Here’s a video of the prime Democratic candidate supporting the federal death penalty. Clinton’s answer is in response to a question at Ohio State University from a man unjustly convicted of murder. She says she supports the penalty for “terrorists,” including American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, “in cases where there have been horrific mass killings.”
And yet, at the beginning of her answer, she says that she would “breathe a sigh of relief” if the Supreme Court eliminates the death penalty, and it’s not clear whether she’s talking about state death penalties or both federal and state death penalties. But does it matter? Death is death, whether imposed by state or federal governments. And if she means total elimination of executions at all levels, then her subsequent statement is mendacious. And seriously, are potential terrorists going to be deterred from murder by the death penalty? Give me a break!
This is almost a non-negotiable for me; there is NO reason that I can see for executing any criminal. The US is in fact the only First World country, save Japan, that still does it. Shall we refresh our knowledge? Look at the red countries, where execution is legal:
(The red country in eastern Europe, sticking out like a sore thumb, is Belarus.)
Of course all the damn Republican candidates endorse the death penalty. But Bernie Sanders opposes it—unreservedly. And Clinton’s stand is something I oppose just as strongly.
If Clinton wants to retain execution, let her justify the practice, and explain why she disagrees with the 21-year sentence Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik got, a sentence that can be repeatedly extended in 5-year stints if he’s not judged “reformed”. (Read about the Norwegian justice system here, and see why it’s so much more humane—and successful—than ours.)
My take? Clinton wants to pander to everyone, something she’s trying really hard to do. Americans are split almost right down the middle on the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole (also an insupportable stance). By walking that fine line (just as she walks that line between Wall Street and Main Street), Clinton tries to ensure that her views will appeal to everyone. But what are her principles? Is she for or against the death penalty?
Tomorrow is Primary Day in Illinois, and I just might vote my conscience. But if Hillary’s the nominee come the fall, I will of course vote for her.
“Clinton wants to pander to everyone” – The classic politician m.o.
She’s for frying a lobotomized murderer, if it keeps hubby (and her) ensconced in power. That much was demonstrated before. Gotta look tough on crime. Helps to consult one’s actuaries & perhaps see what the focus groups are tending towards.
Another reason I cannot stand either of them.
That’s why she’s not my first choice, too. (The tendency to try to have it all ways to all people.)
Clinton has no true north, does she really believe in anything? What an opportunist – veering wherever she thinks the popular wind blows.
“But what are her principles?”
The one core principle of Hillary Clinton, the one thing she believes above all else, through thick and thin…
“Become President, no matter the cost”
To say principles and politician in the same sentence is a bit rich anyway. It really goes to the core of Hilary as a fairly religious type and they do love the death penalty in large numbers.
We just have to admit that she may not be the first choice but she is certainly the second. Hilary actually has four names now, after Rodham is goes Baggage and then Clinton.
We can blast Clinton but most politicians are the same. Many are worse.
Carl Kruse
That’s the thing. We often end up voting for the lesser of two evils. I think this is a pretty common situation, but, it is not always the case. Obama, Carter, and Kennedy were not difficult choices for me. With Hillary I will be holding my nose.
But she could be misspeaking. She’s prone to misspeaking. I don’t know why she hasn’t explained away her Iraq war vote as misvoting.
No candidate is perfect and every candidate tries to maximize the number of people who will vote for her or him.I do not believe Sanders can win a national election, and therefore, I will vote for Hillary because we need a Democrat in the White House and on the Supreme Court.
I’m curious what you base that on. I often hear this, but the only data we have available (a couple dozen polls done over the last several months) all say the opposite – that Clinton is much less electable than Sanders. (Sanders clearly beats all Republican candidates. Clinton loses to many of them and does worse than Sanders in every matchup.)
Well, you have the long list of elected self-declared socialist Presidents (who can forget the second Beds administration) to point to, and the unbroken string of Clinton electoral defeats too.
You could have said that about Obama as the first black candidate, or anyone else who breaks new ground. It is a disappointing way of avoiding the question that Adam M asked.
