# Hussein sentenced... and hanged. Is capital punishment a good thing?



## luis masci

I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities. 
However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays. 
Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one? 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6117910.stm

----------------------------------
Corrections will be always welcome


----------



## ireney

Well, I am against the Death Penalty in general, and although I truly despise (being mild here) Saddam Hussein my views remain the same. And as far as I know there are far more "humane" ways to execute someone these days. Plus, although I personally don't believe that he didn't commit the crimes he is accused of (I have heard that claimed by some) I do think that his trial was a bit.. "controversial".


----------



## cuchuflete

In the context of a country in which people by the dozens are killed each day--executed--by car bombs, I think the attention on this particular butcher is misplaced.  The "insurgents", or murderers, to describe them more honestly, don't worry about such niceties as the means of executing the innocent.  Therefore it seems a little theoretical to fuss about the humaneness of killing one guilty of so many thousands of murders.

Now I know that the obvious difference is that this particular killing is to be carried out by "The State", and not just any murderous bastard with a grudge against the other tribe/religion/nationality.  I suppose that should make some difference.

Try discussing these fine points with the families of those tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein.


----------



## Tao

I'm not against the death penalty. I'm also not against the death penalty by public hanging. It might make people think of Medieval practices, but ah. We still wage wars, our societies still aren't "perfect", there's still lots of racism and/or discrimination going on, there's also corruption, decay of society, desctruction of the world, you name it. The ugliest of human emotions, of human activity is still existing nowadays, so when I have that knowledge I don't understand why we should make a big deal about public hanging. To show our level of civilization or anything else?
Please take my cynicism with a grain of salt


----------



## Dr. Quizá

This is another thing that's not better in Irak now than before the war. I don't even think an execution is the worst punishment possible, but I'm sure just after the execution of Hussein, the executions of lots (and lots, and lots...) of more innocent citizens will start in the streets just as a consequence.

Nice mess the US made in that country. It makes me sick.


----------



## la reine victoria

I am against Saddam Hussein being put to death. For once, just once, I agree with our PM, Tony Blair, who also opposes the death sentence.

Saddam still has many supporters in Iraq. Were he to be executed then the current dire situation would escalate into even more violence. Many more innocent people would lose their lives - men, women, children, babies, not forgetting the serving troops.

In my view he should spend the rest of his life in prison in a neutral country - not in Iraq, where it is very possible his supporters would try to get him released.

This unwarranted invasion of Iraq should teach world leaders a lesson. Don't go poking your nose into other countries' affairs on some flimsy pretext.  Just think of the number of innocent lives lost by this murderous, bloody attack.

The whole affair makes me sick.





LRV


----------



## ireney

I thought justice was not in the hands of the victim's families in any case. Even if S.H. was not the butcher he was. If we go by what the families of people tortured, murdered, rapped demand we'd be up to our armpits in blood.

I won't fall in the Doukakis trap. I don't know how I would react if S.H. had somehow harmed my family. I do know I shouldn't be asked what his penalty should be.

As for thinking of one, even the basest one, and whether he/she deserves the punishment he/she gets that's not wrong as I see it. The basic concept of democracy is that everyone has rights. Even S.H. 

Let's open a thread about his victims and we can talk about them there. 

I think that the argument of "he did worse" is not the best in this case. Justice shouldn't work this way. Nor do I agree with the argument "it's not as if we're so over violence anyway" because although this is true that doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise one incident of behavour that we don't agree because there are others even if they are worse. So if I steal and murder no one should dicuss how wrong it is to steal just because I also murder?


----------



## la reine victoria

> Cuchuflete
> Try discussing these fine points with the families of those tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein.


 


Try discussing these points with the families of those murdered by the bloody Americans and their allies.



LRV


----------



## übermönch

la reine victoria said:


> In my view he should spend the rest of his life in prison in a neutral country - not in Iraq, where it is very possible his supporters would try to get him released.



Well, *officially *he was tried by an incredibly independant Iraqi court after the newest Iraqi law, thus it would the peak of absurdity to jail him outside of the country.


----------



## übermönch

la reine victoria said:


> Try discussing these points with the families of those murdered by the bloody Americans and their allies.
> 
> 
> 
> LRV



Nice point. 



Victoria's post (and the hanging itself is already somewhat symbolic), reminds the Nüremberg trials held against Axis war crimes by an international Ally tribunal. 
Should they've tried the victors equally? 
(I think not.)


----------



## la reine victoria

> Cuchuflete
> Now I know that the obvious difference is that this particular killing is to be carried out by "*The State" *


 


Which State do you mean, exactly?  The newly "democratized" Iraq is in its infancy.  It's guaranteed that as soon as the invading forces leave then the old regime will be re-established.  A new dictator will take over (one of Saddam's loyal supporters) and it will be back to square one.

This whole invasion (it can't be called a war, since Iraq posed no threat to the western world) has been a total fiasco and has done more to threaten world security than anything else.



LRV


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The imposition of the death penalty under any circumstances is abhorrent to me, although I must admit that Saddam and his ilk make me come over all un-Quakerly at times.

If a punishment were the mirror image of the original crime, and we extracted an eye for an eye in the best tradition of the old testament, we'd all be blind and toothless and no farther ahead in terms of justice.  Justice and retribution are not synonyms.


----------



## Victoria32

luis masci said:


> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it seeing it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays.
> Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6117910.stm
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Corrections will be always welcome


No, you are not the only one! (You did say corrections are welcome... )


la reine victoria said:


> I am against Saddam Hussein being put to death. For once, just once, I agree with our PM, Tony Blair, who also opposes the death sentence.
> 
> Saddam still has many supporters in Iraq. Were he to be executed then the current dire situation would escalate into even more violence. Many more innocent people would lose their lives - men, women, children, babies, not forgetting the serving troops.
> 
> In my view he should spend the rest of his life in prison in a neutral country - not in Iraq, where it is very possible his supporters would try to get him released.
> 
> This unwarranted invasion of Iraq should teach world leaders a lesson. Don't go poking your nose into other countries' affairs on some flimsy pretext.  Just think of the number of innocent lives lost by this murderous, bloody attack.
> 
> The whole affair makes me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


And me also! I have received some emails from my (right wing) sister about it - it's even giving her pause!
Here is one of the links she sent... 
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1363


----------



## Sallyb36

I had to laugh at the hypocrisy when I heard that he had been sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity.  What is hanging a person until they are dead if not a crime against humanity?


----------



## Brioche

Chaska Ñawi said:


> If a punishment were the mirror image of the original crime, and we extracted an eye for an eye in the best tradition of the old testament, we'd all be blind and toothless and no farther ahead in terms of justice. Justice and retribution are not synonyms.


 
I think that the Old Testament is done an injustice by saying that it means we'd all be blind and toothless.
The point of that passage is that the punishment should fit the crime.
Small penalties for small crimes, big penalties for big crimes.
Neither death for double parking, nor two weeks in the slammer for slitting grandma's throat.


----------



## LV4-26

For obvious reasons, Sadam Hussein's death sentence is given much more media coverage than any other's. Therefore, I see it as just another occasion for us, death penalty opposers, to renew our opposition. 
That this man was a butcher, that there is no reason to make more fuss about his fate than about any other's, especially that of innocent victims (as Cuchu suggested, *and I agree with that*), doesn't change the fact that I'm opposed in principle to any death penalty. It's just another opportnity to protest against it.
My opposition is not concerned by the fate of the person  receiving the punishment  but by the society, the state, the human being giving it. The comandment is not "nobody shall be killed", it is not even "you shall not kill anybody", it is "you shall not kill" full stop. My concern is that the executioner, is degrading himself and degrading his status of human being.

Plus, it's always the same absurd logic : "we think that killing is bad, therefore we're killing you".


----------



## luis masci

Victoria32 said:


> No, you are not the only one! (You did say corrections are welcome... )


Victoria, of course I asked it, many thanks. I’m happy if you have found just only one mistake ( usually I make a lot), and yes, I see I’m not the only one.
About the link that you have shown, well... if he is not the real Hussein...what would I say? this trick would be a great solution to trap Bin Laden too. For sure there are many guys who look alike him.


----------



## Hockey13

cuchuflete said:


> In the context of a country in which people by the dozens are killed each day--executed--by car bombs, I think the attention on this particular butcher is misplaced. The "insurgents", or murderers, to describe them more honestly, don't worry about such niceties as the means of executing the innocent. Therefore it seems a little theoretical to fuss about the humaneness of killing one guilty of so many thousands of murders.
> 
> Now I know that the obvious difference is that this particular killing is to be carried out by "The State", and not just any murderous bastard with a grudge against the other tribe/religion/nationality. I suppose that should make some difference.
> 
> Try discussing these fine points with the families of those tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein.


