Is it morally acceptable to equate Pro-life with Pro-death Penalty?

Question

What about the life of the victims?
A baby in an abortion.
A murdered person in the case of a killing.Or is the murderer more deserving of his life than the person or persons he has killed?

Answer 1

These issues do not go hand in hand. There are totally pragmatic reasons to oppose the death penalty. Please take a few minutes to look at the facts about it, before putting these issues together. Here are a few verifiable facts about the death penalty. As you can see, there is nothing in them relating to the abortion issue. I hope that you can take a few minutes to look at them before you lump these issues together.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The extra costs begin even before the trial.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.

Re: DNA
DNA evidence is available in no more than 10% of all murder cases. It is no guarantee that we will never execute an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: Alternatives
More and more states have life without parole on the books. Life without parole means what it says and is no picnic.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty is not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
People should know that the death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean a person condones brutal crimes or excuses the people who commit them. I believe that the dialogue on the death penalty should be based on verifiable facts. People should make up their minds using common sense not revenge.

Answer 2

The most hypocritical idea pushed out in the media last year was that Tookie Williams was a 'good guy'.

When a baby is born with a weapon pointed at the OB/GYN upon being born, I'll change my mind, but until then, all babies (read - one celled organisms forward) have the right to life.

Murderous criminals do not.

Answer 3

unfavourable, with pragmatic motives and components. you do no longer could sympathize with criminals or want them to circumvent poor punishments for poor crimes to invite if the dying penalty prevents or maybe reduces crime, to seem at strategies and to think of touching directly to the negative aspects of executing harmless human beings. Your question merits data with credible components, no longer sound bites. 127 human beings on dying rows released with data that they have got been wrongfully convicted. DNA, obtainable in below 10% of all homicides, can’t assure we won’t execute harmless human beings. The dying penalty would not avert others from committing homicide. No solid learn exhibits the dying penalty deters others. to deter others a punishment might desire to make particular and fast. The dying penalty is neither. homicide costs are bigger in states and areas that have it than in people who don’t. we've a physically powerful decision, existence without parole, on the books in 40 8 states. It skill what it says. that's definite, fast and barely appealed. existence without parole expenses below the dying penalty. The dying penalty expenses a lot greater effective than existence in penal complex, regularly because of the criminal technique that's meant to circumvent executions of harmless human beings. The dying penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, yet for defendants with the worst attorneys. It would not stick to to those with money. whilst is the final time a wealthy individual grew to become into on dying row, no longer to show finished? The dying penalty would not unavoidably help families of homicide victims. homicide sufferer family have testified that the drawn-out dying penalty technique is painful for them and that existence without parole is an appropriate decision. problems with rushing up the approach. Over 50 of the harmless human beings released from dying row had already served over a decade. speed up the approach and we are able to execute harmless human beings.

Answer 4

notice how many people answered yuour question? My answer is no so you don't report me. I think your question makes no sense, may want to try to improve it, ya think?