Clinton still wants to kill people.

[RoccoR5955]

Even though she states that it should be used only on "rare occasions," I ask the following: Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

[beam me up scottie]

1. How can we condemn other countries that execute their prisoners?

There is no reason to murder someone who's going to serve life in prison without parole, it's all about vengeance.

[woolldog]

2. She was honest.

Not everyone is against the death penalty. I'm torn on the issue.

[RoccoR5955]

5. I wonder if she would be willing to pull the switch

to kill someone. Perhaps we should make the leaders pull the switch, give the shot, or whatever, if they want to kill someone.

[Hissyspit]

23. There's no reason to be torn.

The death penalty is a moral, legal and practical disaster.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts

https://www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty

http://www.icomdp.org/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system
There have been and always will be cases of executions of innocent people. No matter how developed a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human failure. Unlike prison sentences, the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.

The arbitrary application of the death penalty can never be ruled out
The death penalty is often used in a disproportional manner against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups.

The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity
The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being.

The death penalty does not deter crime effectively
The death penalty lacks the deterrent effect which is commonly referred to by its advocates. As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA Resolution 65/206). It is noteworthy that in many retentionist states, the effectiveness of the death penalty in order to prevent crime is being seriously questioned by a continuously increasing number of law enforcement professionals.

Public opinion is not a major stumbling block for abolition
Public support for the death penalty does not necessarily mean that taking away the life of a human being by the state is right. There are undisputed historical precedences where gross human rights violations had had the support of a majority of the people, but which were condemned vigorously later on. It is the job of leading figures and politicians to underline the incompatibility of capital punishment with human rights and human dignity.

It needs to be pointed out that public support for the death penalty is inextricably linked to the desire of the people to be free from crime. However, there exist more effective ways to prevent crime.


http://www.listland.com/top-10-reasons-death-penalty-abolished/

- snip -


7. Exoneration

The Death Penalty Prevents Exoneration
In singer Alanis Morissette’s 1995 hit “Ironic”, she sings the verse “…it’s a death row pardon two minutes too late.” Morissette clearly didn’t know the definition of irony, as she spent close to four minutes describing things that were unfortunate or just plain old terrible. Still, the lyric reminds us of the irreversible consequences that can occur from continued enforcement of the death penalty.

What if an inmate sentenced to death is later found to be innocent of their convictions? What if the uncovering of this innocence comes after a lethal injection has already been administered?

This is much more than a hypothetical. A study titled “Rate of false convictions of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that over four percent of prisoners sentenced to death in the United States are innocent. The team of researchers analyzed 7,482 death sentences from 1973 to 2004. Out of all these cases, it was found that 1.6 percent were later exonerated, and 4.1 percent should have been exonerated.

If a conviction is ever overturned, it can take decades at the very least. However, there are several documented cases of prisoners being released years after imprisonment. Life sentences serve as a better alternative to the death penalty in order to protect the potentially innocent.

6. Cost

Failing to Abolish the Death Penalty is a waste of money.
Failing to Abolish the Death Penalty is a waste of money.
The cost of the death penalty as opposed to a life sentence without parole is exponential. Due to the extra measures taken in judicial proceedings, lawyer fees, extended trials, and expert witnesses, costs end up being higher. A Cost Study by the Sacramento Bee noted that California would save $90 million per year if it were to completely eliminate the death penalty.

An October 2013 report noted some alarming statistics which outline the ways in which costs for death penalty cases are shared by all U.S. taxpayers:

Boulder County, Colorado’s D.A. Stan Garnett noted that, “Prosecuting a death penalty case through a verdict in a trial court can cost the prosecution well over $1 million dollars…my budget is $4.6 million and with that budget we prosecute 1,900 felonies, per year”
The costs of these trials are shared by U.S. taxpayers regardless of whether or not their state has enforced the death penalty within that year. According to the report, due to the fact that “…most capital cases emanate from a tiny minority of jurisdictions, this cost is shifted to the majority of Americans who live in areas that almost never use the death penalty…”
One statistic shows that the average cost of a death sentence during a case is $3 million
A cost estimate from 1973 to 2011 shows that the cost to U.S. taxpayers for 8,300 death sentences has been $25 billion
Even though the majority of U.S. states do not enforce the death penalty, all U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for a minority of jurisdictions. In contrast, a sentence of life in prison costs significantly less.

