Saddam Hussein

[Diego Varen]

He does deserve to die after what he has done in Iraq. If they don't kill, do as lukeiamyourdad said and let him rot in the bottom of the hole he was captured in.

[MdKnightR]

I don't really understand the need of killing him. Isn't it a bit too sweet? I'd rather have him rot at the bottom of the hole he was captured in. Surely, those who want "justice" must prefer having him suffer many years for what he did rather then spending a few seconds choking on rope.

 

The problem with "letting him rot" is who's gonna pay the bill to keep the sorry SOB alive for the next 20+ years? People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is. Supposing for a moment that opponents of capital punishment are right and it doesn't deter others from committing crime, it at the very least deters the one executed from ever harming others again!

[Negative Sun]

Let's throw him in the Great Pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the almighty Sarlacc...

 

That would be a fitting punishment I think

[Vaelastraz]

Hanging? Didn't know that was the method of death penalty in the Iraq.

 

I'm against the death penalty, so no comment from me on that...

[Ztalker]

I'm against the death penalty too.

it's an easy way out for a mass-murderer like him. He should be sentenced life-long. His prison inmates will punish him much harder then that stupid rope can.

 

Plus, I just want to go to his prison, with some popcorn, and watch him getting beat up by his mates, thus becoming a prison b*tch. THAT's what he deserves.

[RC-1162]

finally. what took them so long?

now all we need is someone to get rid of the other PITA we have.

<_<

>_>

[manoman81]

Folks, the Americans aren't imposing the sentence, the Iraqis are. They're the ones who tried and sentenced him, and the ones who will execute him.

 

I was just about to say something to that effect. Also, I would rather it be the Iraqis than the US. If the US was the one to sentence him, we'd be in more trouble.

 

.....Granted he should been sent to the Hague, but that's another thread...

[Darth333]

The problem with "letting him rot" is who's gonna pay the bill to keep the sorry SOB alive for the next 20+ years? People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is. Supposing for a moment that opponents of capital punishment are right and it doesn't deter others from committing crime, it at the very least deters the one executed from ever harming others again!

I am not convinced about that. Not only I oppose to death penalty per se but I fear that Saddam's execution could only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq.

[Jae Onasi]

@LIAYD--even momerators can have the occasional confused moments and writings with incomplete clarity , but it was Emperor D's comment

"It would be more humane, which is precisely why we're not doing it." and Mav's

"...employing the attitude that we have the "right" to exert equal punishment on said individual is foolish" that triggered my thoughts. I took the 'we' to mean 'we Americans', and thought it was necessary to clarify. No worries on the understanding thing. It never occurred to me that people could perceive it the way you did (or I would have written it differently), but I can see how you got to that conclusion.

 

I am not convinced about that. Not only I oppose to death penalty per se but I fear that Saddam's execution could only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq.

 

I'd tend to agree with that, but unless they housed him in a maximum security prison in another country, I'm concerned it would be all to easy for him too escape.

[JediMaster12]

Saddam is getting hanged by order of the Iraqui court system. As one who thinks enough killing has been had, it is extreme. then again we used to think it the right thing to do in the Old West out on the frontier. As someone who believes in trial by jury, while I don't the facts that were presented, I would say that Saddam will get his due. President Bush claimed that it was a milestone. Personally I have not seen progress made in Iraq. Now I am hearing that the snipers have gotten better at killing our boys over there or even just injuring them. As far as I am concerned, Saddam was a tyrant who abused the power that we helped him gain in the first place and now he is paying the price. Hanging, lethal injection, fine by me though I think an execution squad would be an extreme.

[Emperor Devon]

I took the 'we' to mean 'we Americans', and thought it was necessary to clarify.

 

I hadn't been thinking when I said 'we'.

 

Out of general curiosity, though, why are so many people against the death penalty? It's not as if he's being hanged (yes, that's proper grammar) without reason.

[CSI]

To kill a Saddam Hussein is not the problem people should concern--at least I don't care about if he's hanged or drowned or shot. I think the biggest problem should be how to prevent another Saddam Hussein from rising in Iraq.

[Totenkopf]

Draw and quarter, anyone?

 

But seriously, we're not talking about execution of a jaywalker. I mean, in his case, if there were a scintilla of true doubt about SH's identity, you might have a point about capital punishment being extreme. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. Also, the Iraqis need no pressure from the US to kill this sob anyway b/c he's made enough internal enemies of his own these past 30+ years. There's no reason to send him to the Hague, however, as Iraq has the right to punish it's own criminals. The UN did little to bring this man down and thus has no jurisdiction over his fate. Hanging may be to good for him, but he is getting his just reward.

[ET Warrior]

Out of general curiosity, though, why are so many people against the death penalty?

Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?

[Mav]

Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?

I couldn't have said it better myself. QFE.

[Emperor Devon]

Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?

 

And what of how Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands? Shouldn't his punishment be somewhat equal to his crimes?

[JediMaster12]

Buddhists believe that all life is sacred. It is an inheret tenement in our moral system and most people do value life. That is what the insurgents count on when they use children and women to try and ambush the convoys. Retribution is not outdated and is in fact very much alive today. However, we must have some sort of justice system in order to keep what we call law and order otherwise chaos ensues.

