Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty

[uawchild]

Source: Huffington Post

This is the Democratic front-runner's first mention of the contentious issue on the 2016 campaign trail.

During a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came out against abolishing the death penalty -- the first time she has addressed the issue during the current presidential campaign.

"I do not favor abolishing" the death penalty, she said, qualifying her position by adding that its use should be "very limited and rare," according to press reports.

Clinton has previously acknowledged how the plight of mass incarceration and police brutality affect communities of color disproportionately, and on Wednesday she conceded the death penalty is often administered in a discriminatory way, according to a reporter who attended.

Her view on state-sanctioned executions has remained consistent over the years. During her Senate campaign in 2000, she offered support for the death penalty -- in a seeming attempt to appear moderate on some social issues.

But her position is a marked break from her Democratic primary opponents Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, both of whom oppose capital punishment. O'Malley, for his part, signed a bill in 2013 abolishing the death penalty in Maryland and commuted the death sentences of four death-row inmates as he stepped down from the governorship.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-death-penalty_56310eb4e4b00aa54a4c48c9

[FLPanhandle]

1. I agree with her. nt

[Fuddnik]

5. You forgot our other new ally...Iran.

[geek tragedy]

18. how do you figure Iran's our ally? nt

[7962]

20. Oh, because THEY also have the DP, so therefore we are JUST like them.

Certainly a stupid argument, but one that will be trumpeted loudly.
I dont see the US sentencing gays to death over here, though.

[LiberalLovinLug]

110. Yes, frankly it is.

And that is the fundamental ethical gap between those that make excuses for State sponsored murder, and those that are against it.

The idea that a human, whether a judge or jury, and helped out by a sensationalist press, who decide to premeditatively kill another human, in your name,..this is a universal question. You cannot parse that with ...well at least we don't do to "X". What about the various mentally ill, or those that others have confessed to their crimes but are victims of career hungry prosecutors. Violence begets violence. If the State leads by example and condones premeditated taking of human life, it seeps into the national conscience. Its all about revenge, which ends up being hollow, and nothing to do with deterrence.

Either you believe human life is sacro-saint, or you don't.

[Ash_F]

115. Those were rape cases. /nt

[7962]

120. No, they have executed men for simply being gay.

And others often have other charges added to excuse it, even though the charges are bogus. Dont buy those lies. How often do we hear of gay rape in this country?? Remember, Amadamnnutjob said "there are no gays in Iran". Because they will make up other reasons so they dont have to admit they actually exist.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges

[Ash_F]

122. I was thinking of this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni

I don't know about that other one. The reporting in your link is pretty vague. It was similarly vague when the 2005 case emerged in western media, years ago. It was later on that more details emerged

There are always two sides of any story.

[7962]

123. THat really is an odd one.

Just as I said before, they will use trumped up charges of something else to excuse what they do. Sharia law says death to gays, period. Nothing else is needed. But the govt will likely come up with something as they may have done with these two. And the Wiki story says they may not even have BEEN gay. Thats a really odd story with so many differing accounts.

[George II]

9. Two things about the death penalty - there have been too many mistakes - they can still happen.....

....and I don't believe in destroying lives that we didn't create in the first place.

[restorefreedom]

32. i almost never can do this, george

but i am happy to right now.

+ 100

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Since the justice system is demonstrably

flawed and has resulted, and will continue to result in innocent people being executed, how many innocent people do you find it acceptable to kill in order to assuage your desire for vengeance?

[7962]

24. Its very easy. Just change the law regarding the implementation.

No more "beyond a reasonable doubt". there must be NO doubt. There are plenty of those cases where the guilty party is obvious and beyond any doubt. THOSE are the cases that should be subject to the DP.
For example, I'm pretty damn sure OJ killed Ron & Nichole. But circumstantial evidence isnt enough to warrant the DP.
The ATlanta Courthouse shooter, on the other hand, IS definitely guilty. He is not crazy. There is no other person who could have committed the crime. THAT guy should be on death row

[Kelvin Mace]

30. I would assume a case where the accused

"confessed" would be one of those "no doubt" cases. DNA evidence has cleared a number of people so convicted.