MORE

[RoccoR5955]

31. Thank you for that! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

35. Excellent post, should be an op.

[Hissyspit]

46. O.k. then:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511485951

[MrMickeysMom]

56. It shouldn't have been hard for her to address the death penalty at that town hall meeting..

... but for all the reasons you outline, she stuttered and went on and on to excuse her view.

Meanwhile, I'm sure I was not the only person tonight to see the expression of the person who had actually been ON DEATH ROW ask her that question.

[Segami]

28. Give me a break!

[Luminous Animal]

36. The man who asked her that question was exonerated from death row after 39 years.

Likely, the jury thought he did the crime. How the hell is Hillary going to convince local juries of what is and what is not legitimate crimes that are deserving of the death penalty?

[woolldog]

40. You are just highlighting the problem with the question

The President has no say over that. It doesn't matter whether she's against or for the death penalty. Nothing's changing until social opinion moves on it.

[Luminous Animal]

44. More democrats are against it now than or for it. It is barbaric and this man lived

under the threat of death for a crime he did not commit.

Here is a list of Federal death penalty crimes.

These are the offenses punishable by life imprisonment or death under United States Code:[11]

Causing death by using a chemical weapon or a weapon of mass destruction
Killing a member of the Congress, the Cabinet or United States Supreme Court
Kidnapping a member of the Congress, the Cabinet or Supreme Court resulting in death
Conspiracy to kill a member of the Congress, the Cabinet or Supreme Court resulting in death
Causing death by using an explosive
Causing death by using an illegal firearm
Causing death during a drug-related drive-by shooting
Genocide resulting in death
Carjacking resulting in death
Willful destruction of aircraft or motor vehicles resulting in death.
Causing death by aircraft hijacking or any attempt to commit aircraft hijacking.
Causing death by kidnapping or hostage taking.
First degree murder
Murder perpetrated by poison or lying in wait
Murder that is willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
Murder in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any arson, torture, escape, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery.
Murder perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children
Murder committed by a federal prisoner or an escaped federal prisoner sentenced to 15 years to life or a more severe penalty
Assassinating the President or a member of his staff
Kidnapping the President or a member of his staff resulting in death
Killing persons aiding Federal investigations or State correctional officers
Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death
Sexual abuse resulting in death
Sexual exploitation of children resulting in death
Torture resulting in death
War crimes resulting in death
Large-scale drug trafficking
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, even if such killing does not occur.
Espionage
Treason

[beedle]

48. so? then she should be working to change social opinion

Why do some people think that a presidential candidate has to be able to have the power to change something before they come out and strong stand for something?

Hillary wouldn't have to promise to CHANGE the law, she just has to TAKE A STAND against the death penalty.

If she is really okay with no death penalty for all cases, but thinks it's okay if the Feds decide to use it for terrorists, I don't really see the real urgency in needing to support it at all. She said the feds should reconsider it (or something like that) so she obviously can't be that hell bent on the need to keep it around (unless she's lying .. again.)

She, if her words are to be believed, is basically ambivalent toward the need for a death penalty in one special and rare case, and recognizes that it's a disaster in the states, yet she will not take a strong stance toward abolishing the damn policy.

The calculation seems to be that on the one hand there are these really rare situations in the federal courts where the people really deserve it, vs the other hand where there is a murder machine killing dozens of people every year, a good percentage of them likely innocent, and largely selecting its victims based on race .. and she seems to have a hard time deciding where to come down on this??? Really?? My Gawd, the decision could not be simpler or clearer ... go see a fucking phychatrist about your vengeance problem and deal with the racist murder system NOW!

[PoliticAverse]

52. "The President has no say over that." the President has complete say over the Federal death penalty.

