waterworld
I disagree with wakeflood’s assertion that a person “cannot philosophically eliminate [the death penalty] as an option without breaking the logic [used] to justify abortion.” The problems with the death penalty go way beyond the killing of innocent people (although that reason is certainly enough to justify abandoning capital punishment).
A much more significant problem with capital punishment (in terms of unjust executions) is that the decision about whether to seek the death penalty is made by human beings — prosecutors — who historically have exercised their discretion in a very biased fashion. For example, the death penalty is far more likely to be sought in cases where the victim is white than in cases where the victim is non-white. And that’s true regardless of the race of the alleged perpetrator. Similarly, prosecutors are more likely to seek, and juries more likely to impose, the death penalty when the perpetrator is poor, or has mental health issues, or is defended by a public defender.
There is no logic, fairness, or justice in a system that singles out particular groups of people for the most extreme punishment. The relatively high rate of false convictions and extraordinary rate of constitutional violations in capital trials certainly make capital punishment more reprehensible, but they don’t overshadow the problem of selective application. Thus, one can hold different views on abortion and capital punishment without existing in a state of cognitive dissonance.