The data suggest that voting our conscience is also, in this election, the strategic choice. So why not vote our conscience?
No one is saying don’t vote your conscience but the truth is, if Sanders got the nomination he would spend the national campaign nuancing the word “socialist” and the Republicans would run against Joseph Stalin.
I detest the Clintons but this is what Trump has accomplished; creating a world in which I will probably vote for her.
And yet, if Hillary gets it, the Republicans will be all sweetness and light to her on the campaign?
HRC is coming from behind when it comes to public opinion – she is ALREADY distrusted by a majority of the country. Is it possible that Fox and fiends will manage to pull Sanders down to the same level? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps were that effort used against Clinton she would end up looking even worse.
Sanders they can paint as a socialist. Clinton they can paint as a corrupt untrustworthy Washington insider in the pocket of Wall Street and other big money donors. Which is worse in the public’s eyes these days?
Fox has been running against Clinton for months. Everything they have against her is already out there. They haven’t even started on Sanders. How many Americans, for example, are going to vote for a man who made money as a hard-core porn writer? How many even know that about him at this stage?
“How many Americans, for example, are going to vote for a man who made money as a hard-core porn writer? How many even know that about him at this stage?”
Not me! Links please! 😀
(“Not me” in response to how many even know, not in response to how many are going to vote for him.)
I’m not going to search for what he’s written, and I doubt a survey has been done on how many know about it. I’ve heard it three times now as an off side comment on different Fox shows from people who don’t make up stuff. I’ve never looked it up myself, but because of who said it, I feel confident repeating it. It was before he became a senator, so it was a long time ago.
Heather, I’m surprised you made such a charge (that Sanders “made money as a hard-core porn writer”) without even checking it.
I looked it up now. Here is the NPR article about it:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained
This is not what you’ve implied it was. It is not hard-core porn. It is an essay (admittedly a strange one) on sexual roles published in a Vermont alternative newspaper in the early 1970s, not in some porn magazine.
Lou, thanks for digging that up! Interesting article on Sanders, and I read the entire short essay in question and thought, what’s the big deal? He was young, his marriage may have already been in trouble, he wanted an attention-grabbing opener—no biggie. (The MJ article says it “reflected his affinity for Sigmund Freud”–I hope he’s outgrown that!)
Heather, I know your reasons for watching Fox and I think they’re good ones; but don’t trust without verifying! 😉
Thanks for reading it, Diane. Your take on it is the same as mine. I was curious what a woman would think about it, in case I had some unconscious sexist baggage that influenced my opinion. Glad to hear you share my take-away: no big deal. We have already seen that the establishment of BOTH parties is trying to destroy Bernie, using dirty tricks if needed. Extra skepticism of the media is needed in this election.
This film clip:
Sanders Admits he’s a socialist.
“Socialism”/”socialist” is a third rail in US politics. If Sanders were the nominee, this clip would play endlessly on the US airwaves. They could easily swing, for instance, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, with this kind of advertising.
I prefer Bernie’s policy positions to anyone else’s out there in the race; but I honestly do not think he could win a national election. I remember McGovern ’72 very well.
I know as a liberal I’m supposed to oppose the death penalty, but I just can’t.
Some criminals are just revolting beyond belief and I don’t care that they die. Murderer-rapists, unwanted fetuses, juicy cows–they’re all the same in my mind.
You say you don’t care that they die, but does that mean you prefer that they die? Because if you simply don’t care, then you should oppose the death penalty on practical grounds. I don’t oppose it in principle, but in practice we seem to sentence a fair number of innocent people to death. The fact that we can’t correct our mistakes after we’ve already killed them should make life imprisonment preferable.
But some people – Clinton included it seems – actually prefer execution, and feel that innocent people being executed is just the price we have to pay to make sure we can continue executing the worst criminals.
“I know as a liberal I’m supposed to oppose the death penalty, but I just can’t.
Some criminals are just revolting beyond belief and I don’t care that they die. Murderer-rapists, unwanted fetuses, juicy cows–they’re all the same in my mind.”