[Xipe Totec]

3. That was the most weasely response I've heard

[Broward]

21. It was closely matched by her answer on fracking.

[BernieforPres2016]

43. I used pause to take down Hillary's answer on fracking.

- Give local communities a say on fracking
- Need more research
- Polluting water is bad
- There is a loophole that lets companies not disclose what chemicals they use
- I have to figure out what we can do on a federal level as opposed to the state level
- Oklahoma which is pro fracking has suffered from tremors, little earthquakes
- There is growing scientific evidence that fracking is connected to these tremors
- Now even Oklahoma is saying wait a minute we better stop and take a look at fracking
- So as President I will try to set the rules, to set the regulations, to figure out how to influence states
--I'm not sure that given the current political makeup we could pass a federal law to end fracking but we sure can try to regulate it very effectively under the rules we already have that give us federal jurisdiction over some of these chemicals and releases, so that's what I'm going to try to do
- Now others say we are going to ban it, but I'm going to try to do everything I can to regulate it and to try to limit it. No President can stand up before you and say I'm going to ban it. We've got too many layers of regulation and law we've got to deal with and that's what I'm trying to say, very, you know, very clearly, you know I don't want to make a promise I can't keep. I want to tell you what I think I can do as President to be your ally to stop it at a local level.

By the time Hillary had stopped bobbing and weaving and never saying she was opposed to fracking despite all the evidence she cited against it, the woman who asked the question was sitting down with an exasperated look on her face.

[Broward]

47. All those words from Hillary amounted to nothing.

Thanks for getting it all down.

[BernieforPres2016]

49. Does Hillary think people don't know that she has supported fracking

and even promoted it to other governments?

Now she's saying she doesn't really know the federal versus state law and what the regulations are? She's kind of saying she doesn't like it but won't say she will try to stop it.

Really pathetic.

[Dem2]

4. I'm against the death penalty

Hillary is right, the states are incompetent at it and should ban it as soon as possible.

[SamKnause]

9. But Hillary supports the federal government killing people.

Are they competent or incompetent ???

I am against the death penalty.

Hillary is wrong.

[Dem2]

16. I've had arguments made to me about certain mass-murderers and the federal death penalty

In those cases, I have trouble finding good enough reasons not to have the death penalty in those very few cases.

A couple of Democrats have attempted to overturn the federal death penalty, I'd be for that but it's not likely any time soon.

So, I guess I agree with Hillary on this issue.

[PoliticAverse]

55. A President has the power to eliminate the Federal death penalty during the time they are in office.

[Dem2]

57. Seems so.

Could a presidential decree be used to abolish the death penalty in the United States?

No; the most that a President could do is to (1) commute all Federal death sentences to life imprisonment, (2) direct the Federal Bureau of Prisons to indefinitely postpone all pending executions, and/or (3) direct all Federal prosecutors to cease requesting the death penalty during the charging and arraignment stages of criminal proceedings.

Further, any such order from the President would have zero effect on any individual states in which the death penalty has been legislated.

"Abolishing" the death penalty requires an action that affects all three branches of government -- the law must be changed so that the death penalty is no longer an option; this would remove the option from consideration by judges and juries; which would also remove the option entirely from prosecutors as an option.

There's also a question as to whether a Federal law could pre-empt state laws with regard to the death penalty; it's unlikely that this would be the case. What would really be required to completely abolish the death penalty across the nation is for the Supreme Court to rule (again) that the death penalty (either in concept or as applied) is unconstitutional, likely under the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

[PoliticAverse]

58. BTW: President Bill Clinton actually did commute someone's death penalty sentence to life in prison.

http://www.democracynow.org/2001/1/23/clinton_commutes_first_federal_death_row

[liberalnarb]

18. The states being incompetant is the reason we have to ban it federally.

They are incompetent in executing it and they can't be trusted to end it.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. exactly. States cannot be trusted to end it.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. She was in a pretzel by the time she finished that question.

All things to all people.

[unc70]

7. Her church is absolutely opposed to the death penalty

The United Methodist Church is absolutely opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Although Clintonmakes a point that her faith and the bible in her purse guide her, she is often at odds with the teachings and the positions of her church.

As another example, the UMC is anti war and strongly opposed the Irag war.

[TheDormouse]

27. She's entitled to her own interpretation of the principles of her faith nt

[EndElectoral]

8. It's called selective vengeance

[beam me up scottie]

11. ^^^THIS^^^

[liberal_at_heart]

10. "rare occasions"? We have been in a state of non stop constant never ending warfare for decades now

If she means what she says does that mean we get to take a break and spend some of those trillions of dollars on SS, food stamps, WIC, education, and healthcare? I won't hold my breath.

[chillfactor]

12. not one post against Bernie when he was speaking....NOT ONE!

but the minute Hillary is up...here come the nasty posts about her

[liberalnarb]

15. Oh, I see.

If you disagree with her its "nasty".

