2007-10-02 03:29:40 · 21 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
dueling both way questions, might be fun for a few
2007-10-02 03:30:17 · update #1
I believe their argument is that babies are innocent and criminals are not.
Theoretically you're right. If you believe truly in the sanctity of life, then you wouldn't want to give up on those who have done wrong.
2007-10-02 03:55:40 · answer #1 · answered by angibabi113 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People of all ideologies are looking at the death penalty from a practical point of view. There are hard questions to be asked- does the death penalty prevent or reduce crime and how can we avoid executing innocent people. None of what has become clear over the last 3 decades has anything to do with ideology. Neoconservatives are self described as rigorous thinkers and should have no trouble with these. Sources below.
So far, 124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don’t.
We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.
The death penalty isn't reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers.
The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.
Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
2007-10-02 04:47:27 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, that's a distortion. Being "pro-life" means that the person does not support abortions, in which case the victim would be entirely innocent and undeserving of death. (Writing it from their standpoint -- I haven't made up my own mind on it yet.) The death penalty is an entirely different thing, though: it is a punishment for a crime so severe that one has forfeited his right to life to commit it. I don't see any hypocrisy here at all.
2007-10-02 03:41:33 · answer #3 · answered by Richard S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neocons at the instant are not libertarians. usually, they are "new" conservatives who nonetheless have some liberal techniques approximately enormous government. it particularly is significant use the terminology wisely. And word that the libertarian concept is going back to our founding fathers - alongside with this one that liberals detest: "a smart and frugal government, which shall go away men unfastened to alter their very very own hobbies of marketplace and progression, and shall no longer take from the mouth of exertions the bread it has earned - it particularly is the sum of stable government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
2016-10-05 23:16:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. I am not "prolife", I am "anti-abortion". Just like you guys are not pro-choice your "pro-abortion". Forget the politically correct and let's call it what it is. Let's see, liberals what to spare the life of a convicted murderer, rapist, and serial killer, and would rather kill an innocent baby, You find this sane, How? I want to kill the murderer, rapist, and serial killer, to prevent him from killing or raping again, and for this my idea's are considered irrational by liberals. How can you have it both ways and what is your rationality behind it?
2007-10-02 03:37:42 · answer #5 · answered by libsticker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh, what a sly question. !
I believe there is a big difference between putting an innocent unborn child to death and putting a murderer to death. You and I both know that "prolife" refers to opposition to the former.
2007-10-02 03:36:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
pro-life concerns abortion, only. Conservatives generally care little for the lives of convicts whose crimes make them eligible for capital punishment.
I don't see how you can pick on pro-life. It;s about letting humans live, humans that didn't do anything wrong and need all the care in the world. How can you have two pro-sides in an argument concerning one issue? Why don't the liberals be honest and call themselves pro-murder, pro-baby killing? I mean, the choice is to kill your baby or not. Calling it choice just makes it sound nicer.
2007-10-02 03:40:10 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh God. Not this boring tired old argument AGAIN!!!!, There is such a thing a the preservation and the sanctity of life that WARRANTS to be alive.
In plain english so even the Lib can get it:
Baby= good life
Criminal=Bad life
DUHHHH UH HUH HUHUH HUHUHUH
2007-10-02 03:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I am no way a neoconservative but I do agree on this issue. A unborn child has done nothing wrong.........an adult who committed first degree murder on the other hand...
2007-10-02 03:36:34 · answer #9 · answered by Goldwater Conservative 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not all people who are against the wholesale slaughter of the unborn favor the death penalty for the most heinous of criminals.
But does that look the same to you?
2007-10-02 03:34:05 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