It’s an unfashionable opinion in these parts, but I agree with you. I’m quite unapologetic in my support for the retention and use of the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the very worst crimes. In response to Adam M, yes, I do actively approve of the execution of these criminals, in preference to the expense of keeping them in prison for however many decades it takes them to expire naturally.
As for the possibility of rehabilitation, I’m not interested. Terrorists, serial killers, child murderers and the like have had their chance and blown it. No amount of remorse can ever be enough to wipe the slate clean.
I would agree with you if I had confidence in our judicial system’s ability to reliably discern the guilty from the innocent, especially in the case of poor people who can’t mount a defense on their own. (Public defenders are inadequate, often spending mere minutes, on average, with people they’re assigned to defend.)
A quirk of our judicial system is that it’s actually more expensive to execute people than to imprison them for life, so I don’t think cost is a good place to argue from, but of course the costs could theoretically be reduced.
Most criminals who are sentenced to be executed, die of old age in prison while their many appeals wend their way through the court systems.
There are too many problems with our justice systems: from the police departments of whatever type (local, county, state, federal)
through the courts (ditto)to the jails or prisons.
The pressure on “cops” to solve crimes cause some of them to accuse and jail innocent people. Certain populations are targeted more stringently than others. That’s why we have such a high proportion of non-whites in the prison system. There is little or no equity in our justice system.
In court, a “jury of one’s peers” may have unchangeable biases; mental, educational or perceptual problems; cultural or religious rigidities that prevent them from being fair. Not all judges are qualified, or honest. When judges are elected rather than appointed, they may have no legal qualifications at all.
Prison sentences may provide the opportunity for inmates to learn new criminal skills. They can’t be assured of being safe at all times within the prison population. They may be tortured or raped. They may be used as a source of cheap labor. They may not receive education or job training while in prison. They may not be able to adjust to life outside of prison if/when they get out.
The cost of prisons is exorbitant and do not really modify the behavior of most prisoners. Recidivism rates are very high.
What we have now needs fixing at all levels.
On the one hand, I agree. I’ll even go so far as to say that I am not opposed (in principle) to torture of sufficiently vile people.
HOWEVER. There has to be a good reason to execute or torture someone. It shouldn’t just be some form on institutional blood lust. There has to be a practical societal reason to execute or torture anyone. And as far as I’m concerned, there really isn’t.
What does execution get us that life-long imprisonment doesn’t? Well, honestly, nothing. They’re contained away from society. You might say it saves money, or it removes them from the prison population, rendering the other less vile prisoners safer. Except it actually takes more money because of all the appeals, and the appeals take too long to meaningfully keep other prisoners safe (and if the inmate is violent enough, you can put him in solitary). So we get almost nothing out of it, other than satisfying our need for vengeance.
But we lose the extra money it costs to execute them, and the chance to later exonerate them. There’s almost no benefit and some noteworthy drawbacks.
If we could capture one of those people that ‘honor’-kill their daughters for the ‘crime’ of being raped, then I couldn’t possibly care less what happened to them. Someone so vile and irredeemable is beneath my concern.
But I do care about what happens to me. I care about how much it’ll cost to execute them, and I care about what it’ll do to my psyche to start giving into a desire to kill people just to satisfy my bloodlust. And that means that, in practice, I cannot condone execution.
If a way can be found to ensure their guilt beyond ANY doubt for less than the cost of life-time imprisonment, that I’d be all in favor of cracking the monster open and donating his organs to people who won’t abuse them.
But until then, we gain nothing, and lose quite a bit.
This is a very thoughtful response. Thank you.
I am against the death penalty for the following set of facts:
1. Death is permanent
2. People are fuck-ups (juries too)
The IL governor stopped all executions in IL a while back when it turned out that DNA evidence showed that about 30% of the people on death row there were in fact innocent.
Stop for a moment and think about what it would feel like to be led to the death chamber as an innocent person. Think of the impact on the innocent executed person’s family, their children. Really try to put yourself in their shoes, if only for a moment.
Unless you are 100% confident in US juries (review the history of trial experiences of black accused in the US south, just that) it’s hard to be in favor of the death penalty.
