Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty....

[cabalist]

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.

Actually, I kind of felt proud of my previous "TMF Master" status and wasn't sure that it felt all that much like a "promotion" to me when that impressive-sounding title was replaced by a silly feather. 😀

 

[Radiohead 7140]

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.

no no no

it is inappropriate to use the argument of how one would feel if it happened to their loved ones. If someone were to rape a relative of mine, if i could have it my way that person would be kept alive as long as scientifically possible and methodically tortured as much as possible. punishment wouldn't fit the crime, but, i don't care, personal emotions are at play.

That's not the framework we can use to make laws. If someone supports a war (though this particular war is an attrocious example), you can't ask that person if they'd volunteer their son for the draft. Are you listening, michael moore? (I assume Michael Moore frequents this forum, and i have a pretty good idea of his handle 😉 )

i don't know the answer, but we should keep hypotheticals involving our family out of it. that doesn't work

 

[vladtickleman22]

no no no

it is inappropriate to use the argument of how one would feel if it happened to their loved ones. If someone were to rape a relative of mine, if i could have it my way that person would be kept alive as long as scientifically possible and methodically tortured as much as possible. punishment wouldn't fit the crime, but, i don't care, personal emotions are at play.

That's not the framework we can use to make laws. If someone supports a war (though this particular war is an attrocious example), you can't ask that person if they'd volunteer their son for the draft. Are you listening, michael moore? (I assume Michael Moore frequents this forum, and i have a pretty good idea of his handle 😉 )

i don't know the answer, but we should keep hypotheticals involving our family out of it. that doesn't work

Why is it inappropriate? Because it changes peoples minds? Because it's an arguement that actually makes sense? I happen to think Michael Moore is a prick. But you certainly can ask a person who is all for sending other peoples children to die in a war if they are willing to do that with their own child.

You don't like the arguement i am using. That's why you think it's not appropriate. Who said anything about framework to make laws? I'm merely saying peoples opinions would change if it effected them.

 

[cabalist]

Why is it inappropriate? Because it changes peoples minds? Because it's an arguement that actually makes sense? I happen to think Michael Moore is a prick. But you certainly can ask a person who is all for sending other peoples children to die in a war if they are willing to do that with their own child.

You don't like the arguement i am using. That's why you think it's not appropriate. Who said anything about framework to make laws? I'm merely saying peoples opinions would change if it effected them.

But if you're going to base a system of justice solely on how the victims feel, then why bother with our system of justice at all? Just let people do their own lynchings. Talk about cutting down on unnecessary legal expenses, that'll probably save a lot more money than the death penalty would.

In fact, I believe what our criminal justice system really mainly does is offer people that same sense of retribution, but with just a little more "due process" to allow reason to mitigate at least somewhat in order to help prevent egregious acts based purely on emotion.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

Why is it inappropriate? Because it changes peoples minds? Because it's an arguement that actually makes sense? I happen to think Michael Moore is a prick. But you certainly can ask a person who is all for sending other peoples children to die in a war if they are willing to do that with their own child.

You don't like the arguement i am using. That's why you think it's not appropriate. Who said anything about framework to make laws? I'm merely saying peoples opinions would change if it effected them.

Vlad, suppose you had a choice: allow one innocent person to die, and 100 POW'd who are scheduled to be executed will be set free. We would have to do it, right? It's not fair for the person selected to die, but it's basic pragmatism.

If that person was a friend or relative of yours, I'm sure you would not let them die for 100, or 1,000, or a million unacquainted POW's.

You can't make laws drawing from personal hypotheticals - who said anything about laws? aren't we debating the merits of capital punishment?

I don't like the argument you're using, but that's not why I'm saying it's inappropriate. I'm saying it's inapproppriate because you are wrong.

 

[vladtickleman22]

But if you're going to base a system of justice solely on how the victims feel, then why bother with our system of justice at all? Just let people do their own lynchings. Talk about cutting down on unnecessary legal expenses, that'll probably save a lot more money than the death penalty would.

In fact, I believe what our criminal justice system really mainly does is offer people that same sense of retribution, but with just a little more "due process" to allow reason to mitigate at least somewhat in order to help prevent egregious acts based purely on emotion.

I'm not saying let people exact their own justice. I'm simply saying that if those who are saying they are against the death penalty had a loved one murdered. They would change their minds.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

And these are the people best suited for determining our system of justice?

 

[vladtickleman22]

And these are the people best suited for determining our system of justice?

When did i ever say anything about the economy or the justice system or anything? I haven't said any of that. All i said was peoples opinions would change.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

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.

Is the above not an endorsement of the death penalty (granted a revised system for it)? That is where you are addressing the law.

If your post is simply an observation that people who are against capital punishment would change their minds if their loved ones were murdered, which i know it isn't, it is a very pointless post.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Aside from the inaccuracies of our investigative methods and personnel, the death penalty is a viable option if the appeals process is reformed.

The only reason it costs so much to put someone on death row is the amount of time it takes to complete the appeals process (and the resources it takes to do so).

If you change all that, then the death penalty could be fiscally feasible.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

seriously, what the hell happened to tickled2death?!