2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty
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
(16,286 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)position was out of political expedience.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(62,444 posts)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
(13,184 posts)Oh, well...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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
(3,186 posts)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
(62,444 posts)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
(3,186 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Chemisse
(30,807 posts)But it probably makes sense for her to prevent a 'soft-on-crime' charge, particularly when she is speaking out about prison reform.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(53,475 posts)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
(15,438 posts)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
(53,475 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(53,475 posts)Why do they not include any first-time voters?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(53,475 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)One doesn't negate the other.
BOSNYCDC
(66 posts)Lead through conviction or
Follow majority opinion?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Why would Hillary want to abolish that revenue stream? That would be biting the hand that feeds her campaign coffers.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The federal government has executed three prisoners in 15 years. What "revenue stream" is that?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)except of course when she is spouting lies to fool the low information primary voters.....
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)If the polls and capital demand it then when you open the box your evolution may still be alive.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(12,769 posts)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
(15,438 posts)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
(12,769 posts)Why not just vote on every issue?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(12,769 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And no. It's not being a dictator.
think
(11,641 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(5,204 posts)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
(72,631 posts)Ricky Ray Rector...
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
(27,247 posts)It was certainly a moment during that campaign.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Just as disappointing as the fact that Obama still favors the death penalty.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)whose sentences he could commute today.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners#list
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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
(25,406 posts)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
(15,438 posts)Let's see if he does. Ten to one, he won't.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)murder and assassination. It's calloused and frightening.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)or pigs fly, that he wouldn't have to make decisions that would cost someone their lives?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)of someone who no longer poses a threat to society.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And in a democracy, the majority wins.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)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
(15,438 posts)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
(17,320 posts)political wind before saying anything publically.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)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."