2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOpinion: The problem with Hillary Clinton's stance on the death penalty
(snip)
Sanders staked out the opposite turf from Clinton, arguing that the death penalty is too prone to error to be trusted but also said more broadly that of course there are barbaric acts out there. But in a world of so much violence and killing, I just dont believe that government itself should be part of the killing.
To her credit, Clinton has said she would breathe a sigh of relief if the Supreme Court were to ban the practice. But there are two underlying problems with her position as staked out Thursday night. First is the implication that effective counsel is all it takes to guarantee a fair trial, when many of the death penalty exonerations weve seen in recent years have hinged on prosecutorial or investigative misconduct (including hiding potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense) and lying witnesses. Even the best defense lawyers will have trouble overcoming such practices.
Second is Clintons suggestion that somehow the federal system has got it right on how to get a clean conviction and a method of execution that is not unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. She cited the case of McVeigh, whose atrocious act of anti-government terrorism killed 168 people, including children at a day-care center, in the federal Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. That was a heinous act of terrorism, and she called his execution appropriate.
But its only appropriate if you view vengeance as the purview of the state. McVeigh was irredeemable and caused unimaginable pain and loss, but that doesnt mean it was just for the government to kill him in return. If killing is wrong, then its inconsistent to vest that power in the state. Thats the moral argument against the death penalty. The pragmatic one expensive, indiscriminate, prone to manipulation doesnt inherently give the federal system a pass. In an adversarial judicial system, the goal is to win as much as it is to reach truth and justice.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-clinton-sanders-presidential-debate-death-penalty-20160205-story.html
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... try to understand what her audience of the moment wants to hear.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Simply put, Hillary does NOT represent me.
There are so many issues which she is basically a conservative on, I'm fed up with this merging of the 2 parties. I would love for one of her supporters to chime in here and tell us all how her position on the death penalty is any different than W's.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)With no real consequences. Remember how John Kerry's "I actually voted for it, before I voted against it" was played on an endless loop? (With no attempt to put the awkward phrase in context). Yet Clinton can say essentially "Of course,I support the death penalty, but I would be relieved of the practice was banned." Huh? If you believe in it, why would you like to see it banned? If you would be "relieved" if it was unconstitutional, how can you want to see it imposed until such time that YOU get "relief"? (Sorry to the dead people, and the millions of dollars spent implementing the death penalty until we get that relief) It's crazy talk. Yet it just rolls by like a gentle stream.