Who faces the death penalty depends on the race, wealth, and the political ambitions of prosecutors. As long as those are all factors, the death penalty cannot be applied fairly.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is inferred or deduced, such as forensic evidence, like DNA. The most unreliable evidence is "eye-witness" evidence, which relies on the fallible human mind to correctly recall facts from a stressful situation. Some people believe, quite incorrectly, that a circumstantial case is inferior to direct testimony.

Again, I have read cases which "proved" without doubt that someone was guilty, until it was shown that evidence was suppressed, perjury was committed or confessions were coerced.

If you have a death penalty, innocent people will die. So again, how many people is it okay to kill in order to please folks such as yourself who want a death penalty?

Round numbers please.

[7962]

52. Absolutely NOT. Confessions arent proof.

The crime I mentioned does away with ALL your concerns. There are plenty like that. There can be no evidence of innocence when a person enters a courtroom and kills the judge and others.
The DP is also usually reserved for the worst murders as well.
The so-called "red handed" criminals. Plenty of them out there, no risk of executing an innocent

[Kelvin Mace]

64. Plenty of "red-handed" killers?

You'll have to give me a source for that.

Confessions aren't proof? This will come as a shock to the criminal-justice system. I have it on good authority that they do consider it proof. How do you propose getting judges, prosecutors and police to go along with your concept?

Are you willing to call for a suspension of the death penalty until your novel laws come into being?

There can be no evidence of innocence when a person enters a courtroom and kills the judge and others.

It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, it is up to the state to their prove guilt. That is how our system is supposed to work.

[7962]

66. I should say, confessions arent enough FOR ME.

The Atlanta Fed Courthouse shooter is the perfect example of a "red handed" killer. There is no doubt from anyone that he is guilty. All the state had to do was play the video. Of course, they took DAYS and the defense wasted millions, but thats another argument. These mass shooters are another example. John Allen Muhammed. Nadal Hassan, the Army Major is another. John Gacy is an obvious choice. There are PLENTY of these cases.
I'd love to see the candidates propose my idea. You couldnt say they were being "weak on crime", which is a politicians worst fear.

[Kelvin Mace]

85. Again, my question

until such time as the law is changed to suit your criteria, do you support the suspension of the death penalty?

[7962]

86. If it were to be done as part of the process to refine it to my suggestion, sure. No down side.

They sit there for years anyway, let them sit there and wait until its changed.

[Kelvin Mace]

89. You also realize that prosecutors have discretion

to who is, or is not, charged with a capital crime? (which is one of the main reasons race comes into play so often). So, even with your suggested level of "proof", the death penalty will be sought more often if the victim(s) is white than when they are black. Also, people with public defenders are more likely to face a capital charge than people with high-priced lawyers. So, will you be removing that discretion from prosecutors?

Also, what about plea bargains? Prosecutors often cut deals with one defendant to not face the death penalty so as to secure evidence against another defendant.

Could you outline exactly how your "everybody knows he did it" standard works? Is the the testimony of a single survivor sufficient? Two? Three? What weight is given to video evidence? I have seen clear evidence of policemen simply executing citizens on video, and yet the cops walked away since a grand jury/prosecutors refused to indict.

[7962]

92. Look up the case of the Atlanta Courthouse shooter. There's your example.

Its not hard to follow at all. There is absolutely no doubt in cases like those. I gave other examples as well. Very easy to distinguish these cases from ones where you have a witness across the street or a shirt that MIGHT belong to the suspect. Plea deals have nothing to do with it, unless you're suggesting that those be done away with and give them ALL the DP. Which of course, you're not.

[Major Hogwash]

117. What if he turns out to be mentally ill?

Do you still think he should be put to death?

[7962]

119. He wasnt. That defense wasnt even tried. Another reason I used that case as an example.

Plenty other cases just like it out there. Half the time "mentally ill" is a cop out anyway, but again, it was never brought up in that case because there was never any evidence the killer was.

[Third Doctor]

56. I agree 100%

[George II]

3. I'm not happy with that position but.......no candidate will be able to agree with every one of my..

....positions on the issues. But it's the macro view that is much more important than the micro view.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Unless you are on death row

for a crime you didn't commit, then somehow it doesn't seem quite so "micro".