 
There's a reason why the victims shouldn't be allowed to convict and sentence the accused, and that is one of the primary purposes for the state. As a mild Libertarian, I am against the death penalty, not because I feel any sympathy for the alleged guilty (in most cases) and quite obviously guilty (in Hussein's case), but because I fear the strengthening of the state. In my opinion, the ability to take a life is the ultimate strength a state can have, and it is no better than the crime that was committed.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> In the context of a country in which people by the dozens are killed each day--executed--by car bombs, I think the attention on this particular butcher is misplaced.  The "insurgents", or murderers, to describe them more honestly, don't worry about such niceties as the means of executing the innocent.  Therefore it seems a little theoretical to fuss about the humaneness of killing one guilty of so many thousands of murders.


Maevellously put, Cuchuflete.

I could not agree more. I am not in favor of death penalties, but really, whoever wants to save lives should target his efforts towards more rewarding issues.

Kajjo


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Kajjo said:


> I am not in favor of death penalties, but really, whoever wants to save lives should target his efforts towards more rewarding issues.



Who's saying the people who oppose this death penalty aren't doing this as well?

There's a logical fallacy in saying "this isn't very important, why don't you go do something more important instead?" - if we did this, we wouldn't get aynthing done. 
Obviously, the crisis in Darfur is much worse than the lack of subway carts in Oslo, but still politicians here are trying to solve that problem. Should they instead focus all their time on the worst international crisis because solving them will ultimately be more rewarding? 

Besides, I think not supporting a death penalty in a case like this is important - saying "we think the death penalty is such a crime against the human right to life that we won't even support the murder of this ruthless murderer" is about as good a way to mark the opposition to death penalty as any.


----------



## Hockey13

Lemminkäinen said:


> Who's saying the people who oppose this death penalty aren't doing this as well?
> 
> There's a logical fallacy in saying "this isn't very important, why don't you go do something more important instead?" - if we did this, we wouldn't get aynthing done.
> Obviously, the crisis in Darfur is much worse than the lack of subway carts in Oslo, but still politicians here are trying to solve that problem. Should they instead focus all their time on the worst international crisis because solving them will ultimately be more rewarding?
> 
> Besides, I think not supporting a death penalty in a case like this is important - saying "we think the death penalty is such a crime against the human right to life that we won't even support the murder of this ruthless murderer" is about as good a way to mark the opposition to death penalty as any.


 
I fully agree, though people _should_ pay more attention to Darfur.


----------



## Kajjo

Lemminkäinen said:


> Besides, I think not supporting a death penalty in a case like this is important - saying "we think the death penalty is such a crime against the human right to life that we won't even support the murder of this ruthless murderer" is about as good a way to mark the opposition to death penalty as any.


Yes, if this is your rationale, you might be right. I cannot follow that reasoning, though. There are differences and the world is not as black-and-white as death-penalty opponents like it to be. However, I do not want to turn this thread in a death-penalty discussion, so I refrain from further comments.

Kajjo


----------



## LV4-26

We* didn't start this. Death penalty opponents might not have commented the court's decision, should not have normally made that "fuss". I suppose most of them were glad to see SH arrested and judged. But, when other politicians started to make official declarations saying how they were rejoicing at that death sentence, it was only natural for capital punishment opponents to say "hey, wait a minute....."
_____________
* say, I'm putting myself in Tony Blair's shoes.


----------



## vlazlo

This may be off topic but does anyone know how/to what extent sharia has to do with his punishment?


----------



## cuchuflete

It's hardly off-topic at all, Vlazlo.  Saddam Hussein has always claimed to be a loyal adherent and proponent of his religion.  If the traditions and laws of that religion have something to say about what is appropriate punishment for murder, that should be considered in this conversation.  I don't know if Sharia does prescribe a death penalty.


----------



## Victoria32

LV4-26 said:


> ....... especially that of innocent victims (as Cuchu suggested, *and I agree with that*), doesn't change the fact that I'm opposed in principle to any death penalty. It's just another opportnity to protest against it.
> My opposition is not concerned by the fate of the person  receiving the punishment  but by the society, the state, the human being giving it. The comandment is not "nobody shall be killed", it is not even "you shall not kill anybody", it is "you shall not kill" full stop. My concern is that the executioner, is degrading himself and degrading his status of human being.
> 
> Plus, it's always the same absurd logic : "we think that killing is bad, therefore we're killing you".


Excellent points, LV! 


luis masci said:


> Victoria, of course I asked it, many thanks. I’m happy if you have found just only one mistake ( usually I make a lot), and yes, I see I’m not the only one.
> About the link that you have shown, well... if he is not the real Hussein...what would I say? this trick would be a great solution to trap Bin Laden too. For sure there are many guys who look alike him.


There are rumours (and have been for years) that Bin Laden has been dead (of kidney failure) since 2002. 


cuchuflete said:


> It's hardly off-topic at all, Vlazlo.  Saddam Hussein has always claimed to be a loyal adherent and proponent of his religion.  If the traditions and laws of that religion have something to say about what is appropriate punishment for murder, that should be considered in this conversation.  I don't know if Sharia does prescribe a death penalty.


As far as I know, sharia permits the victims to accept a cash payment in lieu of execution - so they're not bent on it... But I am sure there are people here more expert on it...


----------



## maxiogee

*Why* should he be executed?
What purpose will be served by his legally-sanctioned death?
Will this do anything for those bereaved of his victims? Will there be a deterrent value to his execution? 

I *really* fail to see what benefit his death will bring to anyone, and it exempts him from the misery of living out his years deprived of his freedom and his salted away funds.


----------



## cuchuflete

> *SHARIA COURTS IN NIGERIA PASS DEATH SENTENCES BY STONING*
> In September an Upper *Sharia* Court in Birnin-Kebbi, the capital of the northern state of Kebbi, sentenced Attahiru Umar, aged 35, to death by stoning.





> Over the past two years several northern states in Nigeria have introduced penal legislation for Muslims based on the principles of *Sharia*. Stoning to death has been introduced for a number of existing offences previously punishable to a lesser degree. In the legal tradition of *Sharia* the rules of evidence, rights of appeal, rights to legal representation and possible punishments are different from the laws which apply to citizens who are not Muslims.


source

Did the death penalty exist in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign?  If so, he must have approved of it.   

Is it morally right to impose views about legal penalties on another country?  How far is that from 'imposing democracy' on a culture in which it has no history?


----------



## ElaineG

> Did the death penalty exist in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign? If so, he must have approved of it.


 
From a Human Rights Watch report on the history of the death penalty under Saddam Hussein:



> It is not possible to determine with certainty the number of people executed by law or government order in Iraq each year. For the past two decades and with depressing regularity, the reported figures for those executed have run into the hundreds each year and, in some years, have reached several thousand.


 


> ... the government introduced mandatory death sentences for a variety of non-violent political acts. These included a range of offences connected with membership of the ruling Ba'th Party, such as the failure by party members to reveal any previous political affiliation; ...and membership of any party other than the Ba'th party by former members of the armed forces.12


 
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm

And then of course, there were the genocidal attacks on the Kurds, and probably countless other situations where Iraqis were murdered by Saddam Hussein's government without even the formality of calling it "the death penalty."

Perhaps it is my non-Christian upbringing (an eye for an eye), but my only objections to the death penalty (which can be quite strong) do not apply in this case. I believe that the death penalty in most ordinary cases should not be applied because procedural infirmities render the process unfair and permit the possibility that an innocent man or woman will be executed.

Whatever procedural defects Saddam's trial suffered from, and I'm sure he had more due process than he gave his victims, there can be no reasonable doubt that he is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. So I don't really care if he is executed.

That is particularly true if it is in keeping with the region and the culture. I know that many middle-Eastern countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, maybe others) have the death penalty. Who are we to impose Western European anti-death penalty sentiment on that culture? How will that be perceived by Saddam's victims?

The U.S. war was wrong from the beginning, worse today, and a cause of untold suffering and misery.

That does not make Saddam Hussein one _iota_ more sympathetic, justified or worthy. He was a murderous, genocidal, repressive, war-mongering dictator and he deserves the same type of punishment that was meted out at Nuremberg or inflicted by the Italian partigiani on Mussolini.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:


> Did the death penalty exist in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign? If so, he must have approved of it.


 No doubt about that.


> Is it morally right to impose views about legal penalties on another country? How far is that from 'imposing democracy' on a culture in which it has no history?


To the extent that _imposing_ implies using force, it is certainly not right. It would be a bit like trying to teach someone to be non-violent by inflicting violence on them (I seem to remember I've said something a bit similar not long ago).
What we're left with is saying (for those who don't) we don't agree, and that's what being done. Not very much as an ambition, I agree. No big effort either, for the politicians who say it. No big deal, on the whole. Just "mmm..we'd like to remind you that we're against the death penalty" but, well, I think it was worth saying.


----------



## cuchuflete

To Maxiogee's question: Why?

I don't believe in imposing the death penalty.  Now that that detail is out of the way, I don't vigorously oppose it either, in the case of exceptionally cruel, barbaric mass murderers, especially if their own cultures regularly apply it.

