, yeah fine appeal since there is new technology that could prove wrongful imprisonment. However with DNA and all the rest of the advancements. There is very very little chance of wrongful imprisonment.

As i keep saying to my step mother whenever this kinda thing comes up. The opinion that we should just "lock people up forever" would go out the window if it was your kid/wife/loved one that was murdered.
 
vladtickleman22 said:
The death penalty would be much more efficient if they stopped allowing people to appeal repeatedly. Granted 20 years ago there were mistakes made with trials. Innocent people went to prison and all that. In those cases, yeah fine appeal since there is new technology that could prove wrongful imprisonment. However with DNA and all the rest of the advancements. There is very very little chance of wrongful imprisonment.

As i keep saying to my step mother whenever this kinda thing comes up. The opinion that we should just "lock people up forever" would go out the window if it was your kid/wife/loved one that was murdered.
Click to expand...

DNA and other "modern" forms of evidence are only tools, and like any other tools, are only as good as those who know how to properly use them. In fact, DNA can be, and probably has been, used to wrongfully convict people as well as to exonerate the wrongfully convicted (something which the government often seems loathe to do anyway). While I can't cite a specific case offhand, I do have personal knowledge of a case in which a friend of a friend spent months in court before finally being acquitted for the murder of his girlfriend, in a case in which the local yokel police were so anxious for a conviction that they misused supposed DNA "evidence" in attempt to convict someone who was probably innocent (based on other facts which later came to light after the accused's fortunate acquittal).

Any evidence can be misused, and often is by overzealous prosecutors to influence naive jurors, and DNA is no exception.
 
cabalist said:
DNA and other "modern" forms of evidence are only tools, and like any other tools, are only as good as those who know how to properly use them. In fact, DNA can be, and probably has been, used to wrongfully convict people as well as to exonerate the wrongfully convicted (something which the government often seems loathe to do anyway). While I can't cite a specific case offhand, I do have personal knowledge of a case in which a friend of a friend spent months in court before finally being acquitted for the murder of his girlfriend, in a case in which the local yokel police were so anxious for a conviction that they misused supposed DNA "evidence" in attempt to convict someone who was probably innocent (based on other facts which later came to light after the accused's fortunate acquittal).

Any evidence can be misused, and often is by overzealous prosecutors to influence naive jurors, and DNA is no exception.
Click to expand...

So some bumpkin hick sheriff that didn't know wtf he was doing made a mistake. That where the other evidence comes into play.
 
vladtickleman22 said:
So some bumpkin hick sheriff that didn't know wtf he was doing made a mistake. That where the other evidence comes into play.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just "some bumpkin hick sheriff", it was the entire local police department in cahoots with the prosecutor, as usual. And most other prosecutors may not be that much different. After all, it's their job to convict, they're hardly unbiased.

The point is, you seem to believe that modern forms of evidence will bring an end to wrongful prosecutions, and I believe you're woefully naive in making such an assumption. The people who prosecute are still prosecutors, not scientists, and have every motivation to misuse any kind of evidence, just as in the one case I cited, which is likely only one of many.

Simply put, there isn't, and likely never will be, a perfect system of justice incapable of leading to wrongful convictions. Science is just science, not magic.
 
cabalist said:
It wasn't just "some bumpkin hick sheriff", it was the entire local police department in cahoots with the prosecutor, as usual. And most other prosecutors may not be that much different. After all, it's their job to convict, they're hardly unbiased.

The point is, you seem to believe that modern forms of evidence will bring an end to wrongful prosecutions, and I believe you're woefully naive in making such an assumption. The people who prosecute are still prosecutors, not scientists, and have every motivation to misuse any kind of evidence, just as in the one case I cited, which is likely only one of many.

Simply put, there isn't, and likely never will be, a perfect system of justice incapable of leading to wrongful convictions. Science is just science, not magic.
Click to expand...

Well then anyone awaiting trial had better get a good defense lawyer. The defense still defend. Defense lawyers aren't scientists either. See i can make shit look fancy too.

I was talking about the evidence and methods of gathering evidence. You're talking about corruption. So, i guess we are both correct. The evidence is the evidence and says what it says. People taking kickbacks are people taking kickbacks and will show the evidence in whatever form those paying them want it to be shown.
 
vladtickleman22 said:
Well then anyone awaiting trial had better get a good defense lawyer. The defense still defend. Defense lawyers aren't scientists either. See i can make shit look fancy too.

I was talking about the evidence and methods of gathering evidence. You're talking about corruption. So, i guess we are both correct. The evidence is the evidence and says what it says. People taking kickbacks are people taking kickbacks and will show the evidence in whatever form those paying them want it to be shown.
Click to expand...

I'm not just talking about "corruption". I'm also talking about the fact that humans, and any human system of justice, will likely never be perfect. While science may sometimes help, "science" doesn't determine guilt or innocence. "Imperfect" people do. And as long as we humans are imperfect, so will be any system of justice we may ever devise.
 
cabalist said:
I'm not just talking about "corruption". I'm also talking about the fact that humans, and any human system of justice, will likely never be perfect. While science may sometimes help, "science" doesn't determine guilt or innocence. "Imperfect" people do. And as long as we humans are imperfect, so will be any system of justice we may ever devise.
Click to expand...

So, you'd rather have 50 guilty people rot in jail for life costing tons in taxes. Then eliminate years of appeals and have one innocent person put to death.
 
vladtickleman22 said:
So, you'd rather have 50 guilty people rot in jail for life costing tons in taxes. Then eliminate years of appeals and have one innocent person put to death.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how small a percentage of the U.S's burgeoning prison population (I've heard, although I'm not sure if it's true, the largest by percentage of anywhere in the world) would be facing the death penalty if you had your way? Is that really your best suggestion for "saving" the economy? That's a very tiny drop in a huge ocean of governmental "waste". But it's obviously one which seems to obsess you somewhat.
 
cabalist said:
Do you have any idea how small a percentage of the U.S's burgeoning prison population (I've heard, although I'm not sure if it's true, the largest by percentage of anywhere in the world) would be facing the death penalty if you had your way? Is that really your best suggestion for "saving" the economy? That's a very tiny drop in a huge ocean of governmental "waste". But it's obviously one which seems to obsess you somewhat.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about saving the economy. You assume that because i mention the tax cost i think that. Which i don't at all. Obviously there are more places that waste could be cut from. Obsessing? Hardly, i am merely trying to get to 5,000 posts. Thanks for helping me out a bit.
 
vladtickleman22 said:
Hardly, i am merely trying to get to 5,000 posts. Thanks for helping me out a bit.
Click to expand...

No problem. While I'm personally not particularly concerned about gaining in "rank" here, if there's an actual prize of some kind offered for achieving a certain post count, perhaps I'll reconsider. 😉
 
cabalist said:
No problem. While I'm personally not particularly concerned about gaining in "rank" here, if there's an actual prize of some kind offered for achieving a certain post count, perhaps I'll reconsider. 😉
Click to expand...

I dunno if there's a prize. Aside from people thinking you're part of a "clique" or whatever just because you post a lot. Personally just sick of looking at a green feather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New
4/2/26
Check out the TMF Welcome forum. It has a place for you to say hello to us!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top