The 'worst of the worst' myth behind Clinton's pro-death penalty stance

[portlander23]

The 'worst of the worst' myth behind Clinton's pro-death penalty stance
Scott Martelle
The LA Times

There are many arguments against the death penalty, from the inherent immorality of allowing a state to kill its own citizens, to the arbitrary and inconsistent application depending on the race of the convicted killer, and the race of the victim (black killers of white victims get the death penalty in a disproportionate number of cases). Geography matters, too. According to a 2013 report by the Death Penalty Information Center, “2% of the counties in the U.S. have been responsible for the majority of cases leading to executions since 1976 .… [A]ll of the state executions since the death penalty was reinstated stem from cases in just 15% of the counties in the U.S. All of the 3,125 inmates on death row as of January 1, 2013 came from just 20% of the counties."

Analyzing data compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center shows that since 1973 at least 156 people have been released from death row after being exonerated of the crime for which they were convicted, defined as acquitted, had all charges dismissed, or been granted a pardon based on evidence of innocence. So these aren’t the oft-cited “technicalities,” but either findings of innocence or the complete collapse of a prosecutor’s case.

The racial breakdown of the exonerated is heavily weighted to African Americans, who accounted for 81, or 52%, of the exoneration cases, while whites accounted for 61, or 40%, of the exonerations. Latinos (12 cases) and “other" (one case) accounted for the rest.

But the disparity extends further. The 156 exonerated people spent an average of 11.4 years on death row. But wrongfully convicted whites spent an average of nine years on death row, compared with the average 13.5 years blacks spent before being set free.

When you can’t be sure that the justice system is convicting the guilty, how can you rely on it to determine who lives and dies?

[jberryhill]

1. Those numbers are state numbers, not federal

First, I oppose the death penalty.

Second, the president, any president, has jack shit to do with state criminal justice systems.

Three, count 'em, three federal prisoners were executed this century. The ones next in line have been there since 1993.

In the larger scheme of things, federal death penalty prosecutions amount to diddly squat. More people are going to die this week from lack of access to health care.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Really. What does your comment have with a Democratic candidate supporting the

death penalty.

[jberryhill]

5. Same thing I said before on the subject

As a "presidential" issue, it's a bullshit issue with no practical effect on a damned thing.

How does she feel about sharks? They killed more people this year than federal prisoners executed in the last ten (which is zero, by the way).

It's a fun one, because everyone has an opinion about it, and an opinion about it is easy to have.

Like I said, I oppose it. I can guarantee you that the identity of the next president will have ZERO impact on the number of federal executions in the next four years.

It's one of a set of supposed "issues" that get bandied about in presidential politics despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with the office. Like the "here's my tax plan" shit, as if the president had any say in what the tax laws are going to look like. But since we act like we are electing a monarch with the power to do these things, I realize it's just pissing in the wind to point it out.

They'll keep piling up corpses in backwards shithole states across the nation regardless of who is elected president.

I'm voting for Sanders in my state's primary for our whopping 3 electoral votes, but I'm not going to live under the delusion it has anything to do with the death penalty either way. As a presidential "issue" it is bullshit.

[Luminous Animal]

10. You really think that a candidate for president stating their opposition to

the death penalty has zero influence on state legislatures, state candidates, and the general populace overall.

[jberryhill]

12. Yes I really do

If that is an issue of importance to you, would you care to name the last gubernatorial candidate for whom you voted?

[Luminous Animal]

16. In California. Didn't vote for either. The two parties have rigged the system

[Fumesucker]

28. The issue though does reveal something of the character of the candidate

Whether they believe in the infallible nature of the state or not.

[Uncle Joe]

4. As the President nominates Supreme Court Justices, wouldn't it be more likely that an

anti-death penalty President would end up shaping a future Supreme Court to the point that the death penalty nationwide becomes unConstitutional?

[jberryhill]

6. No

Okay, name one current sitting appellate judge who thinks that. I'll wait while you put together that list.

Go ahead, name such a person.

[Uncle Joe]

9. How about two and possibly three sitting Supreme Court Justices?

How a Victory for the Death Penalty May Hasten Its End

Instead, the justices upheld the use of midazolam, a sedative linked to three botched executions in the past 18 months. “Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a 5-4 majority, ruling that the condemned inmates failed to prove that the drug carried a “substantial risk of harm.” In the principal dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected Alito’s logic entirely. “Nothing compels a State to perform an execution,” she argued. “It does not get a constitutional free pass simply because it desires to deliver the ultimate penalty; its ends do not justify any and all means.”


The real debate, however, went far beyond sedatives and protocols. In a surprise move, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a separate dissent that called on the Court to revisit the death penalty’s constitutionality.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/death-penalty-kennedy/399419/

If there are Supreme Court Justices that are inclined to believe the death penalty to be unConstitutional, I see no reason that the same can't be true for appellate judges.

