O’Malley said that the death penalty is too expensive, doesn’t work, and goes against his belief in “the dignity in every person’s life.” Every person? Or just those guilty of capital crimes?
He seems to be fine with people who want to execute a completely defenseless, innocent unborn child who’s not wanted by his mother. But if a grown person murders or rapes another, we shouldn’t put that person to death. That person just needs to be rehabilitated. As long as he serves his time in prison, he can be freed back into society. He’ll probably not commit any more capital crimes. If he does, then he’ll just have to go back to prison.
But I can guarantee that if a convicted murderer or rapist is executed, he will never commit any crime ever again. He will never again be a threat to any other person. And most importantly, justice will be served.
How can someone be for abolishing the death penalty on the basis of the “dignity in every person’s life,” but be in favor of keeping abortion legal? Abortion proponents have a similar question for pro-lifers. They ask, “How can a pro-life person be for the death penalty and war?”
The law is filled with distinctions. This is why we need good judges. But it doesn’t take a legal expert to see the difference between a civil magistrate putting to death a convicted murderer and/or rapist, and a doctor killing an innocent, unwanted, not-yet-born baby. One has committed a capital crime. The other has committed no crime whatsoever. One would be justice; the other would be murder.
And just warfare is not really any different from self-defense. That’s what war should be. Defensive. If we are being attacked, we should have the right to defend ourselves and fight a war if necessary to repel an invasion.