The death penalty isn't just about deterrence...it's also about punishment and removing a person whose crimes are just so horrific that they should be forever removed from the face of the planet.
I'm a Dem who supports a woman's right to choose...since I can't get pregnant, I don't think I should have a say beyond "it's her choice," AND, I also support the death penalty...and support expanding its use to include things like forcible rape, armed robbery, car-jacking, burglary, repeated DUI's, and reposting stuff on internet forums.
ALL of those things are just heinous crimes against humanity.
Its not about deterrence at all because it doesn't deter. Hell, trying to put it as the punishment for lesser crimes means people are going to be even that more desperate to not get caught or just kill indiscriminately for any crime.
And what about people who commit heinous shit that want to die? You know that a lot of people who do horrible shit choose that as the better alternative to facing actual punishment for their crimes, right? Wouldn't you rather these monsters have to dwell on their actions?
Another issue that people like you ignore is that we've learned a shitload by not executing such monsters. Literally the FBI was able to learn common behavior and indicators of say serial killers (which helped created profiling methods which have been used to solve other murders and catch killers), by being able to talk to them and learn more about what caused them to do what they did.
And that's before we get to how or flawed criminal justice system fucks the entire situation up (by letting wealthier and/or famous people game the system, or racial bias, or bad lawyers - on both sides like how the ones in the Casey Anthony trial let missed very damning evidence, or how public defenders have told people that had strong evidence proving their innocence to put in guilty pleas; or how about police planting evidence or coercing confessions).
Hell you know the West Memphis 3 got out by a special plea deal where they literally plead no contest to the state's guilty verdicts but got let out because the state knew that the evidence did not actually prove their guilt and if they hadn't fucked them over with bullshit that they wouldn't have been found guilty (hence them releasing them). Yet if we had it your way, they would've been put to death.
Not to mention the insane expense for the tax payers. It's cheaper to keep somebody locked up for the rest of their life than it is to execute them. Death penalty opponents will fight every one, as a matter of principle. That's regardless of the crime. Such is not the case with life sentences.
They'll just change the argument to "a bottle of aspirin or a bullet is cheap and more humane."
and yet we know for a fundamental fact that they are not.
Once again, what you want things to seem to be are absolutely not how things are. Praying for "the seem" as hard as you can simply doesn't make it so.
But that's because liberals won't let them be that way! Or are making them that way or whatever other nonsensical bullshit he's peddling as his reality (epidemics of sex changes to pass PT, him thinking he got some great tax cut and that he spends money better than poor people and therefore he deserves the money more, and I forget what insane crazy shit he spouted about abortion).
The Government almost never gets it right, but lets bet someone's life they did this time.
So, you are now just openly admitting that you are anti-abortion because you think women should be punished for having sex?
I'm pretty sure he's admitted that before. In his mind the woman bears all the responsibility for sex including when its rape. He really makes me think of certain people and I think if he hadn't gotten into the military where the rigorous predefined day to day life stuff kept him from probably acting on his beliefs, that he'd probably be some chumpass serial killer (he strikes me as a Robert Hansen type of personality, although I see similar general sentiment to what he exhibits in many others; the ones that target women and sex workers especially where they justify it by believing that they're doing society a favor).
I'm overall fine with death penalties as long as their is zero question they did the crime. DNA, admittance, video, etc.
Do you mean all of the above? Because that's often almost never possible and there's been instances where they had multiple of those but later were able to prove the person didn't do it by some new evidence (or better understanding of the forensic science; there was a case where a guy was on death row for murdering his family by arson because at the time they believed that a fire like that had to have been started intentionally and used accelerant, turns out that nope cheap furniture of the era, like the kind in the family's home would do exactly what they saw in that case and they were able to show how it wouldn't take that much to ignite like from a shorted overloaded wall outlet or other common household spark sources). Our methods are not infallible, and I'd guess there's almost zero murder cases that could pass absolute scrutiny (although I think that's what you're saying is if they do, then you're ok with the death penalty; my point being, where do we draw the line because almost all of those have had serious problems such that they are not infallible and even when used together its often not what it seems; on the flip side, to be fair we've had almost certainly guilty people get off because of some mishap in how it was handled which could even have nothing to do with the evidence being wrong or right).
The other thing is that, some of these people prefer the death penalty rather than having to deal with the reality of what they'd done. Or because they want the notoriety.
As a catholic, I don't like abortion or the death penalty. But there is a difference between a conservative and a republican. The republicans have been overtaken by neo-cons and the pro israel lobby. And most of those, although they claim to be "of faith" are not. I don't believe Trump is a man of faith at all. But I don't know the guy personally to make that determination, but his policies indicate otherwise.
Interesting that you chose to demark conservative and Republican and not Christian or religious and Republican even though that appears to be more what you're saying. That would be true if conservatives didn't unfailingly vote Republican, but they have been. I'd love for religious people to actually back up their ideals and stop voting for a party that actively works against those ideals at all times, and stop voting for politicians claiming to be the true followers of those ideals (yet, much like the Constitution that they so regularly reference, they seemingly haven't actually read the Bible outside of maybe a few parts that "spoke" to them), and do their horrible actions in the name of them.
But if you really believe that, you need to be the ones working to change that.