English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Support Abortion and fight the death penalty? Murderers are guilty, children are innocent. Shouldn't the babies have more right to live than the killers and rapists? At least give the kids a chance!

2007-05-02 14:05:00 · 7 answers · asked by vern 5 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

7 answers

Your average ax murderer has the right to representation by counsel, the right to confront the witnesses against then, the right to a fair trial, the right to be only convicted by a jury of their peers.. beyond reasonable doubt. The right to appeal.

Babies? No such luck. Why not? Because they're not humans... they're fetuses. Geee... I can't remember the last time I heard a mother to be say such things as "the fetus is due in six months", "I felt the fetus's first little kicks last night", "this is my first fetus". If it's wanted, it's a baby. If not, it's a fetus. Always easier for a conscience to kill something whose human status is determined by law and convenience, rather than biology.

PS: If an unborn baby isn't a human, how could Scott Peterson be convicted of a double homicide, as he was?

2007-05-02 14:31:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

These are separate issues and neither one is a liberal vs conservative issue. Here are answers to some of the questions often asked about the practical aspects of the death penalty system. (I think these make it clear that this is not a partisan issue). The sources are listed below.

Isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Much of the extra costs is due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not. Most killers don't think about the consequences anyway. They do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t 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??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Many of the 123 innocent people released from death row had already been there for over 2 decades. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.

2007-05-03 02:51:16 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 0

First, you are overgeneralizing. Not ALL liberals support abortion and/or oppose the death penalty. Most people that support abortion, don't believe the unborn child is a living human being. The REAL issue is "When does human life begin?" If life begins at conception, abortion is murder. If life begins at birth, abortion is morally equivalent to liposuction.

For the record, I oppose abortion and support the Death Penalty.

2007-05-02 14:52:30 · answer #3 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 0

Murderers aren't always guilty. The death penalty is outlawed in most developed countries, except places like China and Zimbabwe. It's obsolete and doesn't work.

Fetuses are not babies or children. Why do you want to give the unborn rights, but take them away once they've been born?

2007-05-02 14:12:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

You are being very general there, sparky. Since you obviously have not talked to EVERY liberal you have no idea of what any of them are thinking or what they support. I know liberals that are as you describe but also who do not support abortion or capital punnishment. I also know people claiming to be conservatives who support abortion and capital punnishment as well as some who support none or one but not the other. So don't think you know the mind of everyone. It merely shows how ignorant you really are.

2007-05-02 14:12:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You got it wrong. I'm as liberal as you can be and I am 100% PRO death penalty. I'm also 100% PRO abortion. I feel more people should have them. I also think more people should be put to death for certain crimes.

2007-05-02 14:09:41 · answer #6 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0 0

One can only see truth when one stops being so fu#$ing ! judgmental of others.

2007-05-02 14:24:38 · answer #7 · answered by smarty smarty pants 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers