These are separate issues. And being a liberal or not doesn't necessarily determine how you feel about them. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.
2007-12-04 13:26:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually, this question was asked to Mike Huckabee during the last debate (of course in reverse: How could someone who is pro-life support the death penalty). I thought his answer was pretty good.
He said that in order to be executed, you first must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers for a capital crime, which is one that society has determined is so heinous that it warrants death. Your case than has gone through several appeals, each of which has not overturned the original conviction. Finally, you case goes before your state governor who has the final decision. Basically, society decides that you have done something that is so terrible that you deserve to die.
He compared this to abortion where an innocent life (because Huckabee believes that an unborn fetus is alive, which may or may not be true), is taken by a single individual for one of a number of reasons.
Basically, he is saying that this is like comparing apples and oranges, two totally different things.
2007-12-04 14:23:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because they don't have the mentality to comprehend that these people have committed a crime that is punishable by death. Personally I think that they should bring back public hangings. If enough people saw a public hanging, a lot of the crimes that are committed would stop and i think it should be the only one of two form of death punishment. The other should be the electric chair, but we have way too many bleeding heart liberals in office that say it's inhuman. Was it inhuman for that criminal to shoot and kill that store clerk or to rape and murder your next door neighbor's daughter? If they draw a death penalty, they should die by as horrible means possible. If they commit the crime they should not be allowed to be put to death by lethal injection. It too easy for them and those chemicals are costing the taxpayers money. A rope is cheaper.
2007-12-04 14:10:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by golden rider 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
You ask it properly - although I wouldn't apply it just to so-called liberals. I am uncertain about the death penalty as it applies to criminals - there are times when I feel it is justified, though I say that reluctantly. However, those babies have committed no crimes.
Not apples and oranges, to the answerer above. Criminals and innocent babies killed by the thousands.
2007-12-04 14:05:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rich 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
This question seems to come up every 4 or 5 days or so. It is a comparison of apples and oranges.
2007-12-04 14:03:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by colder_in_minnesota 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well I would prefer that my tax dollars go to other things such as the children we have starving in this country than making sure a killer is fed three meals a day and has cable TV or net access.
2007-12-04 14:06:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by kiss_of_angel_20 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
yes i totally agree.
and just because the fetus is "unborn" doesnt mean its not alive. IT HAS FEELING.
i am PRO death penalty.
it is ridiculous to pay to house, and feed criminals.
they should get what they give.
2007-12-07 08:56:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who knows! All killing is wrong that is a documented fact. By the way, what makes you think it involves just liberals?
2007-12-04 14:03:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mary W 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
killing or death have many types of scenarios.those 2 are different types with different reasons.
2007-12-04 14:05:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by mr. y 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
because the "baby" is a fetus, still unborn, and in the mother's body and under her control.
2007-12-04 14:06:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by I love the Beatles 2
·
1⤊
2⤋