Based on what has been turned up by the Innocence Project and others (see IL case, above), it’s guaranteed that we have, in the US, executed many innocent people. Probably hundreds, at least.
Our system is set up with a bias towards the accused (read European and English history up to the Enlightenment to understand why; read about English children executed for stealing bread) by intention. It is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent one to be punished (in the case under consideration, the ultimate punishment, and permanent).
“It is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent one to be punished (in the case under consideration, the ultimate punishment, and permanent).”
I don’t think that this is true. If 10 guilty murderers go free, some of them are very likely to kill again, destroying more lives than the one innocent man that would be saved by freeing these ten.
It’s not about how revolting the crimes are. It’s about how certain we can possibly be we’ve got the real perpetrator; it’s about the fact that long-time imprisonment is cheaper; it’s about the fact that killing outside of self-defense is something we anti-execution types just can’t condone, regardless of the crime – the perpetrator can be punished other ways.
May I suggest you watch ‘The Life of David Gale’. Old movie. Can’t forget its message … we must NOT take the risk of executing an innocent person.
‘Evidence’ can be misleading, mishandled, misrepresented.
How many innocent people are you content to have executed in your name (by the state)in order to ensure the ‘revolting’ guilty don’t escape death?
What if one of those innocents was you?
Or your partner?
Or one of your parents?
Or your adult child?
The death penalty is, in my opinion, the mark of an immature state.
The fact that I don’t believe in an afterlife is one reason why I oppose the death penalty. It pisses me off that you can get life for dealing a little pot but you can kill any number of people and get off with only a couple of years in jail. That smirking bastard McVeigh should have been sentenced to a hole somewhere with videos made by the families of his victims playing 24/7 for as long as medical science could keep him alive.
Troll.
I don’t know how you define “first world”, but if you’re going to include Japan, I think you also need to include Taiwan – and it retains the death penalty. South Korea is de facto abolitionist, but the death penalty is still on the books, and there was public agitation for the death penalty for the captain of the ferry Sewol, though he was not in fact sentenced to death.
That said, I’d prefer to vote for an abolitionist.
“are potential terrorists going to be deterred from murder by the death penalty? ”
No, of course not, but as you know, deterrence is not the only reason for the choice of punishment.
Probably what’s more relevant here is the desire for people to feel that justice has been served, and many people feel that allowing murderers to live is to allow them to escape justice.
This issue is fairly important because there’s an implicit contract between us citizens and the government that if we give up the individual right of retribution, the government will seek justice on our behalf. If the government fails to do so, we lose faith in the ability of the government to protect our interests.
I think this is a values difference between what people mean by ‘justice’. Because when most people say justice, what they mean is vengeance.
And while I will not deny the powerful allure of vengeance, that it tempts us all, I will say that vengeance, even properly directed proportional vengeance, is a bad feeling to give into.
It’s not a terrible crime, and I do not think less of anyone who feels it. But I do not feel we should enshrine even our mildest negative emotion into law.
I’m skeptical that there is a difference between the two. Justice appears to be a thin philosophical veneer over a primitive emotion.
I am quite comfortable codifying my negative reactions to animal abuse into law. It seems we are often legislating either morality or emotion into law. There is no reason I can see to prohibit cat torture, other than morality or negative feelings. That is why some of the loonies strains of ideology would not legislate against it: they insist law serve neither purpose.
In that case, the people should grow the fuck up. Why should “because a lot of people unthinkingly lust for blood” be a good reason to install such barbaric instincts in law?
Agreed.
+2
There are three legitimate reasons for imposing a punishment on criminals that I can see: deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation.
The death penalty fails on all but protection of the public and (I am led to believe) it is not particularly cost-effective on the protection front in the USA.
That leaves us with “making the victims family and friends feel a bit better”. I would argue that is not sufficient reason for taking a person’s life, especially when you factor in the risk of executing innocent people.
The death penalty isn’t cost effective mainly because opponents have made it so difficult to do.