I do believe judges that are appointed are more likely to believe the death penalty to be unConstitutional versus those that are elected, there is more passionate political pressure on elected judges.

[jberryhill]

13. Who appointed those judges?

The pool of qualified jurists from whom either D candidate would draw is essentially identical.

Both of the justices you name (and one of those quotes does not say what you seem to think it does) were named by presidents who supported the death penalty.

The Constitution is actually pretty clear:

No person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment assumes a death penalty. It does not require one, nor do I believe there should be one. But it is also silly to believe the Constitution prohibits it, given the explicit mention of it.

[Uncle Joe]

19. That's why the keyword was two and "possibly" three.

Sotomayor could evolve her position from this statement to that of Breyer and Ginsburg.

Instead, the justices upheld the use of midazolam, a sedative linked to three botched executions in the past 18 months. “Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a 5-4 majority, ruling that the condemned inmates failed to prove that the drug carried a “substantial risk of harm.” In the principal dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected Alito’s logic entirely. “Nothing compels a State to perform an execution,” she argued. “It does not get a constitutional free pass simply because it desires to deliver the ultimate penalty; its ends do not justify any and all means.”

The pool may be the same but an anti-death penalty President would naturally give more weight to Justices along his or her line of reasoning.

As for the Fifth Amendment, the question can be raised as to what "due process of law" means.

due proc·ess

noun

noun: due process of law fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

Has history shown that fair treatment to be a hallmark of the American Judicial system?

[jberryhill]

21. Process is a different story

But that is very different from saying it is per se unconstitutional as a sentence.

But still, two of those judges were appointed by a person named Clinton who, as president, expanded the range of federal capital offenses, so your premise is false.

[Uncle Joe]

23. In regards to the death penalty, process is the total story, it simply can't be perfected and the

stakes for the state making mistakes are too high for the individual.

I knew who appointed the Justices when I made the post but it doesn't change my point, sometimes Justices do buck the political beliefs of a President appointing them but history has shown more often than not, that this is not the case.

[jberryhill]

17. Hint:

You named Breyer and Ginsburg - both nominated by a president who EXPANDED the range of federal capital offenses.

So your thesis about presidential opinions and Supreme Court outcomes need a little work.

[sabrina 1]

11. What every citizen, and last I looked that's what Hillary is right now, has 'jackshit to do with' is

to either morally take a stand against a barbaric practice this country shares with no other civilized nation, or not.

Hillary has taken a stand.

That says quite a bit about her as a human being. And it gives US information we need when making a choice as to who we want in the WH

Seems to me if YOU oppose this barbaric practice, it would be logical NOT to put someone into power who opposes you on something this important.

So I support the candidate who shares my views. That seems logical to me.

[jberryhill]

14. Uh-huh

So you also share your candidate's views on civil liability of gun makers?

Okay, so 18,000 annual gun deaths and 3 federal executions this century.

I support Bernie, but picking up every nothing-burger stick with which to beat his main opponent is just pointless. The president has zero effect on the death penalty.

[sabrina 1]

18. Really? You can drop the 'gun' meme, it isn't 'selling'

So you're a Bernie supporter?

But you are really worried about people speaking the TRUTH about Hillary.

I have a very logical mind. And when things don't make sense, I go with my instincts.

Hillary's support for the DP, for War, for Welfare Reform, for deregulation of the Big Banks.

Her position on TORTURE. I could go on. But you get the picture.

In what sense of the word can she claim to be a Progressive Democrat?

Wait, she doesn't.

Never mind

[jberryhill]

22. No, my problem is with what I view as bullshit issues

We don't elect a monarch and hand him or her a magic wand.

And just because I support Sanders (and I assume you can read:
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/debatewatchpartiesoctober13/4vm38) does not mean that every criticism of Clinton is substantive, fair or relevant to the office.

Your "logical mind" doesn't seem to grasp the powers of the office of president, nor who is in charge of executions in this country.

Again, there have been three federal executions this century. What do the candidates propose to do about shark attacks or lightning strikes - both of which will kill more people in the next four years.

[merrily]

24. The position a Democratic President takes on an issue has no impact? Think of Obama's

statement about having evolved on same gender marriage.

Besides, even if it's only three people per century, that's still three people.

More people are going to die this week from lack of access to health care.

Is this really the standard for deciding a Presidential position on the death penalty?

[jberryhill]

35. Obama made same-sex marriage legal did he?

And I suppose you'll tell me that Mitt Romney beat him to it in Massachusetts?

[merrily]

39. Why are you pretending I posted something very different than what I posted?

[SheilaT]

3. I always want to ask those who support the death penalty,

and also claim to be Christians, which part of the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment is unclear?

I've been told that the original Hebrew is even more direct: No kill.

