Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty

[Comrade Grumpy]

No comment. Her words speak for themselves.

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

[randys1]

1. That's too bad but probably politically expedient

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Yes, like everything else when it comes to Hillary trying to avoid taking a principled position.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[kelliekat44]

10. It's not a "principled position" because you disagree with it? Whose principles should she hold?

[morningfog]

18. They were responding to a post which suggested the

position was out of political expedience.

[sabrina 1]

51. Political expediency V fighting for what's right. That is exactly why I cannot support her.

We see where all that 'expediency' has taken this country.

Now we have to find some strong, principled people to begin to repair the huge damage that has been done by those pushing this meme over the past several decades.

It will a lot of time, but we have to start somewhere.

I am starting by supporting Bernie Sanders for President and every candidate running for Congress who shares his views wrt to policies.

[jberryhill]

2. That's unfortunate, but fairly insignficant given the relative absence of federal executions

I categorically oppose the death penalty

However, given the extreme rarity of federal executions in the first place, this is pretty much of a nothing.

Twenty-six federal (including military) executions have been carried since 1950.

Three non-military executions this century:

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

1 Timothy McVeigh June 11, 2001 Murder of eight federal law enforcement officers through the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Oklahoma

2 Juan Raul Garza June 19, 2001 Murder of Thomas Albert Rumbo, ordering the murders of Gilberto Matos, Erasmo De La Fuente, Antonio Nieto, Bernabe Sosa, Diana Flores Villareal, Oscar Cantu, and Fernando Escobar Garcia in conjunction with a drug-smuggling ring Texas

3 Louis Jones, Jr. March 18, 2003 Rape and murder of Pvt. Tracie McBride, USA Texas

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Having a president opposed to the death penalty carries some political weight.

Oh, well...

[jberryhill]

17. It's pretty much a non-issue at that level

It's one of the many things that gets kicked around in presidential politics for virtually no practical reason whatsoever.

But because it's one of those things that is easy to have an opinion about, and most people have one, it gets thrown around as if the president has any particular influence on the issue.

The president can choose not to execute the handful of federal death row inmates, who aren't going anywhere in a hurry anyway (the longest since 1993). The president has no influence over who is sentenced to what, and any elimination of the federal death penalty is a group effort involving our do-nothing Congress. And, again, this is on a matter which has affected three lives this century.

Given the tens of thousands killed every year in car accidents, it would be time better spent talking about automobile and road safety - a subject on which you are going to hear silence, and a subject which the executive branch actually has more direct influence over.

It's on the tick list of bullshit issues that gets discussed during presidential campaigns because Americans are too stupid and lazy to actually give a shit about politics involving any other elected office.

[PotatoChip]

20. Question: The death penalty is not legal in my state, but

what if someone is found guilty of a serious federal crime here? Can s/he be sentenced to death under federal law in a state like mine where the death penalty is not legal?

I understand your point that it is rare, but I'm still curious as to whether or not it could ever happen here. TIA.

[jberryhill]

21. Yes of course

If one is indicted for a federal capital crime, tried in a federal court and held in the federal prison system, then the state has nothing to do with it.

But, again, the president has more direct control over the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, in relation to the tens of thousands of annual auto fatalities, than the bulk of state executions.

[PotatoChip]

24. Ok, thanks for the answer. (nt)

[cantbeserious]

4. Riddle Me This - How Soon Before She Changes Her Mind - Another Ruse To Claim She Is Progressive

eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Answer: as soon as Hillary's next poll results come in and, based on those results, her advisors tell her what position to take.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[cantbeserious]

12. Chuckles - Thank You For The Laugh

eom

[Chemisse]

5. Disappointing.

But it probably makes sense for her to prevent a 'soft-on-crime' charge, particularly when she is speaking out about prison reform.

[Scuba]

7. Yet some still claim she's a progressive.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. Yet some don't understand that the country is not as progressive as they'd like.

The latest survey by the Pew Research Center shows that, although support for the DP has fallen compared to earlier years, it's still at 56%, thus the majority still approves of the DP.

See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=733062 that includes this graph:

[Scuba]

28. Typical of Hillary's Camp Weathervane to put public opinion ahead of what is right.

By the way, the people of the US are far, far left of where the politicians and media portray them to be ...

http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php

[BlueCaliDem]

32. I strongly encourage ALL Sanders supporters to have him announce he's against the DP.

I encourage it wholeheartedly.

By the way, the people of the US are far, far left of where the politicians and media portray them to be ...

Not when it comes to the death penalty and national security (when attacked), we're not.