As for “making the victims’ family and friends feel a bit better”, who said anything about that? It’s far more broad of a concept than that. The population as a whole should feel that the punishment fits the crime in order to maintain faith in the justice meted out by the government.
“Some criminals are just revolting beyond belief and I don’t care that they die. Murderer-rapists, unwanted fetuses, juicy cows–they’re all the same in my mind.”
I don’t think you mean to equate “murderer-rapists” with “unwanted fetuses” and “juicy cows”. Don’t you intend to equate “murderer-rapists” with “abortionists” and “butchers”?
They are not all the same to me. Murderers and rapists of human beings are much higher up in the hierarchy of criminals to abhor.
(And, think of all the criminals of this type who are not caught or incarcerated). The murderer or rapist could, unbeknownst to you, be a member of your family.
If proper education and birth control were made available to all individuals having sex,
the incidents and numbers of abortions would be significantly decreased. This has been proven in Colorado.
Since human beings are omnivores, I find it pretty unlikely that we will eschew beef, lamb, poultry, fish, etc. This could happen
involuntarily when overpopulation is so drastic that land can’t be used for raising food animals.
With “unwanted fetuses” I believe he was indicating a pro-choice stance; thus he would not want to kill abortionists. I saw that sentence as a list of “things it’s OK to kill” in his opinion.
That’s correct. On the abortion issue, I’m strictly “mind your own business.”
And I’m fortunate enough to be able to raise cows and pigs for home consumption.
As I get older, I find it more difficult to feign “concern” for people I’m not directly involved with. This doesn’t mean I’d go out of my way to hurt anyone (I’ve never even punched anyone since second grade).
We see horrible things on the news . . . then we get over it. Being a person is tragic.
Indeed. Enough heartbreak will come our way without actively seeking it out.
(Somewhat conversely, though, I often think better of humanity in general than, say, that particular jerk next door…)
One of the problems with the death penalty is unfair, that it is more often meted out to poor people, particularly racial minorities. How often are wealthy people sentenced to death even when they are convicted of murder? It has become quite clear that many, many people have been unjustly condemned to death in this country, and without a foolproof means of determining guilt, we should not risk taking the lives of innocent citizens. As Adam M. pointed out, once an innocent person is put to death, the mistake cannot be corrected. Do we still believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”? I hope not.
“…is that it is unfair”
While I’m against the death penalty, this seems a poor argument.
Of course the rich never get the death penalty. Of course the poor get it more often. This is true of ANY harsh punishment, because the rich can hire the best lawyers, and the poor only get public defenders.
Unless there is something special about the death penalty, it’s not the death penalty that produces this unfairness, it’s the court system itself.
Unless there’s something special about the death penalty? Obviously there is something special about it. Teresa said it right there in her comment and, as she also pointed out, several other comments have mentioned it as well. Death is game over. Killing someone obviously precludes the possibility of later negating the sentence and making amends to the falsely sentenced victim. The only possible outcome is accepting that the government, county, state, fed, has murdered an innocent person. And you (general you, not necessarily you personally) who support the death penalty are rather directly responsible for that murder. That does not seem special to you?
Also, neither Teresa’s or anyone else’s, argument is that the death penalty produces the unfairness. I am not sure where you got that from. The actual argument is that, as you say, the court system itself is unfair and in the case of the death penalty the result of that unfairness, that would be the murder of innocent people, is unacceptable and therefore there should be no death penalty. The cost, again, that would be the murder of innocent people, is too high. And it is a certainty, in any meaningful sense of that word, that the US has murdered innocent people in the pursuit of justice via the death penalty.
I am, it’s the first sentence of her post.
Yes, I see now that you also have misinterpreted the argument.
The fact that more poor people and black people get sentenced to the death penalty is not a problem of the death penalty but of the justice system that delivers people to it.
Were the death penalty abolished, there would be more black people and poor people serving whatever sentence (life, probably) that replaces it.
The problem of the unfairness of the justice system will not be solved by abolishing the death penalty. Mistakes aren’t corrected by magic, they are corrected by appeals, usually involving lawyers. An innocent poor person who fails to avert the death penalty would probably fail to overturn a life sentence for the same reason: he can’t afford good enough lawyers.
