You guessed right…republicans are pro life for the innocent!

Republicans vary just as we Democrats do.
Some are Republican because they agree with fiscal ideas, some for foreign affairs attitudes, some for social issues. Some even join the Republican Party so they can vote in the primaries.

Even the ones who are pro life tend to be in favor of the lives of non killers rather than the lives of killers, partly under the concept of the unfairness of treating killers better than their victims, partly under the concept that known killers are more likely to kill again than non killers, partly in hopes that the death of people involved in non-sanctioned killing might convince those considering killing to not do so.

David for truth

The lady figured killing killers is inappropriate because of the danger of killing a non killer. Four agreed with the thought. Nine disagreed. Question answered for now, can be revisited later if it seems reasonable to do so.

The lady did not consider that in some cases the exonerations were not actually proof of innocence but rather some doubt and instances where original evidence had been lost or destroyed (consider recent flood damage to court houses and sheriffs’ and police evidence storage rooms). When this happens, a retrial is useless even when the person is guilty.

She did not consider the improved forensics she cites reduces the danger of a wrongful conviction in the future.

She did not consider the fact that letting killers live greatly increases the likelihood they will kill many innocent people.

She did not consider the idea of freezing convicted killers until such time — if ever — that they can be revived as non killers (or the equipment fails or is turned off).