On to Tony's question.   I suppose that if this particular murderer were incarcerated for life, some of his supporters would try to get him out of prison. To do so, they would very likely have to kill quite a few people.  If you share these assumptions, _which are unprovable unless Saddam Hussein is
imprisoned for a life sentence or some other long term_, then his failure to be executed might well lead to more deaths than his own execution.  Among those who would likely die in this scenario are some Iraqi soldiers and prison guards, who we may wish to assume are not guilty of mass torture and murder.   Further, the contined incarceration of the monster may serve as an impetus to additional murders in the ongoing tribal/civil wars in Iraq.  That's more speculation.  President Mubarak of Egypt takes the opposing view, that the execution of the beast will have exactly that effect. 

The dilemma may be to try to forecast if the execution of Saddam Hussein will cause more deaths or fewer deaths among innocent (and other?) Iraqis.  If you share my speculation, that not killing this person will cause multiple deaths, then the "good" moral stance, opposing the death penalty at all times in all circumstances, is paid for by the lives of others.  Do we have the "right" to do something likely to cause deaths, in the interest of being civilized?  Is triage civilized?


----------



## maxiogee

Nobody tried to get Rudolf Hess out of Spandau prison.

The killing by the British of the leaders of the 1916 rising in Ireland is almost universally seen nowadays as hastening their end here. The staggering antipathy which most Irish people had to the rising and its leaders was totally overturned by this action. 
The general election two years later is a hard one to debate with regard to changes. The electorate had changed, the election was due in 1915 but was delayed by the First World War, the

There were 105 Irish MPs to Westminster at the time. Sinn Féin took 73 of those seats. The vast majority of the rest (22) were Irish Unionists. The other 'constitutional' Irish nationalist parties were wiped out. These Sinn Féin people met in Dublin and declared themselves a parliament of Ireland. The days of the British administration were numbered.

Look at what happened in Northern Ireland when the "H-Block" hunger strikers died. Recruitment to the Provisional IRA went through the roof - and more importantly, the views of "ordinary people" were hardened. Nwo I'm not for a moment trying to link self-determined suicides by prisoners with judicial execution but the creation of "martyrs" is something people in tneuous positions of authority need to be exceedingly wary of.


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't know how much the Ireland you describe parallels the situation in Iraq today.  Maybe you could elaborate on that.

When Rudolf Hess was imprisioned, Germany was not experiencing a civil war combined with an insurgency against foreign occupiers.  That's a worthless comparison.  

Did the execution of Mussolini help or hurt the average Italian?  Is that a useful parallel, or just another case of a tyrant executed?

It appears that Sharia has no compunctions about the death penalty for crimes far less severe than those committed by Saddam Hussein.   He lives in a part of the world where many people believe that Muslim law should be the ultimate authority.


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> Try discussing these fine points with the families of those tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein.


 


Tao said:


> The ugliest of human emotions, of human activity is still existing nowadays, so when I have that knowledge I don't understand why we should make a big deal about public hanging. To show our level of civilization or anything else?
> Please take my cynicism with a grain of salt


 


Dr. Quizá said:


> Nice mess the US made in that country. It makes me sick.


 
I have nothing more to add. You, guys said it. 



la reine victoria said:


> Saddam still has many supporters in Iraq. Were he to be executed then the current dire situation would escalate into even more violence. Many more innocent people would lose their lives - men, women, children, babies, not forgetting the serving troops.


Can it be really worse than it is now?



> In my view he should spend the rest of his life in prison in a neutral country - not in Iraq, where it is very possible his supporters would try to get him released.


And enjoy everything what he took away from many people. Clean bed, good meal, peace. Hm. And above all, to the cost of all of us. No, thanks.



> This unwarranted invasion of Iraq should teach world leaders a lesson. Don't go poking your nose into other countries' affairs on some flimsy pretext. Just think of the number of innocent lives lost by this murderous, bloody attack.


This is a completely another question. If the US administration and their President blew up because of their prepotence and selfcentrism that doesn't mean that Hussein was poor little innocent guy who only wanted the best for his people. The US intervention is a mean mean thing, but Hussein was devil himself. At least, he was condemned by Iraqui court -i.e. by his own people.




übermönch said:


> Well, *officially *he was tried by an incredibly independant Iraqi court after the newest Iraqi law, thus it would the peak of absurdity to jail him outside of the country.


 
Lucky them. I wish we could have judged our bloodsucker by ourselves. He wouldn't then have died peacefully with all cares he had. 

I only have to add that so called international justice makes me sick. It is so false and useless and the only thing they do is give comfortable life to people who diserved only one thing - to be killed like a wild dogs, without any mercy, because they didn't show any for their numerous victims. And by victims, I do not mean only those who suffered physically. There are millions of people who would have had very different life if they hadn't been born in thw wrong place and in the wrong time.

The International Tribunal in Hague is a mockery. Why? Because those who are the main to blame for many evils in this world do not recognize it. They think they are above any international law...


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I don't know how much the Ireland you describe parallels the situation in Iraq today.  Maybe you could elaborate on that.



Well, it led to a brutal and bloody war of independence with atrocities on both sides when they deliberately targetted civilians. And that war of independence led to a vicious and divisive civil war, the legacies of which are still reflected in (southern) Irish politics today, over eighty years later. In fact the beginnings of the civil war were presaged when some democratically elected politicians took their personal weapons with them into our parliament, before walking out and refusing to recognise the democratic voice of the people who had approved the Treaty with Britain.

Democracy, such as the "allies" say they are trying to introduce into Iraq, needs to be very carefully nurtured, and displays of military might don't do it any favours.


----------



## emma42

As Elaine has pointed out, one of the principal reasons for opposing the death penalty is the possibility that it may be imposed upon someone who is later proven to have been convicted wrongly or unsafely.  I can't see how exceptions to this  can be justified.

We can't say, well, no death penalty except for crimes against humanity,  because therein lies the thin end of the wedge.

Also, there is something deep within me that is revolted at legally sanctioned killing.

No doubt Saddam Hussein will be executed, but I think it is right that governments voice their views on capital punishment.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

natasha2000 said:


> I only have to add that so called international justice makes me sick. It is so false and useless and the only thing they do is give comfortable life to people who diserved only one thing - to be killed like a wild dogs, without any mercy, because they didn't show any for their numerous victims. And by victims, I do not mean only those who suffered physically. There are millions of people who would have had very different life if they hadn't been born in thw wrong place and in the wrong time.



But they are still human. We have to take the moral high ground and treat them with basic human rights, which includes the right to a fair trial, not some farce like what happened in Iraq. 

By degenerating people like Saddam into vicious monsters, we're only doing ourselves a disservice - stooping down to their levels.

That is also why I am against this death penalty. In "ordinary" trials, one of the key arguments against it is the question of guilt - this is pretty clear here (though again, there needs to be a fair trial, and not an ad hoc court set up for that purpose).
However, justice isn't about revenge. Even if it had been, avenging murder with murder...well, isn't it ironic?


----------



## emma42

I agree, Lemminkainen.  The death penalty, unfair trials et al, diminish us all and we become closer to the very monstrousness we wish to stop.


----------



## natasha2000

Lemminkäinen said:


> But they are still human. We have to take the moral high ground and treat them with basic human rights, which includes the right to a fair trial, not some farce like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> By degenerating people like Saddam into vicious monsters, we're only doing ourselves a disservice - stooping down to their levels.
> 
> That is also why I am against this death penalty. In "ordinary" trials, one of the key arguments against it is the question of guilt - this is pretty clear here (though again, there needs to be a fair trial, and not an ad hoc court set up for that purpose).
> However, justice isn't about revenge. Even if it had been, avenging murder with murder...well, isn't it ironic?


 

Sorry that I cannot be so human and  still think that the people who suffered from a tyran should at least get that satisfaction and see him suffering too. But I would also like to see many of you so democraticly oriented people spend only one month in Iraq or any other place where people suffered by a tyran. It is easy to speak from a comfortable room, having not only basic necessities covered (which is by most of western people considered as an air we breath - it is normal that is here, but nobody notices its presence until it is gone). It is truth that a victim won't feel any better if a tyran is killed, but the justice will be done. Yes. I call it justice, and not revenge. Maybe for you and similar to you killing a tyran would be revenge. But for me, and believe me for many other people it is not. It is just doing justice.

You mention basic human rights? Where on Earth they are given to a war prosioner? In Guantanamo? Do you know that There have been 700 people there during more than 2-4 years imprisoned, treated like dogs (well my dog receives a way better treatment than those poor people recived there), without any trial, even they were never accused of anything, only "interrogated"... And only a dozen of them were accused and put to trial... If this is something that happens in that so called "democratic world", with an innocent people, I really do not see such fuss about executing a proven tyrant and a criminal. 
Maybe you think that Houssein deserved a trial like one that had Milosevic? Boy this was a real mockery of the justice... Iraqui people at least had the opportunity to have their bloodsucer in their courtroom and in their prison. I am sure it was not a bigger farse than that one made in Hague during the last 6 years.

