Bring back torture

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

every crime should have the death penalty.

you steal a bag of chips, and boom, you're dead.

-nate //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[jester73440 10+ year member]

Originally posted by fantomas in the hierarchy of prison...rapists...child molestors..etc...they get what's coming to them. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Yea but the problem with this, is they get special treatment and are kept out of the general population of the prison.Which I think is dumb why do they get special treatment and why must we go out of our way to protect them because of their sick actions.And if we don't protect them the prison get sued when the molestor gets killed. Here is something that just happen that makes me sick a 11 year old boy was killed saturday morning here in Chicago while he was out doing a voulenter program the city does where you go out and help clean up around your neighborhood I was doing this sat. morning in a differnt part of town and just can't imagine seeing someone shooting an 11 year old while tryig to clean his neighborhood. by the way the shooter was another kid on a bike very sad world we live in

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by venom107 I totally agree with you on that one, DNA has proven alot of so-called guilty people innocent and I think they should, if DNA is available it should be immediately tested.

Oh and another thing and I quote,

"It is far better to be a crack head than a crack dealer that gets cracked by a crack head":crazy:

 

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

I've never heard that quote before, but it's quite creative.

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

here is something to think about...

it is widely known that DNA testing is used quite a bit on cases where the death penalty is a possible outcome...

if we need DNA testing to prove people innocent of crimes in the first place, that means that there are numerous errors in the first place in the trial stage of many death penalty cases. so IMO, it is dumb to put people's lives at risk who could possible be innocent...and with so many people being exonerated with DNA evidence, it shows that there are quite a few errors in trials.

is it worth killing one innocent man to sentence 100 to death? IMO, hell no. what if that 1 person was you?

this is just my take on the death penalty. dont know why i got into it.....you get my drift tho?

-nate

 

[venom107 10+ year member]

That quote just popped into my head. lol Just thought it sounded good.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[fantomas 10+ year member]

Originally posted by nswartley here is something to think about...

 

it is widely known that DNA testing is used quite a bit on cases where the death penalty is a possible outcome...

 

if we need DNA testing to prove people innocent of crimes in the first place, that means that there are numerous errors in the first place in the trial stage of many death penalty cases. so IMO, it is dumb to put people's lives at risk who could possible be innocent...and with so many people being exonerated with DNA evidence, it shows that there are quite a few errors in trials.

 

is it worth killing one innocent man to sentence 100 to death? IMO, hell no. what if that 1 person was you?

 

this is just my take on the death penalty. dont know why i got into it.....you get my drift tho?

 

-nate

good point, but i think in order to be put on trial in the first place, there must already be substantial evidence against you to begin with. DNA is just used to confirm that the murderer actually did the murder. and yes, there have been tons of mistakes and its not fullproof. and i do agree that is better to save the 1 innocent man from being killed along with 99 guilty men then to kill all 100. It usually costs more to put someone to death than to leave them in prison for life.

i don't think DNA should be the only evidence against someone in order to put them to death.

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by fantomas good point, but i think in order to be put on trial in the first place, there must already be substantial evidence against you to begin with. DNA is just used to confirm that the murderer actually did the murder. and yes, there have been tons of mistakes and its not fullproof. and i do agree that is better to save the 1 innocent man from being killed along with 99 guilty men then to kill all 100. It usually costs more to put someone to death than to leave them in prison for life.

 

i don't think DNA should be the only evidence against someone in order to put them to death.

remember that DNA evidence is for both prosecution and exoneration...

and there have been a significant number of people who have been put to death and proven innocent after. significant in my eyes is any number more than zero.

-nate