Jerry, I would include Singapore in the list of first world countries with the death penalty. They are very secretive about it.
The argument that we are the only first world country — save Japan — and therefore we must be wrong it isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit. How many of those countries lack a first amendment? Shall we abolish it? When more of them pass blasphemy laws, should we go along?
“The argument that we are the only first world country — save Japan — and therefore we must be wrong it isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.”
I don’t see that as the argument. Rather, I take it as a given that the death penalty is primitive and barbaric, and where we stand in comparison to other countries argues that we’re behind them in adopting more modern, civilized ideologies.
So you see the argument as circular rather than fatuous.
The argument is neither circular nor fatuous. It is wise policy for modern industrialized democracies to consider (and, perhaps, learn from) each others’ collective experiences in addressing common issues, especially for nations that find themselves outliers in this community of nations.
Also, while other such nations may not have a first amendment per se, and while they may employ their own schema for doing so, most modern industrialized democracies guarantee their citizens religious liberty, free expression, and a free press. Those that yet do not will, I hope, look to and learn from the US experience in determining whether to adopt them.
+ 1
The collective experience of similarly-situated nations, for example, certainly acted a catalyst for the worldwide abolition of chattel slavery among modern democracies.
Granted, the Confederacy didn’t find this argument worth more than a bucket of warm spit, either.
No one answered my hypothetical I notice, merely reacted emotionally. If that map showed blasphemy laws in place of abolition, would you give it weight?
The argument only makes sense if you think people can’t make judgments about propositions. If you refuse to filter outside ideas with, “is this a good idea or a bad idea” then you are stuck as you propose.
Otherwise not.
Any cursory glance at history (the last few centuries) will show that the death penalty, right along with slavery, female chattel state, torture, serfdom, feudal legal systems, blasphemy (even religion in some enlightened places), bodily mutilation for petty offenses, exposure in the stocks, (“cruel and unusual punishment” in general, Amdmnt. VIII) are things that societies have done away with as they become more civilized.
If it turned out that the US was the outlier — that every other modern industrialized nation in the world had a functioning blasphemy law — then the US would do well carefully to consider the public policies served by such laws and the experiences of other nations in enforcing them.
After such careful consideration, the US would undoubtedly continue to reject enactment of a blasphemy statute as sound public policy in light of such laws’ logic and history, and in light of our own nation’s long experience in living without one. Either way, we shouldn’t simply reject the idea out of hand by plunging it into a warm bucket of spit.
When subjected to this same level of careful scrutiny, the death penalty doesn’t fare very well at all.
Extremely well put, all that you wrote.
A warm bucket of spit is birds nest soup. Worth quit a lot actually.
Well, most (all?) of those countries lack a second amendment as well – and if we are talking about “civilized” I would say that is a plus rather than a minus.
I am soooo happy to hear that you’re FEELING THE BERN, Jerry. Yes, Clinton does pander and that has made her untrustworthy in my eyes.
Reblogged this on PACIFIC ISLAND BEACON.
To my mind, the most cynical, most awful thing that anyone named Clinton has ever done in public life was the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a profoundly retarded African-American inmate in Arkansas — a man so profoundly retarded (as a result of a suicide attempt following his crime spree) that, at the traditional “last meal” preceding his execution, he gave a prison guard his pecan pie and asked him to “save it for me for later.”
Bill Clinton made a show of leaving the campaign trail in New Hampshire in 1992, shortly after the Gennifer Flowers scandal broke, to return to the governor’s mansion in Little Rock to preside over the execution — part of his ongoing effort to burnish his “law and order” credentials, of a piece with his “Sister Souljah” moment and his signing of the unconscionable Crime Control Act of 1994. Two nights after Mr. Rector’s execution, Bill Clinton appeared on “60 Minutes,” Hillary at his side, to deny Ms. Flowers’ allegations, prompting her to release the tape-recordings of their private telephone conversations. Never forget.