[BainsBane]

93. The president's views don't affect those sentences

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

They don't determine the state of the law. Obama opposes the death penalty. We still have it, don't we?
That's because it's decided at the state level and by SCOTUS.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. The decision to pursue the death penalty in

Federal cases is TOTALLY within the power of the president. He has the bully pulpit to stand up and say, "We need a moratorium on the death penalty until someone can guarantee it is carried out fairly. It is DEMONSTRABLY NOT being carried out fairly right this minute". As leader of his party he can persuade governor's in his party to push for moratoriums, commute death penalties to life sentences and appoint blue ribbon committees to investigate the application of the death penalty at their state levels (and at the federal level).

So the president's stand on the death penalty IS consequential and adds yet another reason I cannot in good conscience vote for HRC.

[Fuddnik]

4. Well, Bill had to execute a mentally challenged man to prove he was bloodthirsty enough.

[PoliticAverse]

6. She'll evolve, likely after the majority of the US population has. n/t

[maxsolomon]

108. Leading from behind is the very essence of the American Presidency

It was always thus. Lincoln wasn't an Abolitionist when he was elected.

[Demeter]

7. Those that live by the sword....

[Major Nikon]

8. How very progressive of her

Meanwhile...

"The state shouldn’t be in the business of killing people."
-- Bernie Sanders

Perhaps someone should remind Clinton and everyone else who supports this position about the racial disparity in the application of the death penalty, not to mention everything else that's wrong with it.

[7962]

26. Actually, far more whites than blacks are executed.

[Major Nikon]

31. Sure, only 35% are black

For 12% of the population.

For whites it's 55% for 64% of the population.

[7962]

51. Well, if you want stats, you have to look at all of 'em

Blacks, as you say, are 12-13% of the population, but are also responsible for much more than 13% of the violent crimes; nearly half. And several more times likely to be the aggressor in interracial crime and crimes against strangers.
That being said, I'm certainly all for more white killers on death row.

[Major Nikon]

72. Sounds like your point is that blacks deserve the shit end of the stick

Wanting more people on death row is quite telling as well.

If you actually wanted to look "at all of 'em", then you probably should look into the incident rate of someone sentenced to death for a white victim vs a black victim, because there's about a 1:3 disparity. When you look into interracial homicides and DP incident rates the disparities are even greater.

[7962]

84. I think ANY murderers deserve that

All states have a set of aggravating circumstances that must be met for a case to qualify for the death penalty. The fact that blacks are SEVERAL more times likely to kill a white than the reverse is an obvious disparity as well. I mentioned that.
Yes, I'll admit I want more murderers on death row, but I also want that sentence reserved for the worst crimes and those who are "open and shut" cases. There are enough of those. And there is no need or argument for endless appeals when there is no doubt of guilt. The biggest reason the DP isnt a bigger deterrent is that its taking 20 yrs to complete it. Nadal Hassan should have been executed long ago.

[Major Nikon]

87. The DP never has been and never will be a deterrent

The idea that people who perform irrational acts will somehow rationalize their decision against performing heinous acts not only defies anything approaching common sense, but also pretty much all competent research on the subject. The idea that we should short circuit an appeals process that already allows innocent people to be executed isn't any better.

[7962]

88. But again, my idea does away with any chance of executing an innocent.

If there is ANY debate at all about guilt, then that case doesnt qualify for the DP.
And people seeing a murderer die while the crime is actually still in memory would likely have an effect on how far many crooks would be willing to go. Not all, but some. Now, nobody even remembers the crime or the crook when the sentence is finally carried out.
One thing is certain; NOT having executions doesnt have a deterrent effect either. Funny how most lawyers are always trying to get LWP for their client instead of the DP. So they must have some fear of it, even as little as its used

[Major Nikon]

97. Your idea is completely unfeasible

No chance of executing an innocent is an impossible legal standard which is why it doesn't exist. Any evidence you can name is fallible. Investigators are fallible. The police are fallible. Judges and juries are fallible. Even confessions are fallible. All you are really doing is pretending the system can be perfect when it never will be. So if you are really and truly honest about being against the possibility of executing an innocent person, the only realistic answer is to be against the death penalty in all cases. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The reality is that people who are pro-death penalty are either willing to kill innocent people to satisfy their bloodlust, or they are simply lying to themselves.