[beam me up scottie]

17. How is the op nasty?

That's unfair, it's a subject that should be discussed and the op was more than civil towards Hillary.

[RoccoR5955]

22. I simply do not understand why my post was "nasty."

Could you please explain to me. I guess I am just stupid, so please educate me.
I didn't think it was nasty to state an issue such as big as capital punishment.
Perhaps you do. If you could explain why you think it was nasty, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.

[jillan]

50. So we are not to discuss our candidate's policy positions?

Wow. All of this time I thought that is what we do in America. When did that change?

[firebrand80]

13. Good, so do I nt

[Luminous Animal]

25. The man who asked her that question was exonerated from death row after 39 years.

A black man, of course. It is a barbaric and racist institution. This is the crime he was convicted of doing, "The perpetrators reportedly beat him, threw acid in his face and one of the men shot him twice with a .38 calibe"

What is your verdict juror, death or life in prison?

[Hissyspit]

26. See post #23.

...and learn.

And The Third Way sucks. Bush/Cheney enablers.

[morningfog]

30. You want to kill people?

[firebrand80]

32. I haven't tried it yet

But I don't rule it out

[morningfog]

34. Which isn't what you said. You WANT to kill people?

[liberalnarb]

14. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be able to kill any of its citizens.

But beliefs aside, the idea that we would used the death penalty only in special cases seems impossible to execute (no pun intended). Unless we end the whole thing, we're not going to be able to end it at all.

[EndElectoral]

20. Argument used to be deterrence, but it didn't deter McVeigh.

[LiberalElite]

38. That's been my point -

if it's such a deterrent why are we having to actually use it?

[Uponthegears]

42. Exactly

They seriously expect people to believe that murderers sit in their living room thinking, "Hmmm, you know, I'd really like to go out and kill someone today, but I will get the death penalty if I do so I will stay home and bake cookies."

[bettyellen]

19. .

[Divernan]

24. It's her focus groups who want to kill people; she doesn't give a damn either way.

In point of fact, she should be conflicted on this issue, because her private prison donors (through her PACs) need people alive to keep every cell filled, amiright, Verne?

[Kalidurga]

33. Probably didn't see enough people dying from AIDS infected blood to satisfy her....

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1999/may/15/tainted-plasma-traced-to-arkansas-prison-bill-clintons-blood-trails/

Sorry it's OT, but that's how I roll. If you say Clinton still wants to kill people I will agree and tell you their innocence means nothing to them.

[BernieforPres2016]

37. I am watching this on a delay and just saw the death penalty Q&A

Am I imagining things or did Hillary's position on the death penalty just evolve on national television? Now she can only support the death penalty at a federal level for mass murder type crimes?

Has that been her position or did she just come up with it?

[Uponthegears]

39. On "rare occasions"

Is how supporters of this barbaric practice CLAIM it is being used now.

AND the federal government is among the worst at abusing it. Federal death row is even more racially skewed than most state death rows. What's more, it's not "mass murderers" who it's being used against.

It's the poor, the disenfranchised, primarily people of color. Basically any murderer whose execution the federal government thinks will provide it with some kind of political mileage.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners#list

[Jenny_92808]

41. The death penalty should be

abolished.

- The death penalty sets a bad example for the world
- Because of all the appeals it is very expensive.
- Innocent people are sometimes executed.

[noamnety]

45. My problem with her answer

Well, I have a lot of problems with her answer, because I'm completely opposed to the death penalty.

But specifically with her logic that it will be a "relief" for her if states opt to do away with it - because states can get it wrong. Yet she wants to keep it at the federal level, because apparently at that level proof of a mass murder will be unmistakable.

My problem is that she was on a federal jury, for all intents and purposes, looking at the evidence for the Iraq War Resolution. And she got it wrong.

[calguy]

51. BS'ers still BS'ing

[Ken Burch]

53. Well, she wants people to BE killed.

It's not as though she's pledging to go to the death house and throw the switch herself..."at least as far as I know".

[jillan]

54. Her answer about terrorists deserving the death penalty - what was that?!! That is exactly what many

of them want - to be a martyr for their cause.

I found her whole answer bizarre, but this part really made me cringe.

[RoccoR5955]

59. They just do not understand that for every "terrorist" you kill

you breed at least two more.