Sorry, but I somehow have lost faith in a thing that in this world is called democracy, and I do not belive it really exist in its pure and original meaning. I have so many proofs each day that most of the times, those who "fight" for democracy are usually the ones who also spit at ti every time they can. In some way, a tyrant is more honest at least. He is a tyrant and he does not try to hide it. Lie is the greatest evel in the world. Greater than a murder, because it hurts not only your body, but it hurts your soul.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:


> I agree, Lemminkainen. The death penalty, *unfair trials et al,* diminish us all and we become closer to the very monstrousness we wish to stop.


 
Then, why on Earth we still do it?


----------



## emma42

Natasha, I completely understand what you are saying, but I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

I do not say no to capital punishment out of sympathy for tyrants!  I abhor such monsters as Saddam Hussein as much as you do.  I say no to the death penalty for the reasons outlined before, including the fact/possibility that it diminishes _us_.

Sorry, I have just seen your very last post. _ I _don't still do it.  Humankind still does it because not everyone agrees with me.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Nobody here is arguing that Hussein was anything but a tyrant.  The topic is not how great a tyrant he was, not who is the greater tyrant, nor who committed greater crimes against innocent people.

What many people here _are _saying is that the death penalty is not an appropriate response to tyranny, war crimes, or other violent crimes.  They are in no way denying the enormity of these crimes.


----------



## natasha2000

Dear Emma, 

I know perfectly well why people opose the deat penalty, and I am not so naive to believe it is because of sympathy for the tyrant. But I don't think death penalty for them diminishes us in any way. I just think that executing people like Hussein is doing justice. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Modern society tries so hard to put a human being as far as it is possible from its human nature. It is in outr nature to cry for justice. It is in our nature to wish that those who inflict should suffer, too. And capital punishement is not exacltly "an eye for an eye...". Hussein killed thousands of people. We cannot kill him thusands of times, and as a matter of fact, he (and many other tyrants) haven't even deserved those clean cells that they have since he took away many lives, destroyed many lives, took away the dearest from those who stayed alive... So I think it's fair to take him away the only dear thing he has - his life. I really do not think it diminishes us in any way. It just makes us more human, because being human does not mean being snowishly white, it does not mean to be like a good man from the New Testament. Being human means being more like Old Testament. People like Christ do not exist. I wish they did, but they don't. 

On the other hand, despite all that I said, I do have second thoughts about the abolishment of the death penalty, precisly because of that human nature, because it is in wrong hands, it can be very much abused and therefore it an bring more bad than good.


----------



## natasha2000

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Nobody here is arguing that Hussein was anything but a tyrant. The topic is not how great a tyrant he was, not who is the greater tyrant, nor who committed greater crimes against innocent people.
> 
> What many people here _are _saying is that the death penalty is not an appropriate response to tyranny, war crimes, or other violent crimes. They are in no way denying the enormity of these crimes.


 
I am not arguing IF Hussein was a tyrant or not. We all know who he was.

I am saying, unlike many people here, that a death penalty is an appropriate response to tyranny, war crimes or other violent crimes. I never said (nor thought) that any of here present foreros denied the enormity of Husseins crimes. 

If my posts sounded different from this, I apologize.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here's a question for those who think that the vicious, brutal murderer Saddam Hussein should not be executed:

Which causes greater suffering and humiliation, a quick execution, or decades of imprisonment?  

Take Saddam Hussein, for example.  That vile beast was used to having and using total power over millions of people.  Is it not torture to lock him up in a small cell, where he doesn't have even the power to take a walk?  

Is it more or less vengeful to put a quick end to him, or to prolong his misery?


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> Here's a question for those who think that the vicious, brutal murderer Saddam Hussein should not be executed:
> 
> Which causes greater suffering and humiliation, a quick execution, or decades of imprisonment?
> 
> Take Saddam Hussein, for example. That vile beast was used to having and using total power over millions of people. Is it not torture to lock him up in a small cell, where he doesn't have even the power to take a walk?
> 
> Is it more or less vengeful to put a quick end to him, or to prolong his misery?


 
Dear Cuchu,
If you could promise me that Hussein will be sent to Guantanamo and treated like those prisoners were treated, I'd change my mind. But we all know that he will be given a nice cell, three good meals a day, everydays walk, even paper and a pencil if he wants to start his memoirs... So, I think I'd stay with quick execution.

And I repeat. It is not about revenge. It's about doing what's just.


----------



## djchak

Drop him off in Sadr City. The "state" won't have to do anything. He will get torn from limb to limb and stabbed. Problem solved.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

natasha2000 said:


> . But I would also like to see many of you so democraticly oriented people spend only one month in Iraq or any other place where people suffered by a tyran. It is easy to speak from a comfortable room, having not only basic necessities covered (which is by most of western people considered as an air we breath - it is normal that is here, but nobody notices its presence until it is gone). It is truth that a victim won't feel any better if a tyran is killed, but the justice will be done.



I'm sure that I cannot even begin to perceive how it would be like to live someplace like Iraq. However, why should that invalidate my opinions? 
Even if I'd taken part in this execution, promoting justice as you say, I think I'd still have a sour taste in my mouth. By killing Saddam we're not helping all the thousands of people he killed, or their families who were inflicted by his "justice".
All those murders, and then we want to put an end to this with yet another murder? We shouldn't just as well get some torturing tips from his chief executioner as well, to show the world how much we've learned from Saddam?



> You mention basic human rights? Where on Earth they are given to a war prosioner? In Guantanamo? Do you know that There have been 700 people there during more than 2-4 years imprisoned, treated like dogs (well my dog receives a way better treatment than those poor people recived there), without any trial, even they were never accused of anything, only "interrogated"... And only a dozen of them were accused and put to trial... If this is something that happens in that so called "democratic world", with an innocent people, I really do not see such fuss about executing a proven tyrant and a criminal.



What has happened at Guantanamo Bay will surely go into the history books as a dark chapter in modern Western history. Just because it's happening doesn't mean the democratic world approves of it - many European countries have expressed their distaste of the injustice going on there, as has a lot of Americans. 
Personally I've demonstrated and tried to do my share in bringing down the facility, so don't try to say that I support it and thus don't have the integrity to speak out against Saddam's execution (if I misinterpreted your post on that point, I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what G'itmo has to do with this).



cuchuflete said:


> Which causes greater suffering and humiliation, a quick execution, or decades of imprisonment?
> 
> Take Saddam Hussein, for example.  That vile beast was used to having and using total power over millions of people.  Is it not torture to lock him up in a small cell, where he doesn't have even the power to take a walk?
> 
> Is it more or less vengeful to put a quick end to him, or to prolong his misery?



Where do you know he's not going to be able to take a walk? And I don't agree with your question; life is the most precious thing in a human being, and something no one should have the power to take away (except the person in question itself). 
I think he should be allowed to live, but have his freedom restricted (i.e. a prison sentence).



natasha2000 said:


> Dear Cuchu,
> If you could promise me that Hussein will be sent to Guantanamo and treated like those prisoners were treated, I'd change my mind.
> 
> And I repeat. It is not about revenge. It's about doing what's just.



But you just said expressed your disgust with the crimes and torture performed at Guantanamo - how can you then suddenly turn and say you approve of them? 

Sorry, but I don't think this eye for an eye attitude works. Do you think that after WW2 we should have rounded up all nazis and put them in concentration camps, treating them like they treated their prisoners? (We sort of did it with the Nüremberg processes, just only with their leaders).

Do you think you can end injustice and murder with more of the same thing?


----------



## emma42

Natasha, I do understand what you are saying, particularly that you don't seek vengeance, just justice.  Perhaps it is human nature to do as you say.  You are making me think about the issue again.  On the other hand, perhaps it is human nature to feel disgust about taking life from one who has taken life.

Cuchuflete, the question is not about whether Hussein would suffer more from years of imprisonment or from execution.  The question is about the justice of taking another's life.  Your point was well made, though.

In relation to capital punishment in general, my principal objection remains the same - can we always be sure of guilt in every case?


----------



## natasha2000

Lemminkäinen said:


> I'm sure that I cannot even begin to perceive how it would be like to live someplace like Iraq. However, why should that invalidate my opinions?


You really don't even have to go to such extremes. Just try to imagine living in Belgrade in the period of 1992-2000 during Miloshevic. Or if you want, to Romania during Chauschescu. If you try hard, maybe you could imagine the state of mind of people who had to put up with the tyrany of those people. A human being can be tortured and humiliated in many ways other than physical one. I do not say that your opinion is invalid. It's just an opinion of someone who never experienced (and I do hope you never will) such things. It's just that we have different opinions on human nature based on our personal experiences. As our personal experiences with humans were different, therefore we have different opinions. Serbs have a saying: "A full man does not believe to a hungry one". That is what I am trying to say.



> Even if I'd taken part in this execution, promoting justice as you say, I think I'd still have a sour taste in my mouth.


Me too. What did you think? That I'd jump of joy? No human death is for celebration. Even the tyrant's one. But justice has to be done. Sometimes a man has to do things he doesn't like, only because those things are necessary and just.



> By killing Saddam we're not helping all the thousands of people he killed, or their families who were inflicted by his "justice".