One thing is certain; NOT having executions doesnt have a deterrent effect either. Funny how most lawyers are always trying to get LWP for their client instead of the DP. So they must have some fear of it, even as little as its used

If the ultimate punishment were death by torture, I suspect most lawyers would try to get their clients lethal injection instead and the argument for death by torture would be just as piss poor.

[7962]

98. Again, Look at the Atlanta Courthouse shooter & tell me how there could be a mistake. ANY mistake.

Theres your infallibility. Plenty of cases just like that one. If you look at that case and STILL think that guy might possibly, in some way, be innocent, then there is just no hope for you to ever see ANYONE as EVER being guilty of ANYTHING.
I would happily accept LWP for any that did NOT fit that criteria.

[Major Nikon]

102. You haven't described a "criteria"

You've simply provided an anecdotal example which is utterly worthless as a legal standard.

[7962]

106. Actually, its not. Its called "precedent". That case sets one.

And there are many others that fit the exact same criteria. And there are lawyers out there who are perfectly capable of putting those standards into some form of legalese to make it palpable to the courts & prosecutors. Thats what lawyers do.
Again, can you look at anyones case and find unquestionable guilt if you cannot find it with that one or those that are EXACTLY like it?

Its just a matter of DOING the simple work of making that change. Even re evaluate all the existing death row cases and if there is ANY shred of evidence that there might possibly be another killer, by all means change their sentence or release them. Make the change and find another Atlanta shooter and make that case the standard all others must attain. Its actually easy if someone had the sense to DO it. Maybe Hillary could suggest that. I'd love it.
But MAKE that change and get on with the business of justice for the victims of the savages that killed them.

[Major Nikon]

109. Legal precedent doesn't mean what you think it means

[7962]

111. Apparently it does;

a precedent is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts based upon earlier trial results.

So if you used the Atlanta case as the precedent, following cases could be compared to it and the decision to go for the DP or not would be easier to decide

[restorefreedom]

34. in total numbers, of course

but proportionately, it is waaaaay biased against poc.

[7962]

53. So are violent crimes committed.

If you want proportion, you have to look at ALL the proportions.

[restorefreedom]

55. some interesting info

https://www.aclu.org/race-and-death-penalty

[7962]

59. And some more info;

Blacks are several more times likely to commit interracial violent crime as well as "stranger' crime than whites.
Your link doesnt tell me there are too many blacks on death row, it tells me that there arent enough white killers on it. I'm all for adding more murders; as long as they fit the criteria I alluded to in an earlier post. NO DOUBT as to guilt; the red-handed criminals

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

[restorefreedom]

60. i don't want to see anyone on death row

even if there were no racial disparity issues. I don't want my government to have the legal right to kill its citizens. Its that simple for me.

[7962]

61. I respect your opinion. I know others who agree with you.

I'm just one who thinks there are some who are so heinous they no longer deserve to breathe the fresh air.
We'll just disagree on it. But at least I know you'd support them being locked up forever.

[restorefreedom]

62. oh hell yeah on forever.

and unlike some people here at DU, I don't have a major issue with Supermax for the worst of the worst. Although I do feel I need to read up more on it. And I agree with you that there are some crimes so horrible that the people who commit them do not deserve to be sucking up oxygen from the rest of us. I just feel that the death penalty is more about who we are as a country then who the criminals are who commit these horrible crimes. We know they're horrible,. They can rot in prison for life. but I can certainly understand the sentiments of those who feel they should just be removed from planet earth.

[7962]

67. There is one problem that I think we'll have;

I think its only a matter of time before the next cry will be "These people are old and frail. They're no longer a danger to anyone! Its cruel to keep them in prison!" And the push will be to let the old killers out. Maybe not, but I wont be the least bit surprised.

[restorefreedom]

69. i think that happens sometimes

I have heard of the compassionate release or something.

its what you said. dont know if its ever granted though, but they try.

[Major Nikon]

74. Nobody deserves death

All it does is satisfy irrational bloodlust. There is zero benefit to society and all sorts of negative impacts. That's why the civilized world has abandoned it.