Is there an asterisk? A list of times when it's okay? Where in the Bible is that list?

[jberryhill]

7. And the same God then told them to kill thousands

So, you want to tell a Bible banger that God said "don't kill anyone" and then said "now, go into the promised land and kill everything that moves"?

You think that argument pulls any weight with those nitwits?

God himself didn't have a problem killing all of those Egyptian kids, the people chasing the Israelites, or telling the Israelites to slaughter entire cities. These people have a highly nuanced view of that commandment which, even in context, can't be taken seriously.

[jberryhill]

8. Where is that list?

Are you serious?

Have you read the Bible?

It prescribes the death penalty for witches, disobedient children, and a whole raft of offenses.

Here's the list you wanted:


Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)

Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)

Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)

Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)

Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28 )

Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)

Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)

Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)

Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)

Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)

Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)

Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21 )

Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)

False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)

Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)

False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

There are more commandments than ten, and if you think the Bible is devoid of God affirmatively instructing people to kill people all over the place for a raft of reasons, then I have to wonder if you've ever looked at a Bible.

[sabrina 1]

15. The death penalty is barbaric, not about justice, as we claim our systm is about. It feeds the worst

of human emotions, a desire for revenge.

We are alone among civilized nations in continuing this medieval, vengeful practice which targets the poor, the mentally ill and disproportionately in our still racist society, minorities.

In this century I would think no intelligent person would want to be associated with it.

But I'm glad Hillary finally took a firm stand on something.

Perhaps her 'advisers' haven't looked at the polls on this issue lately and are still operating in the dark years of the 'tough on crime' era which most people now acknowledge, destroyed so many lives and families.

I wonder, do these politicians EVER see those less fortunate than themselves, as actual human beings?

[jberryhill]

20. I was responding to an idiotic point about the Bible

I oppose the death penalty, so I don't know what you are trying to convince me of.

The Fifth Amendment assumes a death penalty. It does not require one, nor should a civilized society have one.

Whether the US, or any state of the US, has one, has diddly squat to do with who is president.

President Sanders will not eliminate a single federal capital offense, nor will he have the power to stop a single state execution.

[JDPriestly]

26. That is the Old Testament.

Jesus instructed his disciple who had brought a sword to Gethsemane to put it away.

The New Testament quotations from Jesus are more pacifist. Jesus never advocated killing anyone.

[jberryhill]

30. So is the commandment in question

Why did his disciples carry swords? For peeling fruit?

Tell you what, go into a strange town, tell some woman to get you something to drink, then call her a slut and see where that gets you.

Better yet, hire only men, kill someone's fig tree, take a donkey, spend your money on foot massages, and tell poor people not to worry because rich people eventually go to hell. Well, whoopee!

Quite obviously, Jesus is history's worst communicator, given that the vast majority of people who bandy his name about are insufferable assholes.

[jberryhill]

34. No, Jesus taught eternal torment for "bad people" - and we get to WATCH them suffer

Cutting to the relevant chase on this parable:

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

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So, um, yeah, I can definitely see where Jesus rejected Mosaic law and its various death penalties.

Basically, Jesus' answer to "what about bad people in this temporary life" is "don't worry, they'll be in agony forever and you get the satisfaction of watching them suffer". Yay Heaven!

Parable of the sheep and goats - same thing. Jesus didn't have to advocate killing anyone, since he advocated torturing them forever.

[SheilaT]

31. Thank you.

Because your helpful annotation of the Bible points out the idiocy of believing in it as the revealed word of God, that bat-shit crazy sado-masochist.

All of the internal contradictions, and something that justifies pretty much every evil thing they do.

[jberryhill]

32. Oh, but what it "really" means is not at all what it says

Jesus is well known for having said "screw that stuff".

Take a look at the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

Basically, what it boils down to is that whoever was mean to you in this life will be eternally tormented, and you get to watch! So, in the afterlife you can be ten times the dick they were.

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

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

So, be a nice person in this life, so you can spend an eternity watching people suffer and saying, "Sucks to be you, fucker."

If "peace and justice" means "getting disproportionate revenge", then Jesus is your guy.

[SheilaT]

37. Which is exactly why I don't

consider the Bible to be a holy book, nor divinely inspired, nor something any sentient being should ever use to guide behavior.

[jberryhill]

38. Farmer's Almanac is a better one

[SheilaT]

42. LOL!

[JDPriestly]

25. K&R.

[sgtbenobo]

27. What is Max Baucus....

....doing today?

[WillyT]

33. K & R !!!

[Cosmic Kitten]

36. Liberals are not pro-death penalty murder, Hillary is no liberal

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. But..but..she's a real humanitarian. Except when it comes to the DP or torture or war.

Kinda like a vegetarian who eats beef, pork, chicken, but never eats skunks.

[cprise]

41. K&R