US - Hillary Clinton Wants Death Penalty to Be “Legal, Limited and Rare”

Patheos
Hillary Clinton, speaking to students at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, has called for the death penalty to be “very limited and rare.”

Clinton outlined her belief regarding the use of capital punishment in response to a question asked by a student from the college’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics during a Q&A. “I do not favor abolishing it,” she said of the death penalty,

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

Her defense of the death penalty puts her in opposition to her rivals for the Democratic nomination for President.
Senator Bernie Sanders has called for an end to capital punishment nationwide; instead, he quipped that the U.S. should “lock people up… and throw away the key” when they commit “terrible murders.”
And former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley abolished capital punishment in Maryland during his term of office.

The Catholic Church, too, stands in opposition to Mrs. Clinton in judging the immorality of the death penalty. In Section 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the life of a guilty person can be taken only if no other means is available to protect society; and that in today’s society, the case in which execution would be necessary is “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” According to Section 2267 of the Catechism:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Beyond the matter of necessity, another reason that the Church regards the death penalty as a horrendous use of force is that the criminal himself, were he permitted to live out his natural life, would have greater opportunity for repentance and could ultimately could find his way back to Christ, securing his eternal salvation.