You helping them to get their peace. At least some of them. Every victim is a world for himself, and we can only imagine the torments and scars that his soul has. Killing the tyrant at least puts a little part of his suffered soul to peace.



> All those murders, and then we want to put an end to this with yet another murder? We shouldn't just as well get some torturing tips from his chief executioner as well, to show the world how much we've learned from Saddam?


I think there is no need to be so sarcastic. I am not proposing to torture Sadam in a way he tortured his victims. But I also think Chauschescu and his dear wife got what they were looking for for over 50 years. you canexert pressure, but not endlesly. In one moment or another, there will be a breakage. And then, you wouldn't wnat to be near.



> What has happened at Guantanamo Bay will surely go into the history books as a dark chapter in modern Western history. Just because it's happening doesn't mean the democratic world approves of it - many European countries have expressed their distaste of the injustice going on there, as has a lot of Americans.


I always make a huge difference between individuals and their respective gouvernments. This is my way. Therefore, When I say "democratic world" I mean gouvrnements of democratic worlds. And too many times it was shown that people do not think the same as their respective gouvernments. How many countries' populations said NO to war in Iraq, by going out to the streets and nevertheless, their respective gouvernements made a deaf ear to their demands? So, I'd say those democratic gouvernements sometimes choose to be more or less democratic. And this is something that I call hypocrecy. 



> Personally I've demonstrated and tried to do my share in bringing down the facility, so don't try to say that I support it and thus don't have the integrity to speak out against Saddam's execution (if I misinterpreted your post on that point, I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what G'itmo has to do with this).


First of all. I do not have the slightes idea who you are and what you did or didn't do. Secondly, i never said you or any other westerner supports Guantanamo. I would kindly ask you to quote the sentence/parragraph of mine from which you drew such a conclusion. 
I mentioned Guantanamo in the context of not so perfect democracy. I already explained how in the previous parragraph. 
Anyway, I never quoted you. Never said anything against you or your opinions. Why do you feel quoted?



> Where do you know he's not going to be able to take a walk? And I don't agree with your question; life is the most precious thing in a human being, and something no one should have the power to take away (except the person in question itself).


Life IS the most precious thing in the human being, the very same thing Sadam and similar to him appreciate in other people, something that they mocked and made worthless in other men, women and children. So why should his life preserve such preciousness?



> I think he should be allowed to live, but have his freedom restricted (i.e. a prison sentence).


Who will pay his accomodation? Is it ok with you to pay it? It isn't with me.



> But you just said expressed your disgust with the crimes and torture performed at Guantanamo - how can you then suddenly turn and say you approve of them?


I do not approve them. I understood Cuchu's question as a half joke, so I answered in the same way. Maybe I suposed too much. 



> Sorry, but I don't think this eye for an eye attitude works. Do you think that after WW2 we should have rounded up all nazis and put them in concentration camps, treating them like they treated their prisoners? (We sort of did it with the Nüremberg processes, just only with their leaders).


Of course not. You're again cynical, and this is what I do not like. Nazi leaders got what they deserved. No normal human being can do such things to another human being what nazis did with their victims. I suppose that people who judged them were normal. Maybe you're too literal. "An eye for an eye" in general, not literary. Besides, some crimes simply do not have the correspondent punishement. They are simply too atrocious and horrible.



> Do you think you can end injustice and murder with more of the same thing


 
Killing people without any reason is a murder. Executing a criminal after prooving his guilt is doing justice. Obviously, I see the difference. You don't.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:


> In relation to capital punishment in general, my principal objection remains the same - can we always be sure of guilt in every case?


 
When thinking in general, I always ask muself the same. There are so many ways to abuse it. I only need to remember the stories on how people were executed in the WWII by partisans only because a neighbor said he was collaborating with the ocupator. Gosh, even if he did, he didn't deserve to be executed. Or any totalitary regime. If you are not with us, then you're against us. So drop dead. No. In this way, certainly not.

Death penalty shouldn't be used easily, only in cases that are so obvious, such as Sadam's, for example, or in case of those maniacs that enter a school with a gun and start shooting like possesed. In such cases, there is no doubt of what and how they did it. It is not easy to take someone's life even if he is a disgusting maggot who deserves it. He must be put to trial and all evidence reviewed a thousand times, if necessary. the guild has to be prooved beyond any doubt in order to condemn a human being to die.
Otherwise, I would always choose life sentece first, because as long as there is a minimal doubt, there is a hope.


----------



## emma42

Yes, but therein lies the problem, Natasha.  People have been convicted of serious crimes in this country (terrorism etc) which would certainly have attracted the death penalty were it still available (it still is for piracy and treason, incidentally), on evidence pronounced "beyond any doubt", and then subsequently proven to be innocent.

Yes, I know Saddam is guilty.  But, as I have said before, it's the thin end of the wedge.

I am sorry, mods - this is possibly getting off-topic.


----------



## natasha2000

I know, Emma, I know... This is the only point "against" that makes me doubt about it. The only one. The previously mentioned - about criminal being the human being and his right to preserve his precious life - does not convince me at all. The only thing that can make me more horrified than the crime itself is that an innocent man is executed. Which, furthermore, leads to the fact that really annoys me which is that the real one is still free as a bird. Maybe I take it too personally. But I must admit, if we observed this problem on a general level, I see it as a problem almost impossible to resolve in a way that all parties remain satisfied. 

Just a quick comment on something you mentioned. I find completely ridiculous to be possible to condemn a person to death penalty for treason and piracy (whatever it is, somehow I strongly doubt it has anything to do with Captain Cook or Barbaroja) and not for terrorism or massive murder. It just doesn't make sense. It means that for British gouvernment, murdering or slaughtering is less crime than giving away some secrets. It's ridiculous! Are you sure this is true?


----------



## emma42

Natasha, I think we agree more than it first appeared.  I don't think you "take it too personally".  Your points about justice were well made.

The treason and piracy (yes, ships and Captain Cook etc) point was just to be accurate about English law.  We have many old laws still "on the books", which would never be used, and this is one of them.  To all intents and purposes, we do not have the death penalty.


----------



## natasha2000

But they might be used if someone wanted, isn't it? I still do not underastand why they are not abolished if they are considered obsolete. And, piracy still exists? 



> Natasha, I think we agree more than it first appeared. I don't think you "take it too personally". Your points about justice were well made.


I think the same, Emma


----------



## ElaineG

I agree with you about justice, Natasha.

As I've said before, my problems with the death penalty in general are procedural, not moral.  

I believe that it is a privilege to be a human member of a civil society, it is a contract among all the members thereof, and that you can commit acts so heinous that you forfeit your right to be treated civilly and humanly.  

I'm not sure that the death penalty degrades us all, or makes us less human.  I worry about the executioners, the ones who actually do this work -- although I suspect the Iraqis who hang Saddam will not be too scarred by it.  I think I could have participated in the (hypothetical in some cases) executions of Hitler, Ceaucescu, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and still slept soundly, and even proudly at night.

But until recently, and still in many places in the world (including in the United States, unfortunately -- and I say unfortunately because we have  bad track record of finding the guilty), the execution of criminals was a cathartic and even celebratory ritual for society as a whole.


----------



## LV4-26

ElaineG said:


> I worry about the executioners, the ones who actually do this work -- although I suspect the Iraqis who hang Saddam will not be too scarred by it. I think I could have participated in the (hypothetical in some cases) executions of Hitler, Ceaucescu, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and still slept soundly, and even proudly at night.


But in a legal execution, responsibility is diluted. The hangman is just the last link of the chain. I agree it is not an easy job but (s)he just obeys orders. Nothing to be really proud of even if (s)he's as convinced as you are it's [that specific execution is] morally right.
Which is, by the way, the advantage of a legal execution : nobody really performs it.

(edited in blue)


----------



## cuchuflete

Lemminkäinen said:


> I'm sure that I cannot even begin to perceive how it would be like to live someplace like Iraq. However, why should that invalidate my opinions?
> 
> Your opinions and priorities might very well change if you were subjected to the torture and murder of family members and friends.  Your opinions are perfectly valid where you sit.
> The opinions of victims seeking justice are equally valid.  Your validity is not superior to theirs; it's just different.
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't agree with your question;  You are perfectly free to disagree with my question.  That doesn't invalidate the question.  life is the most precious thing in a human being, For some sick monsters, the exercise of power and the ability to get whatever they want through fear is the purpose of their life.   and something no one should have the power to take away (except the person in question itself). By your logic, Hitler had the right to take his own life, thus removing any possibility of justice being imposed by any authority whatsoever.  That's nice for intellectual parlor games.
> I think he should be allowed to live, but have his freedom restricted (i.e. a prison sentence).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you can end injustice and murder with more of the same thing?  Deterrence is not the only point of justice.


----------



## LV4-26

ElaineG said:


> I'm not sure that the death penalty degrades us all, or makes us less human.


 I agree it doesn't make us less human. In a way, I think, it makes us *more* human. In the sense that human beings are naturally inclined to imitate the violence they witness in their neighbours.