[LanternWaste]

104. I used to pretend I was clever enough to know who deserves death too.

" there are some who are so heinous they no longer deserve to breathe the fresh air...

I used to pretend I was clever enough to know who deserves death too.

[7962]

107. Its a shame you lost that confidence.

Thats why it takes a jury of more than one to pronounce that sentence.

[kjackson227]

99. Yep... #feelthebern eom.

[blackspade]

10. Until our 'justice' system is overhauled from the top down...

An endorsment of the death penalty is an endorsement for killing the wrongfully convicted.
Many of whom are POC with poor or absent legal representation.
It's barbaric and symptomatic of our authoritarian justice system.

This is a big minus for HRC.

[RBInMaine]

81. The VAST majority are NOT wrongfully convicted. What if your child was raped and murdered.

[uawchild]

82. thank you for admitting that some mistakes ARE made and innocent people executed. n/t

[blackspade]

83. Given the problems with the justice system....

It would give me no comfort knowing that an innocent person could be killed.

[Major Nikon]

103. Think of the children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

[Doctor_J]

113. And what if yours was one of the minority wrongly convicted?

When George Ryan pulled the plug on the dp, half of the people on death row were innocent. Simple yes or no - is having the dp worth executing 10-15 innocent people per year?

ETA: yours is the exact language used by ghwb to smear Dukakis in 88

[peace13]

11. Mistakes are made.

Innocent people are killed by the machine without a blink.

Hillary cheered on tape when we killed Bin Ladin. I find that sickening. Did he have to die, I don't know. I do know that I don't need to cheer about it. It was a life. Was, being the operative word!

Our business is killing, at home and abroad!

[restorefreedom]

35. don't forget quaddaafi (spelling wrong)

she was pretty psyched about that, too

so what say you, hillary supporters? if you are against the death penalty, how much does this bother you and would it be enough to consider supporting O'Malley or Sanders, both clearly opposed to the death penalty?

[peacebird]

38. "We came, we saw, he died" said Hillary, grinning, as if it was a frat house joke

[restorefreedom]

40. yup. true colors. nt

[sakabatou]

12. WHAT?!

[romanic]

13. If the DP wasn't filled with mistakes

or costly with countless appeals that cost us tax money, then I would fully support because some criminals are just too dangerous to live.

But again, it has it's major issues.

[SoapBox]

14. 3, 2, 1...until she "evolves".

Round and round the Weathervane goes, where she stops, nobody knows!

[SpankMe]

15. This is a low-consequence political calulation. Nothing more.

She loses fewer base voters being in favor of the death penalty than the number of moderates she'd lose being opposed.

For most liberals, this isn't that one, lone issue that would send their vote elsewhere (if she's the nominee). But being opposed to the death penalty would make large numbers of moderate, potential Hillary supporters flee.

[tularetom]

16. We came we saw he died - she gets a kick out of killing people

Or more likely she thinks she has the nomination sewed up and no longer has to pretend to be a liberal. Now she has to pretend to be bloodthirsty in order to appeal to what she thinks "moderate" or "centrist" voters believe.

[geek tragedy]

22. That's the Obama position too nt

[cprise]

23. Bankers excluded!

[sulphurdunn]

25. If you execute no one,

you can never execute the wrong one. The idea that it is acceptable to kill innocent people to take vengeance on guilty ones is barbaric, and one more reason why HRC is unfit to be President.

[stillwaiting]

27. This is a social justice issue. The Death Penalty gets applied in the most grossly disproportionate

manner against racial minorities.

Supporting the Death Penalty and being against the decriminalization of marijuana (removal of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug) will PREVENT social justice from moving forward.

[Android3.14]

28. Reminiscent of her Iraq War Vote

Like I have said repeatedly, no ethical and/or informed person will vote for her.

[Lil Missy]

29. I agree. n/t

[paleotn]

44. No matter what she says?

....considering how flawed our justice system is even in the best of times, that says much about Hillary and those who agree with her on this.

[madville]

33. 61% support death penalty, 37% oppose

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

It's a safe position to take in order to appear moderate during the general election.

[restorefreedom]

36. proving once again, that in clintonworld,

politcal calculating and maneuvering is priority one.