[lukeiamyourdad]

And what of how Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands? Shouldn't his punishment be somewhat equal to his crimes?

 

Are we inherently better then him if we order his death?

 

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I always believe that someone can be redeemed. Ok, Saddam may be a special case, but I'm talking about death penalty as a whole.

 

People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is.

 

Statistics would prove you wrong. The United States has a pretty high crime rate for a country that has the death penalty when compared others that don't. Of course, it oversimplifies the issue as many other variables can come into play. I simply say that the idea that death penalty alone is a deterrent for crime has already been proven false.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, how do you prove a negative like that? Fact is, we don't really know what effect that capital punishment has on influencing people not to commit a capital crime. It might be more accurate to claim that since you can't quantify the impact, it would be better to drop the issue as a whole. You have no way of knowing that those people already guilty of capital offenses would do if death were swift b/c you're not there when they make that decision either. And you can't necessarily take for granted what people say b/c they may only be telling you what they believe you want to hear. One thing about deterence is irrefutable, dead men can't recidivise.

[Emperor Devon]

Are we inherently better then him if we order his death?

 

As we're not conducting large-scale civilian killings, I'd venture yes. But what matters is that we're serving justice.

 

Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I always believe that someone can be redeemed. Ok, Saddam may be a special case, but I'm talking about death penalty as a whole.

 

The death penalty should be used infrequently, in my opinion. Saddam, though, seems far from redeemable.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Actually, how do you prove a negative like that? Fact is, we don't really know what effect that capital punishment has on influencing people not to commit a capital crime. It might be more accurate to claim that since you can't quantify the impact, it would be better to drop the issue as a whole. You have no way of knowing that those people already guilty of capital offenses would do if death were swift b/c you're not there when they make that decision either. And you can't necessarily take for granted what people say b/c they may only be telling you what they believe you want to hear. One thing about deterence is irrefutable, dead men can't recidivise.

 

 

Then why have capital punishment if nobody knows the actual effect of it?

Indeed, it is not easy to quantify the effects, but if you don't know why you're doing it, it kills its purpose.

If you kill the criminal it deters him from doing anything else since he's quite obviously dead. However, is that the point of capital punishment? Is it not used to tell other criminals to not commit crimes? After all, if that was not the idea behind it, keeping the criminal behind bars for the rest of his life would achieve the same end.

 

The fact remains that the US crime rate is not lower then other countries that don't use capital punishment. The question is why? I specifically mentioned that many variables will come into play, either it be the social net, the mentality, the help given to the lower classes, etc. There's no real practical way to test this.

[Totenkopf]

This should be a bit of a no-brainer. The actual effect of capital punishment is a dead criminal. You probably meant the deterence effect. I'm not so sure it tells them not to commit crimes (the laws actually do that), but puts them on notice that death is a distinct possibility in their "near" (15-20 after appeals, I s'ppose) future. The problem with criminals is, as you rightly note, that we don't know what exactly is the deciding factor (nature v nurture) in their choice to run afoul of the law. Still, if the death penalty isn't going to stop people from committing capital crimes, it's equally obvious that the prospect of life behind bars doesn't deter either.

[MdKnightR]

Statistics would prove you wrong. The United States has a pretty high crime rate for a country that has the death penalty when compared others that don't. Of course, it oversimplifies the issue as many other variables can come into play. I simply say that the idea that death penalty alone is a deterrent for crime has already been proven false.

 

The problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is that it is not swift enough. Criminals here are executed after sitting on death row for about 20 years and then they are "put to sleep" in a silent ceremony. That's long enough for the general public to forget why they are there in the first place. If it were swiftly dealt and done in public without anesthesia (I prefer the guillotine), the people would get to see the horrors of execution and it would be quite effective in deterring future crime.

[Emperor Devon]

^^^

That sounds bold. Are you advocating it for just certain types of crimes?

[TK-8252]

The problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is that it is not swift enough. Criminals here are executed after sitting on death row for about 20 years and then they are "put to sleep" in a silent ceremony. That's long enough for the general public to forget why they are there in the first place. If it were swiftly dealt and done in public without anesthesia (I prefer the guillotine), the people would get to see the horrors of execution and it would be quite effective in deterring future crime.

 

I partly agree with you. I do think that the way we execute people now is lousy. I mean, an execution shouldn't be like a surgical procedure. Now, a guillotine is far too extreme for me, but hey, nothing wrong with a good ol' firing squad.

 

But here's where I disagree - the fact that they sit on death row for a couple decades, while tedious for those who are victims of the person's crimes, isn't a BAD thing. That's how long it takes for the appeals process to play out. If we just up and executed people after their conviction, we'd end up executing innocent people.

 

Just on a final note, I'm against the death penalty - not because I don't think it would fit the crime, but because I don't believe in government having that much power. Government always manages to screw things up, so they'll screw up executions too. There have been innocent people executed in the past, and as long as there is a death penalty, there will continue to be innocents executed.