----------



## emma42

Of course, we're going to have to define what we mean by "human", now.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your opinions and priorities might very well change if you were subjected to the torture and murder of family members and friends.


That's very true. They probably would. I realize I'm fortunate enough to be able to speak about it this way. I realize our position is much easier because we're not directly confronted with ultra-violence. And I intend to enjoy this privilege I have, to be able to consider the issue in a "colder" way.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

natasha2000 said:


> Me too. What did you think? That I'd jump of joy? No human death is for celebration. Even the tyrant's one. But justice has to be done. Sometimes a man has to do things he doesn't like, only because those things are necessary and just.



(Note: this is about justice in general) I don't think justice is about revenge. In fact, I'd argue it's the exact anti-thesis of it; vengeance is about prepetuating suffering, justice about ending it. 
Sure, in some cases victims may feel that they have been revenged through their oppressor (I can't remember the English antonym for victim), but that's not the point of justice. The purpose is to justly distribute punishment and protection.




> You helping them to get their peace. At least some of them. Every victim is a world for himself, and we can only imagine the torments and scars that his soul has. Killing the tyrant at least puts a little part of his suffered soul to peace.



You know, it may not seem like it, but I really do agree with almost everything you're saying. The only thing I disagree with you about is the capitol punishment (i.e. the last sentence).




> I think there is no need to be so sarcastic. I am not proposing to torture Sadam in a way he tortured his victims. But I also think Chauschescu and his dear wife got what they were looking for for over 50 years. you canexert pressure, but not endlesly. In one moment or another, there will be a breakage. And then, you wouldn't wnat to be near.



I shouldn't have been that snarky, and I hope you accept my sincere apology for it. That said, you have said he should be subject to torture. Excactly how much should it be then?




> And too many times it was shown that people do not think the same as their respective gouvernments. How many countries' populations said NO to war in Iraq, by going out to the streets and nevertheless, their respective gouvernements made a deaf ear to their demands? So, I'd say those democratic gouvernements sometimes choose to be more or less democratic. And this is something that I call hypocrecy.



Actually, a fair share of countries whose populations disagreed with the invasion chose not to participate in it (including most of Western Europe; those who did participate have later withdrawn).
The largest contributors are countries where the population support Bush, like Poland.




> First of all. I do not have the slightes idea who you are and what you did or didn't do. Secondly, i never said you or any other westerner supports Guantanamo. I would kindly ask you to quote the sentence/parragraph of mine from which you drew such a conclusion.
> I mentioned Guantanamo in the context of not so perfect democracy. I already explained how in the previous parragraph.
> Anyway, I never quoted you. Never said anything against you or your opinions. Why do you feel quoted?



I misread your post, and again, offer my apologies. (I had had a bad morning, not that I feel that's an a dequate defense).




> Life IS the most precious thing in the human being, the very same thing Sadam and similar to him appreciate in other people, something that they mocked and made worthless in other men, women and children. So why should his life preserve such preciousness?



Why should we go down to his level and talk about how wortless his life is? He has all the right to live as you and me, and I don't think anyone has the right to say that someone doesn't have that most basic human right to live. 





> Who will pay his accomodation? Is it ok with you to pay it? It isn't with me.



The country in which he (hypothetically) will be held in prison (preferably a neutral country). And by paying your taxes, you already pay for the accomodation of several murderers, rapists and other criminals for their right to live a life with the basic human needs fulfilled. Should he do his punishment here, I'd participate in paying for him just as the other criminals in prison.



> Of course not. You're again cynical, and this is what I do not like. Nazi leaders got what they deserved. No normal human being can do such things to another human being what nazis did with their victims. I suppose that people who judged them were normal. Maybe you're too literal. "An eye for an eye" in general, not literary. Besides, some crimes simply do not have the correspondent punishement. They are simply too atrocious and horrible.



And here again do my opinion differ from yours. I'm fully convinced that Hitler and his henchmen were convinced they were right. Why? Simply because I think it is impossible for someone to do atrocities like they did and still know inside that it's wrong. 
Obviously, from our point of view it's a terrible, appalable and inexcusable thing, but I think that in their minds, they were in the right. 
That's also why they deserved a fair trial, just as anyone else.  




> Killing people without any reason is a murder. Executing a criminal after prooving his guilt is doing justice. Obviously, I see the difference. You don't.



Seems like that's the way it is, yes. If you'd said 'sentencing' instead of 'executing' I'd have agreed with you. However, as I've explained I don't believe executing someone should be possible in a sentence.



LV4-26 said:


> I agree it doesn't make us less human. In a way, I think, it makes us *more* human. In the sense that human beings are naturally inclined to imitate the violence they witness in their neighbours.



I completely disagree with you here. First of all, even if we have some sort of natural instinct to do this, why should we follow it? Our society is buildt up on non-natural principles, and natural != good by default.

If someone steals my wallet and I feel an instinct to kill him, does that make me in the right (I don't mean to put words in your mouth; you didn't say this, and I just want to find out how far you think we should go with our basic instincts.

Secondly, I think what makes us human is our ability to reflect on our actions, and our sense of morality. Therefore, witnessing our neighbours' violence and then reject it, keeping a moral high ground, is what makes us more human.



cuchuflete said:


> By your logic, Hitler had the right to take his own life, thus removing any possibility of justice being imposed by any authority whatsoever. That's nice for intellectual parlor games.



Not what (or who) I had in mind (I was thinking more in general), but yes, Hitler had the right to take his life. It was unfortunate he did it before he had the chance to be tried for his atrocities, but there's not really much you can do about it.



> Your opinions and priorities might very well change if you were subjected to the torture and murder of family members and friends.



I hope I'd still be able to hold on to my values and opinions, but it's nothing I can be sure of. I think the actions of victims who let the desire for revenge win are understandable, but that doesn't necessarily equte unexcusable. Being perpatrated against doesn't give you a free pass when it comes to justice.



> Deterrence is not the only point of justice.



Neither is vengeance, see above.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> Of course, we're going to have to define what we mean by "human", now.



Well one thing being human means is that we must accept the actions of all humans as being just that - human actions, they're not 'beastly' or any 'inhuman'.

What does democracy mean to us? 
What are we trying to give those to whom we would export it? Is not one of the main elements of democracy that we don't resort to violence to achieve our goals? 
What does it say to those we disagree with when we are prepared to kill those who murder their fellows when we can manage to muster concern for their actions, yet we openly supported them and ignored their actions when they were "on our side"? — when we ignore the murderous activities of nations whom we are too strong to tackle by military might, but against wyhom we take no sanctioning actions, economic or social, to publicly express our displeasure?


----------



## Lemminkäinen

maxiogee said:


> Well one thing being human means is that we must accept the actions of all humans as being just that - human actions, they're not 'beastly' or any 'inhuman'.



Very well said; you expressed my feelings on the matter much simpler and better than I could have done.


----------



## natasha2000

Lemminkäinen said:


> That said, you have said he should be subject to torture.


 
Please, quote. When you prove I said that, I will answer.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

natasha2000 said:


> Please, quote. When you prove I said that, I will answer.



The quote I was thinking of was this one:



> I am not proposing to torture Sadam in a way he tortured his victims.



I read it that "he shouldn't be tortured _as badly_ as his victims, but he should still be tortured", but I see now that you probably meant "he shouldn't be tortured _at all_, unlike his victims". Again, I offer my apologies for not understanding, and putting words in your mouth. I really didn't mean to.

Going back in the thread, however, these quotes could suggest you would condone any acts of torture on him:



> Sorry that I cannot be so human and still think that the people who suffered from a tyran should at least get that satisfaction and see him suffering too.





> If you could promise me that Hussein will be sent to Guantanamo and treated like those prisoners were treated, I'd change my mind [on his death penalty]


----------



## natasha2000

Lemminkäinen said:


> Going back in the thread, however, these quotes could suggest you would condone any acts of torture on him:


 


> Sorry that I cannot be so human and still think that the people who suffered from a tyran should at least get that satisfaction and see him suffering too.


A person can suffer in many ways. It doesn't have to be only physical pain that make one suffer. I surely do not suggest to literally torture the tyrant. He will suffer seeing his power gone, and eventually, his life taken away by an just execution after a fair trial. Something he didn't give to his victims before killing them. Anyway, I also was a little sarcastic saying "Sorry I cannot be so human.." refering to people like you who probably consider themselves more human than people like me.



> If you could promise me that Hussein will be sent to Guantanamo and treated like those prisoners were treated, I'd change my mind [on his death penalty]


I already explained this. This was answer to Cuchu's question which I uderstood half joke, so I responded it in the same way. Maybe I interpreted it in a wrong way. On the second thought, I do recognize that I think people like Hussein deserved Guantanamo, but I also know that even if I had some power to send him there, I wouldn't do it. Simply because such place is not supposed to exist in a democratic society.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> Anyway, I also was a little sarcastic saying "Sorry I cannot be so human.." refering to people like you who probably consider themselves more human than people like me.



