I spotted an interesting article from Mike Adams,about abortion, the death penalty and liberals.
This is a topic that always perplexed me. How can liberals support abortions, but be against the death penalty? The person who would receive the death penalty has lived, and earned a reason to be executed. While, the child has been branded an unfortunate mistake to it’s mother.
I love how Mike Adams started his article, it is an interesting way of viewing the liberal mind:
Liberals are compassionate people. That’s why they support abortion and oppose the death penalty. They figure it’s best to kill a majority of black children before they are born. If they did not, a small minority of those black children would later commit homicide. Liberals are not just compassionate people. They’re logical, too.
He then points out the “liberal-logic”.. citing a report that noted the death penalty does not deter crime, or make the state safer. Yet why is the death penalty not a deterrent? It is kind of hard to have a deterrent if it is never used. If you simply put a can of ant spray out, does it keep the ants away, or could using it possible help? No it will not stop all ants from ever coming back, but sure will make a good impact till a new infestation starts again. But the “liberal-logic” inflates the expense of the death penalty in the process and appeals, the criminal sits and waits for decades before they may or may not be executed, then they usually end up being released. The liberals then use the expense as why the death penalty should not exist, and while the murderers keep being released, for some reason the murders still happen. Hum, interesting.. gee so saying don’t kill does not seem to be effective?
The death penalty is expensive because abolitionists level costly appeals – even in cases where they know the condemned is guilty and has had a fair trial. Put simply, the abolitionist wants to get rid of the death penalty regardless of guilt and regardless of process. And the impact of these endless appeals is predictable: It undermines the deterrent capacity of the death penalty.
I think love his example of what is wrong with the liberal version of punishment…
If the liberal reader cannot understand why a fifteen year delay between crime and punishment undermines deterrence then just try this little two-step experiment: 1) The next time your fifteen-year old breaks a rule tell him he will be grounded when he turns thirty. 2) See if you can count to ten before he decides to recidivate.
Then there is the innocent argument. Ok, yes there is that chance of someone who is innocent, somehow, being wrongfully sentenced. But as Mr Adams points out, how many guilty babies are being executed? I love his twist on “liberal-logic” with this idea…
Here’s my plan: When a woman decides to abort, opponents of abortion should be able to file appeals on behalf of the baby. If we can just drag out the process for fifteen years or more than, who knows, we might be able to reduce the risk abortion poses to innocent people.
He hit on all the favorite “liberal-logic” anti-death-penalty arguments.. like the death penalty has not been used since 2006, and the murder rate has decreased. Yet the point Mr Adam’s makes, murders also leveled off when the death penalty made a come back in 1978. We can all use statistics and make them fit an argument, but..
Professor Robinson’s study asserts that decreased use of the death penalty has been followed by a decrease in murder. But that’s only half of the story. The increase in gun sales and issuance of concealed weapons permits has been followed by a decrease in murder, which has reduced the need for executions in North Carolina. But Robinson tries to keep things simple. He’s writing mostly for a liberal audience.
Mike Adams comparison of the death penalty and abortions is excellent. It is a perfect argument, the next time you meet up with someone pro-abortion or anti-death penalty, this should offer some good ammo to watch them run screaming!