Hillary Clinton Does Not Support Abolishing The Death Penalty

During a breakfast in New Hampshire yesterday, current democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton maintained her position that while she acknowledges the death penalty is “applied too frequently, and too often in a discriminatory way,” she does not support abolishing it. This position is one of a few that differentiates Clinton from her opponents Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley and is an example of her at times more centrist, politically calculated and, frankly, disappointing positions. The New York Times reports:

“We have a lot of evidence now that the death penalty has been too frequently applied, and too often in a discriminatory way,” [Clinton] said. “So I think we have to take a hard look at it.”

Mrs. Clinton added, “I do not favor abolishing it, however, because I do think there are certain egregious cases that still deserve the consideration of the death penalty, but I’d like to see those be very limited and rare, as opposed to what we’ve seen in most states.”

In other words, the death penalty is sought far too frequently and is racially biased, not to mention is hugely expensive and has been imposed on innocent people – read up on the stats via Amnesty International -but none of that matters as much as punishing really, really, really evil people. Except the point is that determining who is really, really, really evil still involves the same racially biased criminal justice system, the same judges and juries, and still could result in the execution of innocent people. Putting aside the separate but related moral issue, this is why the majority of countries, including the entire European Union, have abolished the death penalty — it’s impossible to impose it “fairly.”

[NY Times]

[Amnesty International]