Moderator note:  Please refrain from personal attacks, or this thread will be closed.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Here's a question for those who think that the vicious, brutal murderer Saddam Hussein should not be executed:
> 
> Which causes greater suffering and humiliation, a quick execution, or decades of imprisonment?
> 
> Take Saddam Hussein, for example. That vile beast was used to having and using total power over millions of people. Is it not torture to lock him up in a small cell, where he doesn't have even the power to take a walk?
> 
> Is it more or less vengeful to put a quick end to him, or to prolong his misery?


I once had to work in a Gaol for two days and it was ghastly.
The prison was a model of modern high security with as much humanity as possible for the prisoners.  Large cells and good food and meaningful work if they want it but the big thing that I noticed is the one thing that is denied to a prisoner.  This is a priviledge that is denied to a Military Prisoner and it has huge psychological overtones.
The right to open or lock a door.
Prisoners may not do this.
I totally oppose the death penalty with no exceptions.  The punishment I support as an alternative is the most severe sanction that is available under the Geneva Convention.  Isolation.
I think that Saddam Hussain should be humanely incarcerated for the term of his natural life.  He should be allowed no contact with people who he considers to be a friend.  He should be sent to Coventry and his name stricken from public record in much the same way as people have declared taht they will not give fame to other mass murderers by uttering their name and rather give them a descriptive like The Beast of Belangalo.
Saddam Hussain rose to gold flecked carpet and hand picked caviar and should finish his days on concrete and locked doors.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

Lemminkaïnen said:
			
		

> LV4-26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it doesn't make us less human. In a way, I think, it makes us more human. In the sense that human beings are naturally inclined to imitate the violence they witness in their neighbours.
> 
> 
> 
> [...]First of all, even if we have some sort of natural instinct to do this, *why should we follow it*?
Click to expand...

 *Where did I say we should?* Please (re)read my previous posts to see where I stand on the thread issue. 
I sort of agree with everything you said except that I think *both* mimetic violence (no other animal can reach our degree of "_mimesis_") and our capacity to resist it are specific to our species.Therefore, both make us more human, the former being less desirable than the latter.

I basically share dotandcommas' view on the matter.


----------



## tweety79

I must say that its true that saddam hussein killed many iraqis and was a brutal dictator, but please NOTE that he is facing what he has faced only just because he opposed the united States and didnt agree to their policies. He used to be their ally,what happened? I think any leader facing trial for whatever reasons should not face the death penalty??its against humanity and just to respect their roles as ex-leaders.why all this fuss regarding his trial!what happened with milosevish or the old chillian dictator(forgot his name)...it wasnt that public!!!!!


----------



## Conrado Herrera

It is correct, the trial of *Saddam* *Hussein. He most died*
*Regards*


----------



## Conrado Herrera

tweety79 said:


> I must say that its true that saddam hussein killed many iraqis and was a brutal dictator, but please NOTE that he is facing what he has faced only just because he opposed the united States and didnt agree to their policies. He used to be their ally,what happened? I think any leader facing trial for whatever reasons should not face the death penalty??its against humanity and just to respect their roles as ex-leaders.why all this fuss regarding his trial!what happened with milosevish or the old chillian dictator(forgot his name)...it wasnt that public!!!!!


 
USA does not trial Saddam Hussein. A Irak judge judged him. 
Regards


----------



## emma42

Hello Conrado.  Tweety is not saying that the USA has put SH on trial.  She is saying that he would not have found himself in this position if he had not "opposed the united states and didn't agree to their policies".
Regards.  Emma


----------



## cuchuflete

This is the thread topic:  



> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays.
> Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one?


----------



## Lemminkäinen

natasha2000 said:


> A person can suffer in many ways. It doesn't have to be only physical pain that make one suffer. I surely do not suggest to literally torture the tyrant. He will suffer seeing his power gone, and eventually, his life taken away by an just execution after a fair trial. Something he didn't give to his victims before killing them. Anyway, I also was a little sarcastic saying "Sorry I cannot be so human.." refering to people like you who probably consider themselves more human than people like me.



Torture isn't only infliction of physical pain; mental torture is just as bad. Not that I think the suffering of seeing his power gone as torture, of course.




> I already explained this. This was answer to Cuchu's question which I uderstood half joke, so I responded it in the same way. Maybe I interpreted it in a wrong way. On the second thought, I do recognize that I think people like Hussein deserved Guantanamo, but I also know that even if I had some power to send him there, I wouldn't do it. Simply because such place is not supposed to exist in a democratic society.



Thanks for explaining that, I didn't catch it in your first post. 



LV4-26 said:


> *Where did I say we should?* Please (re)read my previous posts to see where I stand on the thread issue.
> I sort of agree with everything you said except that I think *both* mimetic violence (no other animal can reach our degree of "_mimesis_") and our capacity to resist it are specific to our species.Therefore, both make us more human, the former being less desirable than the latter.
> 
> I basically share dotandcommas' view on the matter.



The way you worded yourself ([...]human beings are naturally inclined[...]) made me think you thought we should act upon these instincts.
If you just meant to express an observation, then I can agree with you. The great thing about sentience is that it helps us overcome our baser instincts, like self-interestedness or indeed, violence.


----------



## .   1

I think that it is possible that part of the thread question relates to the choice of execution methods and that hanging is considered to be a less humane method of death than other more modern execution methods.
I wish to comment that I consider hanging by use of a trap door drop and the traditional thirteen spiral noose to be the most humane execution possible.  Death is instantaneous due to a broken neck and a severed spinal cord and concussion to the brain ensures instant unconsciousness.
I do not agree that Saddam Hussein should be executed but I can not think of a less offensive method if he is executed.
The present regeime could gain a huge amount of respect if it gaoled Hussein humanely to say to the world that they are bigger and better than Hussein.
Execution in this case may create a martyr but a hairy wild eyed old bloke slowly dying alone in a prison cell will inspire no one to try to imitate him.

.,,


----------



## Lemminkäinen

. said:


> I wish to comment that I consider hanging by use of a trap door drop and the traditional thirteen spiral noose to be the most humane execution possible.  Death is instantaneous due to a broken neck and a severed spinal cord and concussion to the brain ensures instant unconsciousness.



Theoretically, yes, but there are countless accounts up through the centuries of the difficulty of getting a hanging done right. Of course, a lot of them has to do with the question of 'what if the drop is too long?', which isn't really a problem for the victim (hangee?  ), but there have been numerous instances of the rope being too short, leaving the hanged one to suffocate slowly.


----------



## Poetic Device

I believe for the most part that the death penalty is not the way to go.  I am not saying that death is inhumane rather it is too humane.  There are things much worse than death and for a lot of people it is the easiest way out.  This belief follows through in the case of this former dictator.  I believe that what the people that are to hand out justice should do something like play on his greatest fear.  I know that he is a brutal and horrible being but the fact is that he is still human and therefore still has some form of human emotion.  I guess what I am trying to say is that psychological games are in order when it comes to this tyrant.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I guess what I am trying to say is that psychological games are in order when it comes to this tyrant.



If you torment someone beyond their endurance they will "lose their mind" and become mentally ill.
If you continue the torment, can you still claim to be punishing the same person?


----------



## .   1

I can not abide the concept of torture.
It is repugnant to my thought prosesses to consider the possibility of maltreating an offender.
Gaol is to separate hoodlums from humanity but humanity must remain humane to hoodlums.
I really do not care if Saddam Husein is executed as his suffering will end but I am apalled at the concept of him receiving years of pain and torment.  
Who will torture the torturers?

.,,


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Poetic Device said:


> I believe for the most part that the death penalty is not the way to go.  I am not saying that death is inhumane rather it is too humane.  There are things much worse than death and for a lot of people it is the easiest way out.  This belief follows through in the case of this former dictator.  I believe that what the people that are to hand out justice should do something like play on his greatest fear.  I know that he is a brutal and horrible being but the fact is that he is still human and therefore still has some form of human emotion.  I guess what I am trying to say is that psychological games are in order when it comes to this tyrant.



Who gets to draw the line for how bad you have to behave in order to be tortured (I assume that's what you mean by 'psychological games)?

Some parents whose child has been killed would surely have wanted to see the one who did the deed tortured (as natasha2000 so aptly put it: "Every victim is a world for himself"), but the courts are there exactly in order to stop people in taking justice into their own hands. Justice isn't about taking revenge on people, but to punish and protect. 

Torture is _never_ acceptable.


----------



## natasha2000

Lemminkäinen said:


> Some parents whose child has been killed would surely have wanted to see the one who did the deed tortured (as natasha2000 so aptly put it: "Every victim is a world for himself"), but the courts are there exactly in order to stop people in taking justice into their own hands. Justice isn't about taking revenge on people, but to punish and protect.


 
And some parents would only wanted to be left alone. Thank you for this "aptly", Lemminkäinen. And I completely agree on this with you. Personal vendeta and lynch is not the solution. It only makes a victim to equal himself with his torturer.




> Torture is _never_ acceptable


 
Never. Not the physical nor psychical one. Unfortunatelly, tortures that a human mind is capable to think of, no other being is capable. No animal would torture his fellow being as a human is capable of. This makes me lose faith in a human race.