I voted for Bubba, twice, both times as the lesser-evil as compared to his Republican opponents. On the whole, I think he was a pretty good president, certainly better than the two Bushes that bracketed him. But I will never forget the Rector execution; nor will I ever forgive Bill Clinton for it.
Yes, indeedy. I have had a long history of cursing Bill but voting for him. Admiring his clarity and nuance in answering difficult policy questions, while shouting at the television over his lack of conscience in the areas that you speak. We are likely back in it for another 4 years.
Better to execute 10 innocent people, than to let one guilty man go free…or something.
Indeed.
Ah, what I’d like to know is whether she believes in libertarian freewill, or whether she has come to see through the illusion.
I didn’t realize Russia had abolished executions. So Russia is free of executions at least in principle even though a number of people like Litvinenko are alleged to have been killed at the request of a state official.
I had the same line of thought upon seeing the map…
OTOH, Hillary hasn’t shied away from taking on the NRA. But Bernie…
“Tomorrow is Primary Day in Illinois, and I just might vote my conscience.”
I think Sanders is the clear cut better candidate. Hillary has absolutely no morals.
I hope a ‘yuuuge’ percentage of your young people will get out and vote! Often, they throw up their hands and say, “What’s the use?” I got my son out to vote with us with the promise of pizza afterwards (some o’ these yout’s, eh?…. he thought it was in the bag for Trudeau but I reminded him not to leave it to chance!).
Yes, it sometimes seems that until they can vote with their phones, today’s youth just aren’t gonna get to the polls. (“Today’s youth” includes 2 that are mine.)
Does HRC have any Principles ? Feel the Bern.
I put this in a reply above; but I’m repeating it here.
I am against the death penalty due to the following set of facts:
1. Death is permanent
2. People are fuck-ups (juries too)
Unless you are 100% confident in US juries it’s hard to be in favor of the death penalty.
———–
The IL governor stopped all executions in IL a while back when it turned out that DNA evidence showed that about 30% of the people on death row there were in fact innocent.
Stop for a moment and think about what it would feel like to be led to the death chamber as an innocent person. Think of the impact on the innocent, executed person’s family, their children.
Based on what has been turned up by the Innocence Project and others (see IL case, above), it’s guaranteed that we have, in the US, executed many innocent people. Probably hundreds, at least.
Our (USA) system is set up with a bias towards the accused by intention. It is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent one to be punished (in the case under consideration, the ultimate punishment, and permanent).
Well said.
Another thing to consider about the death penalty. (References on request.) I have read that it is actually an anti-deterrent. So if one of your reasons for punishment is that it reduces crime, then so much for that idea …
This is what experts believe:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent
I have long thought that it not only doesn’t deter but actually encourages murder.
The human psyche, especially among young men, loves dangerous things. Think of the thrill of jumping out of airplanes or off of cliffs. Why are motorcycles so much fun? Why do young men join the military? Patriotism, sure, but there’s much more to it than that.
Ted Bundy’s last victim would still be alive today if he hadn’t gone to get his next thrill in a death penalty state, just because he heard that it was a death penalty state.
I am in full agreement with you, Jerry. I am viscerally against the death penalty. Civilized countries have long banned the death penalty.
As have several US states.
Indeed, and it’s all to their honour. I cheered each time another state abolished it. 🙂
I am not going to address any particulars here. There are people who have no moral center. That was Bill Clinton with his “depends on what the meaning of “is” is when he was the second president to be impeached, and his “wife”. His partner, Hillary, may actually be worse than he. If the reader has no memory of their record, I would refer your to their muddled history in Arkansas in the 1980s, their involvement in nursing homes, etc. Corrupt. Just research it. Appalling.
I clearly recall that Macbeth-woman, a US Senator, urging on a supporter to commit suicide, I am not kidding, on the record, during a committee investigation, on C-Span. Given what happened to Vince Foster, that was real hubris on her part. Cannot find it now on the internet, of course.
There is more that I can bring forth, but evil is evil and that woman would be our Eva Peron, as Trump would be our Putin.