Evidently, to that poster, any criticism of HRC, is just evil.

I had no idea using her own positions was not allowed.
And worse than the death penalty is kinda stretching it.

It's just as bad as putting someone to death?

She's fine on social issues, it's economic issues where she totally sucks.

I trust you understand that it's not possible to effectively change that.

The problem is the criteria for handing down death is imperfect.

It should only be given to absolute 100% guilty people.

Then I started seeing the innocent men freed on Death Row. Imagine if that were you?
Also, it is WAY more expensive than keeping someone locked up for life.
Lastly, Death seems the easier way out than living and knowing that prison and its harshness is all you will ever know, unless you are innocent, of course!

(I say 'men' because they are nearly always men).

the 1992 New Hampshire primary campaign. I'll bet you "agree" with that too. You're one tough internet warrior all right.

could support the death penalty now that DNA testing has shown us how many innocent people get convicted of serious crimes.

That's really disappointing and disgusting. Here I thought criminal justice reform was going to be a major plank of her platform, yet she supports killing prisoners? Disingenuous at best. Barbaric and arcane position based on hate and vengeance. An it's racists. Shame on you Hillary Clinton.

That is not my idea of a forward thinking champion. Or a liberal.

I find DP barbaric, frankly I would prefer prisons work to rehabilitate prisoners who will later be released back into society, and instead of DP give them life in prison, never get released.

No, I'm amazed about the same.

*SOME* pro-lifers are also against death penalty - because they believe life should end naturally just as the life should begin.

I'm pro-choice though, and do not support the death penalty. The harshest punishment is life without parole, doing time alone in a cell.

That is harsh, but humane punishment, and save taxpayers millions, and gives less headache all around.

The sooner the states gets it, the sooner the bloodlust will end. Nebraska bravely ended it, and now they have a crazy governor intent on killing the last 10 death row inmates with drugs that the FDA has banned, and probably intercepted from India?

I'll go first: Education and reduced poverty.

Get the private sector out of the fucking school AND prisons.

Also, way back in sociology classes 101 (this was earl y 90's) I don't think ANY data supported the death penalty doing more than giving the papers and media something to sell news and those who's lives were tragically affected by the crime their 15 minutes of public statement.

It's more costly to be on death row, going through appeal after appeal, and termed imprisonment should be rehabilitative in examining what the crime cost human lives, including the inmate's.

I just love how people support something they've hesitated to investigate. Is there anywhere on DU where this conversation has ensued? We should be talking about the issues, and that's why I asked.

Four arguments are commonly made in opposition to the death penalty. Let me review them before moving on to the particular concerns I want to discuss. Here, then, are the traditional arguments:

First, we have no need for a death penalty to protect ourselves from murderers because Wisconsin law permits us to put them in prison for life without hope of ever being released.

Second, it is expensive to seek the death penalty. Studies in other states have shown that it costs more to sentence a murderer to death and then wade through the appeals process than it would have to simply imprison the criminal for life.

Third, there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person. Some people seem to think that the use of DNA evidence is an absolutely certain means of avoiding such errors, but that is simply not so. Any number of events, ranging from misbehavior on the part of police officers to errors at the crime lab, could bring about terrible miscarriages of justice.

And fourth, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. Just consider for a moment—can you imagine criminals thinking to themselves, “I want to go on a killing spree, but they will put me to death if they catch me, so I won’t do it. However, I would go out and murder a bunch of people if all I had to face was life without parole.”

If you think the death penalty is somehow going to make you safer, how do you explain this?—Murder rates per 100,000 population range from a low of 1.2 in Maine to a high of 13.0 in Louisiana. Twelve states, including Wisconsin, have no death penalty. The average murder rate for these states is 2.90. The remaining 38 states have the death penalty. Their murder rate per hundred thousand residents is 5.3. The probability of this being a chance result is less than one in a hundred.

At 3.3 murders per 100,000, Wisconsin has a slightly higher murder rate than the average for states without the death penalty, but considerably lower than the average for states with the death penalty. Why, then, should we be in any hurry to legalize the death penalty and thereby join the group of states with the higher murder rates?

Another question—Might there be something about having a death penalty that causes states to have a higher murder rate? As a psychologist, I think there may be a connection. Let us make no bones about it. To approve the death penalty is to assert that it is permissible for a large number of people—the state—to gang up and put one of its members to death. When a state authorizes executions, it is in effect saying that killing is not only permissible, but is in fact desirable, in some circumstances, including circumstances that do not involve immediate self-defense. Children learn both behaviors and attitudes by the example of their elders. From what we know of child development, there is every reason to imagine that children who grow up in a society that approves the killing of human beings will have lower inhibitions against killing than do children whose society teaches an absolute intolerance of killing.