[Scuba]

34. Standing up for what's right? Glad to oblige ...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

[BlueCaliDem]

38. Maybe that's why he's hit the ceiling in the polls at 25%?

Like it or not, in a democracy - something I hope you still believe in - the majority rules. When 6 out of 10 Americans still support state sanctioned killings, and leaders have to be elected rather than appointed, do you believe it's wise for that candidate to come out strongly against what the majority wants and still win in a national election?

[Scuba]

39. Who owns the media that run the polls?

Why do they not include any first-time voters?

[BlueCaliDem]

40. To be fair, they rarely include Blacks, Latinos, and Asian voters, either.

But all those polls showing him peaking at 25% (something Nate Silver said had happened last month) included registered Democratic voters.

We both have issues with the variables used for polling, but when there are four polls (including the pro-GOP Gravis Marketing Poll) out showing Hillary Clinton skyrocketing and Sanders either stagnating or dropping, you can be sure it's sent a wave of panic through Sanders' campaign managers even if his supporters are pooh-poohing it away.

[Scuba]

45. Many (most?) polls are designed to influence opinion, not measure it.

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Maybe. But they're also useful to measure where people are at the moment.

One doesn't negate the other.

[BOSNYCDC]

60. How does a poll justify a position?

Lead through conviction or
Follow majority opinion?

[Maedhros]

8. The Private Prison Industry probably charges extra for executions - a whole lot EXTRA.

Why would Hillary want to abolish that revenue stream? That would be biting the hand that feeds her campaign coffers.

[jberryhill]

22. How many federal privately-run prisons are there?

The federal government has executed three prisoners in 15 years. What "revenue stream" is that?

[bowens43]

9. you caan count on queen hilllary to be on the wrong side of every fucking issue

except of course when she is spouting lies to fool the low information primary voters.....

[TheKentuckian]

13. Hey, hey!! Come on those aren't lies it's called measured and conditional Schroedinger's evolution

If the polls and capital demand it then when you open the box your evolution may still be alive.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Your loathing for Hillary Clinton aside, she's on the CORRECT side of the issue.

As well-informed primary voters understand, the latest Pew Research Center survey shows that a whopping 56% (nearly 6 out of 10) of Americans support the DP.

Until and unless that number drops to 51% or below, it's political suicide for any politician running at the Federal level to be against the DP.


But I sincerely hope Bernie supporters will push their candidate to announce, publicly and over and over again, that he's against the DP. Please proceed.

[Live and Learn]

41. That doesn't make it CORRECT.

It is still immoral even if 100% of the populace supports it. If 56% of the populace supported cannibalism would Hillary favor it? Probably.

By the way, a leader is supposed to lead on the issues not follow behind polls.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. It does in elections and when a majority supports it. Majority rule = democracy.

Take the gun issue, for example. The vast majority of Americans (I believe it was around 90%) were for stricter gun safety laws. "Leaders" in Congress ignored them and voted against any gun safety laws even after 20 six-year-olds were massacred behind their little school desks.

Do you still believe leaders shouldn't listen to their constituents? Because that's what you're advocating.

A leader is supposed to lead as his/her constituents want him/her to lead. The above is a good example why Republicans will NOT win the White House or keep the senate in 2016.

As I've posted many times before, since Sanders is against the DP and Hillary Clinton is not, Sanders supporters should push him to campaign on fighting to get rid of the DP. Let's see where Hillary Clinton's poll numbers will then be.

Full disclosure: I am AGAINST the death penalty, and always have been. I have voted each and every time to have it repealed in my State of California. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority even here when it comes to being against the DP.

[Live and Learn]

43. Then why do we need a leader?

Why not just vote on every issue?

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Maybe because we have a representative government?

That is, a government we elect people to represent us while we work for our livelihood and our families and get on with our lives. To understand what that means, we need to understand the meaning of a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

[Live and Learn]

47. A representative government that calls for a leader? nt

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Yes. A leader for the majority who has elected him/her to do what they want. eom

[Live and Learn]

61. A LEADER, which you have already admitted she is not. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Apparently, you don't understand the definition of "leader" in the political context.

And no. It's not being a dictator.

[think]

52. Currently, 40 percent of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56 percent oppose it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/death-penalty-poll-2015-support-record-low-new-survey-shows-1885340

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Yes. Among Democrats. However, currently, 57% of Independents approve of the DP.

And as we know, Independents decide who wins in the G.E.

In order to get anything done on abolishing the DP, we need to win from Republicans and keep the White House and return power to Democrats in the Senate. The other option is allowing a Republican into the White House since Republicans overwhelmingly approve and support the DP by a whopping 77%. The LAST thing anti-DP activists need is a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate where judges and justices are confirmed to our courts - those courts that we need in order to overturn the DP.