[madville]

37. It's a state issue anyway

Her position is basically a neutral one, people that oppose the death penalty are still likely to support her in the general election because they are likely Democrats.

[restorefreedom]

39. the pres is the ceo

and the ag answers to him/her. federal crimes in which the death penalty applies is a fed issue.

plus their opinion speaks to their stance on justice issues in general imo.

it matters.

[madville]

41. It matters primarily to those that oppose it

Which is around 1/3 of the electorate.

The Federal Death Penalty is rarely used compared to the State level, less than 1% of the executions in this country are Federal, so yes, I am correct in saying it is a state-level issue.

Most don't care about defending someone like McVeigh anyway.

[restorefreedom]

43. its not about the mcveighs of the world

it's about whether we want to be keeping the same company as iran, China, North Korea and somalia with regard to the death penalty and whether we want our government to have the legal right to kill its own citizens for any reason.

and it is not a state issue to the 1% who are executed...its their life, taken lawfully by their government.

I think we're gonna be seen big changes in the electorate the next time this issue is polled. last time i saw it was around 50 50.

[Major Nikon]

48. Not entirely

Numerous SCOTUS decisions involve the DP and there's 61 inmates on federal death row which is more than most states.

[madville]

57. There have been 3 federal executions in the last 53 years

It's 99.8% a state issue, sorry that wasn't clear.

[Major Nikon]

71. A bit late to mitigate their circumstance as far as future policy is concerned

The much bigger issue is justices. If Clinton is going to appoint pro-DP judges, we might as well have a Republican president as far as that single issue is concerned.

[LanternWaste]

105. I used to pretend post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies are rational thought too.

I used to pretend post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies are rational thought too.

[Major Hogwash]

116. What does that mean?

Does Hillary support post hoc ergo prompter hoc policies. too?

[paleotn]

46. Typical Clinton calculus....

....political expediency trumps morality every time. 8 years of Bill taught us that. Apparently it applies to Hillary also.

[madville]

58. How many federal executions occurred

Under Bill Clinton's administration?

[Doctor_J]

47. That explains her announcement. she is America's weather vane

[Hoppy]

42. She is getting suckier by the day.

[Beacool]

45. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, in general I don't favor it.

But, there have been circumstances when the crime committed has been so heinous, that I wonder if the person doesn't deserve it.

I'm very conflicted about the whole matter.

[markpkessinger]

63. The problem is, even if you believe there are people who "deserve" it . . .

. . . there is absolutely no way, under our legal system, to ensure that only the "truly deserving" are given death sentences. Some like to argue that it should be used "only in cases where there is a 100% certainty of guilt." Problem is, 100% certainty doesn't exist, even with DNA (there have been cases of misconduct and improper handling of samples at DNA labs). What's more, if, in addition to finding or not finding guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," courts were to be required to determine the relative certainty of guilt, this would cause an absolute nightmare in our court system, as defense lawyers would argue (rightly, in some cases), that if there is doubt sufficient to question the use of the death penalty, then arguably there is doubt sufficient to question the verdict itself.

[tabasco]

49. Not because of any principle, just to get votes.

Sad, really. I'll vote for her if she's nominated but I'll hold my nose. Infinitely better than any fascist republican.

[BigDemVoter]

50. Ugh.

There are so many reasons I hate the death penalty that I can't even begin to enumerate all of them. However do we want to be in the company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China in that we permit our government to execute its citizens?

I can already hear people arguing that there are criminals who "deserve it." Admittedly there are criminals who deserve severe punishment, but life in prison is not a little lark in the country. On the practical side, it costs much more money to execute somebody than it would to imprison them for life; this sounds counter intuitive, but it's true.

Finally, we do and we have executed innocent people. Just the fact that there is a risk of executing ONE innocent person should be enough to shut down the entire death penalty business. There are people all over the country--especially in places like Louisiana and Texas-- who are sitting on death row and are kept there simply because the state(s) refuse(s) to reopen cases when new exculpatory evidence comes to light. The entire thing is a racket to make people feel good--"Those thievin & murderin thugs er gettin what they deserve!"

While I'm not a Hillary supporter, I am still disappointed to hear this

[NonMetro]

54. "Very Limited And Rare" - ??