Wisconsin has never executed a criminal since attaining statehood in 1848, and explicitly forbade the practice in 1853. This is a proud tradition that I believe to be worth keeping.

Damngood!

the 1992 New Hampshire primary campaign, just to take everyone's attention off Gennifer Flowers and prove how 'tough' he was on crime. It was the perfect DP two-fer. That family has some serious fucking issues.

'Nuff said.

Unless he is, it is irrelevant.

Ricky Rae Rector? If not, then it is all too relevant and helps explain that pesky little vote by her to invade Iraq in 2002, killing a cool 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in the process.

my spouse does which I disagree with?

I'm not saying she does disagree with it. I don't personally know, or care, because she is pretty much my last choice in the Democratic primary - regardless of her position on this issue.

What I AM saying is that she should be supported or condemned for her own actions, not those of Bill.

with her ongoing silence? It got him out of the Gennifer Flowers dog house (at least momentarily) and proved to voters that he was 'tough on crime.'

Yeah, that's tough, all right, executing people who don't even understand what's going on.

Jesus, you pro-DP people. Why don't you bring back drawing and quartering while you're at it?

I have been an opponent of the death penalty since childhood, long before my brother spent 20 year on death row and came within 36 hours of execution. My comment to you has nothing to do with being pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty, pro-Hillary, or anti-Hillary.

It has to do with judging a politician, especially a female politician, by the actions of her husband - or demanding that she expressly support or deny anything he did.

For the record: I can't stand Hillary - and I about as far away from being a death penalty supporter than anyone you are likely to meet.

But, also for the record: I also hate misogyny. I don't see misogyny in a lot of the corners in which HRC supporters do - but I definitely see it in judging a female politicians by the actions of her husband.

silence about Rector's execution? Really, no problem at all? Just another day at the office, eh, Bill?

Pardon me if that stretches incredulity to its limits. Must be my misogyny talking.

Go after her for her own record or positions.

As to "just another day at the office," that's a conversation between the two of them. No one is obligated to publicly defend or condemn the actions of their spouse.

I suspect you wouldn't have to look far to find reason to condemn her for her position on the death penalty. It isn't anything I plan to spend time searching for because there's not a chance in the world I'll be voting for her in the primary.

But yes, it is misogyny when you say she's evil, look what her husband did - which is the substance of first post I responded to.

As to your sarcasm, you won't have to search very hard to find statements I have made on this board condemning the death penalty, and opposing Clinton.

seem to fall very far from the tree in that clan. They view us commoners as mere instruments of their will, but not as anyone they need to take seriously or treat with respect. (See Iraq 2002-03.)

I know I wouldn't want to be judged on the actions of mine. In fact that seems rather like a right-wing attitude.

If someone doesn't want to judge a woman based on her husband's actions, then they are suddenly pro-death penalty? What does one have to do with the other?

Hillary is not just someone who is married to someone else who did something disagreeable. She is running for president, and the someone she is married to is a former president. Her judgments on his actions are relevant. Of course I did not expect, and would not have welcomed, her input at the time--she was not elected to anything--but "now" is a different matter.

There are a variety of reasons one spouse might not comment publicly on the actions of another spouse, regardless of what roles they hold.

Her position on the death penalty is absolutely a valid concern. They are not, in any way, dependent on her willingness to publicly comment on any specific action her husband carried out in that realm. Comment on her position. Not on her husband's actions (the first post I responded to) or her willingness to publicly comment on her husband's actions on those issues. Both of those are based in misogyny, because they are not expectations we place on male candidates.

(And before I get a response, I'm pretty sure I have been publicly dismissive of many of the allegations going around that criticism of Clinton are based in misogyny. I just don't see it, for the most part. Particularly with respect to Clinton. But when there is a demand that a female politician be held accountable for her husband's actions, or at least publicly comment on them: )

a response. I want to know her positions, I want to know if she disagrees or agrees with Bill, not because she's married to him but because she wants to be president. I would ask the same of a male candidate who is married to a female previous president, if there were such a thing. I would ask the same of a Vice President currently running, regarding his previous running mate's positions. I would ask the same of a candidate who was or is Secretary of State, regarding his/her president's policies. Because of proximity, and because of essentially subordinate status, these people would be associated with someone else's positions, willy nilly. I would want to know what their positions are because they are running for office themselves.

But you can do that without making it a derivative of their spouse's positions.

A vice president/president relationship is different, as is secretary of state. As to the former, both were elected to those positions to work together to lead the country. We pay them to do that work on our behalf. As to the latter, in sorting out what her position really is, it would be important to know whether the hawkish actions she engaged in were because she believed it was the right thing to do or because she was a loyal member of the President's team.

While it is perfectly legitimate to ask her how she feels about the death penalty, no husband or wife, in the public eye or not, is obligated to publicly comment on the actions of the other.

but my problem is that she touts her experience in the White House as being a part of her public service, and a plus for her resume. If she wants to claim credit she must accept blame too (although personally I wouldn't do either).