On this issue, I part ways with Hillary Clinton, though. I believe the DP should be abolished - for good. And I'm hoping, once in office, and once we give her a Senate she can work with (Dem majority), she'll appoint judges and justices who will help get rid of that barbaric law as support for the DP decreases to around 51% or less.

[jfern]

14. A higher percentage of death row inmates are black than those killed by the police

42% of death row inmates are black, which means the judicial system is more racist than the police, since only 30% of the people killed by cops are black. Black lives matter, so abolish the death penalty.

[WillyT]

15. Ugh... Runs In The Family...

Ricky Ray Rector...

Ricky Ray Rector (January 12, 1950 – January 24, 1992) was executed for the 1981 murder of police officer Robert Martin in Conway, Arkansas, USA.

After killing a man in a nightclub he at first agreed to turn himself in to authorities, but then instead shot in the back the police officer who had negotiated his surrender. He then shot himself in the head in a suicide attempt. The attempt effectively resulted in a lobotomy.[1]

A 1991 request for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied, with Marshall dissenting.[2]

Despite Rector's mental state, then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton made a point of returning to Arkansas to oversee Rector's January 24, 1992 execution during the 1992 U.S. Presidential campaign.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

[Art_from_Ark]

25. I remember that

It was certainly a moment during that campaign.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Very disappointing.

Just as disappointing as the fact that Obama still favors the death penalty.

[jberryhill]

23. Zero federal prisoners executed during the Obama administration

[Nye Bevan]

30. 62 prisoners on Federal death row,

whose sentences he could commute today.

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

[BlueCaliDem]

29. 6 out of 10 Americans support the death penalty.

A good leader listens to their constituents. She and President Obama clearly do.

But I strongly encourage ALL Sanders supporters to make him announce, publicly and ad nauseam, that he's against the death penalty and will do everything in his power to get rid of it.

[Nye Bevan]

31. Nope, a good leader does the right thing even when the public is wrong.

Even though I support Hillary I give Sanders a lot of credit for opposing the death penalty and for supporting marriage equality back when this was unpopular.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Then I encourage ALL Sanders supporters to make him say it publicly, over and over again.

Let's see if he does. Ten to one, he won't.

[morningfog]

19. She's a hawk and has no qualms with state sponsored killings,

murder and assassination. It's calloused and frightening.

[moobu2]

36. You think If Bernie were to somehow get himself elected

or pigs fly, that he wouldn't have to make decisions that would cost someone their lives?

[morningfog]

56. Which is a different question that supporting the state sponsored intentional killing

of someone who no longer poses a threat to society.

[moobu2]

59. I was responding to something else.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. Then 6 out of 10 Americans are hawks with no qualms with state sponsored killings.

And in a democracy, the majority wins.

[Fumesucker]

46. President Elect Al Gore says Hi from 2000

[morningfog]

55. 6 out of 10 disgust me.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. I feel you, morningfog. Believe you me. eom

[hollowdweller]

50. But she's for gun control.

So she sends the message that it's OK for the state to use violence to solve problems even if we might execute the wrong person or invade a county and kill hundreds of thousands of it's citizens based on false intelligence.

However she does not trust the average citizen with the same responsibility.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. She is for a "well regualted" gun-ownership society, yes.

As has been pointed out by jberryhill, the death penalty issue is a non-issue on the Federal level since the Federal gov't hasn't put anyone to death since 2003, and altogether, since 1950, there have been twenty-six (26) Federal executions total.

Guns in this country, however, kill over 30,000 people a year. Between 1968-2013 alone, statistics show a whopping 1,384,171 people died due to gun-related violence, which is more than those killed in wars in major conflicts (1,171,177). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Surely you, as a person who is concerned with deaths in America, agree that we need more gun safety laws?

[ladjf]

33. Mrs. Clinton continues to be a living political "wind sock". She always checks the

political wind before saying anything publically.

[HassleCat]

53. I hope she evolves on this issue

I'm sure she realizes the federal government can abolish the death penalty with a Supreme Court decision, but can do little to reform capital punishment, or the broken justice system that sentences people to die, or the inept administration of capital punishment, or any of the rest of it. That stuff is largely controlled by the states, states such as Texas, where they never met a criminal they didn't want to execute, states such as Florida, where enjoy torturing people to death and excusing it by saying it's more humane than what the criminal did to his victims. Surely Clinton knows she will have the ability to end capital punishment, but not to reform it. That should make her decision pretty clear. If she sticks with her current position, it's de facto support for the death penalty. Basically, it's the same as saying, "Let the states kill whomever they want."