Dems, Why Didn't Clinton Fight To Abolish the Death Penalty? Is He an Animal?

Question

Someone asked that question of "Christians"

Let's see are Peloi, Hillary and Obama animals too? They're not fighting to abolish it.

Answer 1

Who cares what any of these people think?---the death penalty is a very good thing and should be used more often and with less hesitance-----and we do not care when these commies think about it.

Answer 2

I can't speak for Clinton (either one) on this issue. However, some answers you have received are misinformed.

First, there have been two executions resulting from federal cases since McVeigh was executed- Juan Garza and Louis Jones, Jr.

There are crimes other than treason to which the federal death penalty applies- Murder related to the smuggling of aliens, murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country,
murder under many other circumstances.Murder involved in a racketeering offense.Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.

Beyond these, people do need to know the pragmatic facts about the death penalty system itself. Here are a few, all verifiable and sourced-

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think about the consequences or even that they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. Much of these result from the unusually complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (2 stage, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It’s not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.

Sadly, the Clintons do not seem to know the facts or care enough about them. I hope they will pay attention to the poll numbers, however.

Answer 3

Huh?

Since you are just mentioning national politicians let me point out something: the last time the Federal government executed someone was when Timothy McVeigh was given the lethal injection in 2001... it just does not happen that often... Personally, I would NOT want our nation's elected officials working on something that occurs so infrequently.

Whatever your beef is with the Clintons or the Democratic party this is a stupid argument. Attack your state legislators, most executions are ordered by the states. By the way, I support the death penalty but I don't attack politicians that have very little with this policy.

Answer 4

Clinton didn't have much to say about it as President. He might have had more power to do something back in Arkansas, where he could have advocated as Governor or used his influence as Attorney General.

The death penalty is a State issue. There is only one Constitutional capital federal crime: treason. ("Or not loving the government," said the Branch Davidians.)

Answer 5

The Democrats, like the Republicans, are a right-wing party. Both parties represent the needs and desires of the wealthy elite -- which is the definition of right-wing.

This issue just proves to illustrate how far they are from actually representing any of the interests of the political left.

Answer 6

Perhaps he was not in favor of abolishing the death penalty.
According to your line of thinking, apparently, a majority
of the adult population in the United States are animals.

Answer 7

Why is putting to death mangy animals that prey on innocent people be a bad thing. You really think serial killers, serial rapists, child molesters, and cold blooded savage murderers can really be rehabilitated and bring any value to society again??

Answer 8

Because even some liberals, as myself, support the death penalty.

Answer 9

I'm lib and I support the death penalty in some cases. What I don't like is that rich, white people who commit murder (and yes, they do it too sometimes) aren't held to the same standards. Who was the last rich person put to death? I don't think it is right that money can buy justice, sorry if THAT offends you.

Answer 10

hypothetical situation: someone murders your family for absolutely no good reason
do you want him dead or doing time in prison from where he might be released by parole after a few decades?

PS. humans are animals