"Two for the price of one" "ready on day one"

Bill's record is relevant. I don't think it is right to assume that she is in full agreement and support of everything he did, but I do think is fair to ask a out her position on anything Bill did in office or seeking office.

is not the same as asking her for her position on an issue. The post I responded to said absolutely nothing beyond "Look at what her husband did," imputing guilt by association.

Tackle her on the issues - I suspect she has a position on this issue I would find untenable. I don't agree with much of anything she says or does - except when the political winds happen to momentarily allign her concerns with mine.

But saying "ooh evil person - look what her husband did" is misogyny.

main advisors. We need to know where she stood on the things he did. DP, Glass-Steagell, etc.

Being married doesn't mean you have to hold the same views and attack problems using the same strategies. They are two separate people.

The US is among one of the only western democracies that still has the death penalty. Practically all of Europe and even Russia has banned it or no longer practices it. But we Americans cheer when our government executes people. We seem to have a thirst for watching people suffer.

And yes, the people who are ultimately executed here are almost always poor at the time of conviction and usually minority. They usually also had poor representation during the trial.

Even the fucking Koch Brothers has donated millions of dollars towards criminal justice reform. Our prison population is the largest in the world. And Hillary's husband is a big reason why.

That is to say that the citation in the link with respect to her position on the death penalty is indicated as being from Jan 2008.

That was over seven years ago.

Perhaps she has evolved on this issue as she has on several others.

...likes to flip on issues when the political winds change. Just like she did on homosexual marriage.

A textbook politician.

Also, her supporters are nasty. Calling Bernie supporters 'delusional' because in new WI poll, Bernie is 8% behind Hillary and Bernie supporters are "jumping for joy".

Poster says it's actually Hillary ahead by 8 the Bernie supporters should not be happy.

Well, if you looked at earlier polls...Bernie IS closing in. And if Hillary supporters ever thought her 48 point lead would never tighten up, it is they who are delusional.

In any case, this is the position she's held for years. So done with the excuses for her.

And the majority in this country no longer support it.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2229
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/less-support-for-death-penalty-especially-among-democrats/

that it's fine to support the dp if enough people support it. Did you feel the same way about marriage equality when majority opposed it? How about other civil rights?

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

How brave and principled!

Yes, it is revenge, but sometimes a rabid dog needs to be put down.

However, the OP is correct in that implementation is totally racist. Therefore, it is hard for me to support in its current state...but I don't wince when a serial killer is put to sleep.

Around 7000 people die in prison each year - Can you say that every single one was guilty?

Innocents are going to die in prison - Either by execution or behind bars. It's just a sad fact that no justice system is perfect. Still though, I'd think that focusing on making sure innocents aren't charged in the first place would be more beneficial then focusing on making sure innocents aren't given the death penalty.

is so much worse than Hillary Clinton being the only Democratic candidate right now who supports the death penalty.

libertarian crap. For the record, I've always been 100% opposed to the death penalty and am supporting a candidate that shares my views. If it is so frigging necessary to bash a Democratic candidate for her stance, at least do the work and find a real link to a honest source.

PS. Fuck Rand Paul.

has been used by numerous posters from every candidate position. It is hardly some Rand Paul dream site. Get a grip.

It is not bashing HRC to point out she is not in line with whom you or I support.

You want a different source? Go find one and post it.

a Democratic website as a source.

It is ridiculous to not use alternate sources especially if they are factually correct.

You might want to live in a protected little Democratic bubble. I and others do not.

is rah rah team sports adolescent replies.

Another one!

Yay team!!!!

Numerous times recently. I'm sure you've just been all over that.

Go to their 'about us" page and look at who they are. They have reps from all the major parties, libertarian, GOP, Constitution, Green, except one. Care to guess which one is missing? Then look at their press accolades page. World Nut Daily cannot stop gushing about them. Are their any press accolades from someone you would admit to reading/believing?

OK, it's run by a bunch of non-Democrats. Among non-Democrats, some would shamelessly lie to promote a political agenda. Other non-Democrats, however, would be scrupulously careful about getting their facts right. I don't know enough about "On the Issues" to know where they fall on that spectrum.

If some libertarians condemn both the ACA and single-payer but give correct reports about how each politician stands on health care, then their site is reliable even if you disagree with the conclusions they draw from the objective facts.

Have you found the site to be factually erroneous in its issue reporting?

Take any candidate that you are reasonably informed on and check out what on the issues says about them. Notice the omissions? Notice the major omissions? Notice how they ignore strong stances on issues preferring to focus on some other point? Their quiz and graphs are even more bogus. You aren't required to believe me, check them out.

There's subjectivity in deciding what's a "major" issue that should be included.