Isn't that the same thing she said when she threw women under the bus on abortion?

[bullwinkle428]

112. Thank you - abortion was the first thing I thought of when I heard that phrase.

[NonMetro]

121. It's kind of funny, right? As in -

She's pro-choice, but don't choose abortion too much; or she's anti-death penalty, but it's OK to do that sometimes. I Just find that seriously amusing! But that's the way she is!

[YOHABLO]

65. It hasn't deterred anyone from committing murder; why continue the barbarity?

Perhaps public be-headings would be a better deterrent? I really think we need to stop killing people altogether. Maybe if we start treating each other with respect and kindness we wouldn't have to worry about capital punishment.

[Elmergantry]

70. I dont think the DP as deterrent.

I think of it as punishment usually earned.

[roamer65]

68. I sincerely hope the choices in November 2016 don't make me do this...

So far I am not optimistic.

[daleo]

73. The death penalty means never having to say

Sorry, we made a mistake. We should have never convicted you, it turns out you didn't do it.

[truthisfreedom]

75. The death penalty is ridiculously expensive

And irreversible. Too many mistakes have been made. Too long have been tortured by botched attempts.

[merrily]

76. Dukakis

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Ugh, the Death Penalty is a primitive barbarity of a past age, it serves no utility...

in modern society and needs to be abolished.

Its supporters need to learn to mature past a 12 year old's revenge fantasies, and develop a conscience.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

91. Not only that, but if it's OK for the state to do it...

How does that enforce the sanctity of life? How does that help convince people that human life is precious? It only leads to less sensitivity and caring for others. It gives the message, killing is a valid solution to problems with people you dislike.

[warrprayer]

90. barbaric

She should be ashamed.

[olddots]

94. could you be freinds wirh a death penalty avocate ?

bad guestion ?

[Major Hogwash]

95. The only way Hillary will get into the White House again is as a guest.

Of President Sanders.

Boo-yah!!

[restorefreedom]

100. Hillary came out FOR THE DEATH PENALTY

can we please stop the doublespeak?

she wants the state to be able to kill people. own it. don't try slippery language to soften it, it doesn't work anyway.

[portlander23]

101. We should change the language

"Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty"

No,

"Hillary Clinton Comes Out In Support Of The Death Penalty"

[Sunlei]

114. for profits prisons should be all over abolishing death sentences, no profit off a dead prisoner.

How about prison workers (Corporate slave workers) paid at least the federal minimum wage & that money sent to support their families on the outside.

20 cents an hour 'pay' only covers a 'once a month two minute phone call' 'home' and a couple tampons from the prison store.

I'd like our candidates to abolish slavery in America and change the 13th amendment to reflect that.

Take the 'for profit' out of prisons and we'll see the numbers of incarcerated drop.

[joshcryer]

118. I'm 99.99999999999999% against the death penalty.

Which is an effective 100%. But if we found some serial killer with a trove of dead kids and he was videoing untold things and desecrating bodies and we caught them in the act, I could make an exception (and even then I'd have to take the mental aspect into account). I cannot think of a case that I would be for it, if it helps (since I am leaving a small room for an exception here).

James Holms, even Adam Lanza or even Elliot Rodger, or Seung-Hui Cho, life imprisonment.

The main reason I am against it not a moral reason, it's utilitarian and only slightly moral. There are innocents on death row, for one, but the death penalty costs so much (and rightly so, appeals are deserved for such a finality), and it costs a lot of pain for the victims families (each appeal they are compelled to be involved in the process; for well over a decade in most cases). Put 'em away for life and you save the appeals process and you save a lot of taxpayer money and you avoid the chance of killing an innocent person and they can maybe get off if the Innocence Project can find flaws in the case (which unfortunately it has found numerous examples).

So I'm not saying I agree with Clinton here at all as I suspect she'd hang the examples I gave, I am just saying, I can see myself being for it if the example is beyond egregious. So far I have not felt that such example exists. So I'm against the death penalty. But I reserve the right to say "hang 'em" if such an example exists, and I don't think that's hypocritical. I just have a high bar.

But, I would be for a 100% SCOTUS ban (or congressional ban) of the death penalty. I'd still reserve to right to say "hang 'em" even if such a ban existed.