If a site accurately reports a politician's position on the death penalty, but chooses to omit his or her position on campaign finance, I'd consider that a major omission, but it doesn't give a reason to question what is reported.

On the other hand, if a site reports a politician's support for the death penalty, but omits to report that the same politician has also proposed a series of reforms to the criminal justice system aimed at making the death penalty less discriminatory, then I'd consider that erroneous. The site should not omit information without which what is stated, although accurate as far as it goes, is materially misleading.

...a far less permanent punishment.

There have been people in this country who have caused the death of tens of thousands and yet they still walk among us.

a million.

The ghosts cry out for a justice that never comes, that seemingly recedes like the blue light at the end of Gatsby's pier, forever into the distance (in honor of your screen name).

courts make so many mistakes.

History will not judge her and Obama kindly on this issue.

That being said our last two Democratic presidents have been pro death penalty as has our last four Democratic nominees including one who interestingly went from from anti death penalty to pro death penalty when he ran for president.

You know what else I oppose-selective moral outrage.

"evolved" on the issue.

As long as she evolves to a position I hold I will just chalk it up another step on her journey to true wisdom.

She has a big megaphone and she could help eliminate this vile practice

Hopefully she will move in my direction.

But thank you for making stuff up about me from the anonymity of an internet connection.

eom

I am sorry that such small bore issues don't matter to some people.

Another day, another RW BS swiftboat attack. The posters must be up all night scouring the rw sites to find their quotas of Clinton attacks. As if it is actually benefiting Sanders.

Perhaps their time would be better spent working on this campaign rather than wasting time insulting dems on a dem board.

And sorry but I don't go to right wing sites. This is a liberal criticism, but you're trying to twist it. Disgusting. Oh, and YOU are the one supporting the much more to the right candidate. Pro death penalty, pro welfare reform, anti marriage equality until the majority supported it.

You are spending so much time insulting Clinton, I wonder if you have spent as much time investigating the candidate you have chosen to support?

Really, your quota has to have been met by now!? The latest threads are full of these attacks...But seriously, volunteer. You would need to adjust your tactics to fit Sanders' stated unwillingness to lie and distort, but I bet you could restrain yourself. Give it a thought.

clue you in, dear evergreen. I have posted far more ops about Bernie than Hillary. And, I've volunteered for Sanders in the past.

I'm not the one lying their ass off here. That would be.... yep.

Uh-huh.

Oh, wait, that was 2008. Her deeply held beliefs 8 years later must be totally different.

The true partisans haven't changed one bit, they can justify ~anything~.

because of the DP but because due to lack of funds many did not have real defense in court. Appointed defense attorneys do not always represent their client. I am still against the DP for that reason. Still happening.

sorry .

Bernie all the way!

it is about vengeance.

"Why I Oppose the Death Penalty," by Martin O'Malley (Washington Post: February 21, 2007)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001292.html

He states many arguments against the death penalty and concludes his opinion piece with this paragraph:

It is never okay.

The platform voted on by delegates elected at the most local and grass roots of levels, without media or billionaire direction, which states that the death penalty should not be arbitrary, and should be fairly applied. Certainly not that it should not exist.

There are so many arguments on this site, always self-serving, about what a REAL Democrat should think and support. Why it has apparently passed notice that REAL Democrats, outside web-based echo chambers and fringe dominance, actually vote on this question and put the results into a handy written document every four years is beyond me.

It's there for all to see. Not a single word in it with which I disagree, which is way more than can be said for many laughably touting themselves as arbiters of what "REAL" Democrats think.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

Supporting it is in line with the party plartform which Clinton wants to lead. It's possible, not even all that unlikely, that it may be written out of the platform soon, but 2012 is hardly the medieval era and no-one is seriously suggesting any fraudulent intent or voting in the platform writing process, so we can be safely sure that those elected by grassroots party members to write, edit and approve a platform on their behalf, at the most recent opportunity to do so, decided it was not just not grotesque, but worth applying the official imprimatur of the party. To criticize a Democrat for wanting to follow the Democratic Party Platform seems a bit ...strained. Of course we hear the same opinions that "real" Democrats can't support gun ownership or military endeavors either, both of which are also official party policies. All of those however remain simple subjective personal opinion, easily shown to be misaligned with the Democratic Party's official policy.

Nobody has to agree with the platform of course. It's only coincidence, and that passing no doubt, that I happen to agree with all of it. I certainly didn't write it. But disagreement moves one away from the ability to speak for what the party should espouse, not toward that ability. In this case HRC is simply the most part-aligned candidate. On another issue such as guns, she may move from that status and be replaced by Sanders, on another it may be O'Malley's turn to be more aligned. Disagreement is personally possible in any scenario, but who is the closest to the official position of the party is much less subjective, especially here, where Clinton is firmly where the party wants her to be.