----------



## ElaineG

> If you torment someone beyond their endurance they will "lose their mind" and become mentally ill.
> If you continue the torment, can you still claim to be punishing the same person?


 
To raise a question that frequently bedevils criminal law, and perhaps is off-topic, can Saddam Hussein, genocidal dictator, torturer extraordinare and murderer of all sorts, including members of his own family, be said _not _to be mentally ill?  Isn't he by most definitions mentally ill already?


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:


> No animal would torture his fellow being as a human is capable of. This makes me lose faith in a human race.



I'm not so sure.
One of the most memorable scenes in a David Attenborough series (I think it was "The Blue Planet") showed whales lunging themselves so that they were partly out of the water, onto beaches where seals were gathered. One of the whales grabbed a seal and struggled to get back fully into the water and then was seen to toss the dying seal about - repeatedly - like a toy. The seal was alive thoughout this.
Attenborough said that the scientists had observed this behaviour before and had ho idea why the seals did it. 
Now I'm not suggesting that it is akin to psychological torture as meted out by one human to another, but it shows that we are not as far removed from other animals as we might think.

--

Other animals lay their eggs in living creatures and leave the 'host' alive, but paralysed — a living food source for their developing young. I don't know if the 'hosts' have what we would call minds, but if they have I would be quite certain that there would be few tortures we could devise which would trump that.


----------



## emma42

Elaine, I think Saddam would be diagnosed as having an "untreatable personality disorder" of some kind, and therefore not mentally ill.  In English law, to be deemed mentally ill, one must have a disorder capable of treatment.


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:


> No animal would torture his fellow being as a human is capable of. This makes me lose faith in a human race.


G'day Maxiogee,
I think that you may have missed the point being made by Natahsa.
I think that her point is that you never see a whale maltrreating another whale or a seal maltreating another seal.

I think that your point of attributing cruelty to the action of a whale repeatedly pounding the seal's body may be right but it may also be flawed.  I think that we anthropomorphise incompletely at times.  I have seen footage of that and wonder if it is a form of meat tenderising by a creature with no hands.  Maybe the whales who do that have a toothache and can not chew properly.  Maybe the whales have already eaten well and took the opportunity to catch another seal but need to work up an appetite.

Wasps do not lay their eggs in the body of a caterpilla as punishment.  For them it is a mater of survival and has nothing to do with torture.

I think that Natasha is right on the money.

.,,


----------



## ElaineG

emma42 said:


> Elaine, I think Saddam would be diagnosed as having an "untreatable personality disorder" of some kind, and therefore not mentally ill. In English law, to be deemed mentally ill, one must have a disorder capable of treatment.


 
Well, we get around it in American law by applying a number of different rules, most based around the idea that to be entitled to an insanity defense the person didn't know what he was doing at the very moment that he did it (reductive, laymen's version).

But the legal definition of "insane" is a far cry from a psychiatrist's definition of "mentally ill", and you get the odd paradox of the "clear-minded psychopath" whose reality bears no relationship to yours or mine, but who knew what he was doing when he killed 50 women and chopped them into bits, and is therefore "sane" for purposes of the criminal law...

I was more musing whether Saddam's mind could be "broken" by torture, as Tony hypothesizes, or whether it is already "broken" beyond repair by years of dissassociation, repression etc.

Armchair psychiatry....


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> G'day Maxiogee,
> I think that you may have missed the point being made by Natahsa.
> I think that her point is that you never see a whale maltrreating another whale or a seal maltreating another seal.
> 
> I think that your point of attributing cruelty to the action of a whale repeatedly pounding the seal's body may be right but it may also be flawed. I think that we anthropomorphise incompletely at times. I have seen footage of that and wonder if it is a form of meat tenderising by a creature with no hands. Maybe the whales who do that have a toothache and can not chew properly. Maybe the whales have already eaten well and took the opportunity to catch another seal but need to work up an appetite.
> 
> Wasps do not lay their eggs in the body of a caterpilla as punishment. For them it is a mater of survival and has nothing to do with torture.
> 
> I think that Natasha is right on the money.
> 
> .,,


 
Correct. Whatever animals do, they do it for survival, no matter how cruel to us it might seem. no animal kills or tortures the other animal just because they enjoy it. Killing baby lions by an adult lion can seem to our human mind extremely cruel, but there is a reason for survival in it. Nature is not stupid - in it, everything has its cause and explanation why. Only some human actions do not have any logical explanation, except that we do it because we like it. Torture is one of those things. And no whale tortrute of seals can be compared to vil imagination of a human being. Maxie, have you read "Goat's feast" by Mario Vargas Llosa? It's about the Trujillo regime at Dominican Republic. I literraly felt sick and necessity to vomit while I was reading about the tortures performed by Trujillo men. Or try the movie "Imagining Argentina" that takes place during the dictature. I've heard that in war in my ex-country, fathers were forced to have sexual relationships with their own daughters, or to watch how their daughters were violated by dozens of men and then killed. Do you think that any animal posesses such a terrible imagination? I think not.

EDIT: Elaine, I think that psychopats and other types of sociopats are completely sane in mind. However, they lack of consciousness, moral or remorse which makes them merciless and very cruel murderers. Now, imagine one like those with power... Here's Wiki article... If you read it, you'll find many similarities with Sadam, or any other sadistic tyran or dictator from the recent past...


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> No animal would torture his fellow being as a human is capable of. This makes me lose faith in a human race.


 


. said:


> G'day Maxiogee,
> I think that you may have missed the point being made by Natahsa.
> I think that her point is that you never see a whale maltrreating another whale or a seal maltreating another seal.


 
Yes you do. Possibly not whales but certainly animals which are very much like us: chimps. I personally saw the scene which turned my stomach up on TV, it has just taken me like an hour to find it. Fascinating, and certainly proves both of you wrong. 




> Goodall’s discovery was a revelation. But then she found out they did something else that was far more chilling, *they killed their own kind.* In the sixties the group that Goodall studied split in to two fractions, Kasakela & Kahama. The rivalry between the two turned in to a bloody civil war.
> ...


 
These scenes speak for themselves. Further info here.





natasha2000 said:


> Whatever animals do, they do it for survival, no matter how cruel to us it might seem. no animal kills or tortures the other animal just because they enjoy it.


You are wrong.


----------



## ElaineG

What about a cat toying with a mouse when it is not hungry?  It will play with the mouse for hours.  Often the mouse dies of fright or exhaustion, but the cat does not eat it if it is well fed.  This is not a survival thing, as the cat is not hungry when it does this and does not later eat the old prey.

Chimps are highly intelligent, and experience rage.  I'm sure they kill for many of the reasons that humans do.

I dunno that it has any bearing on Saddam Hussein, but I'm sticking to "nature red in tooth and claw."


----------



## .   1

Animals experience rage and animals kill animals but animals do not torture their own kind.
Cats are seen to be toying with prey but they are just as likely teaching themselves how to catch the next meal that they might have to find.  If you wait until you are hungry it is too late to try to learn to hunt.

Man is the only animal known to torture their own kind.

.,,


----------



## heidita

. said:


> Animals experience rage and animals kill animals but animals do not torture their own kind.
> 
> Man is the only animal known to torture their own kind.
> 
> .,,


 
I don't know if you have read my previous post, the chimp was literally tortured by the others, for no reason at all. They were not attacked or felt attacked. and they could simply have pushed the other chimp away, they didnt , they tortured it to death.

It is simpy not true that animals do not kill "for fun" or torture their own kind. They do.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> Man is the only animal known to torture their own kind.



Actually, some birds will systematically peck another to death.  Konrad Lorenz wrote about it (and roebucks, but they only kill their own species in captivity), and I saw it happen with one of my ganders.  It isn't even necessarily an issue of dominance.

However, I agree that humans excell at torture.

Now that I also have gone off topic, may we return to it?


----------



## .   1

G'day Heidi,
I read and enjoy all of your posts it's just that I don't agree with everything that you say.
I have seen a great deal of animal behaviour and I have seen a good deal more depicted on television.  The closest thing to actual cruelty was the scared reaction of a mother chimp who bit the hand of a teenaged chimp who had foolishly played with the infant of the mother putting the infant at risk.
I have seen dogs and cats fighting live and lions and bulls fighting on screen.  I have never seen inate cruelty displayed.  the moment that one animal submits the other animal stops attacking and they seperate.  There is no follow up and no punishment.  Other hominids do display human like behaviour and the chimps killed other chimps as best as they could for some transgression that we could not know about.  That chimp may have tried to kill the baby of the dominant chimp.  That chimp may have been a rapist.  There are transgressions that we could not even begin to comprehend and sure animals kill but I have still not seen any evidence presented that animals torture their own kind.

.,,


----------



## heidita

.,, , the scene described in my post was recorded by a BBC filming team and described and observed by *Jane Goodall*, the one conservationist ever. If she called it a _war_ and described the killing as torture, I will certainly not contradict her. Apart from the fact that I personally saw the film.
I agree that we cannot compare animals playing with their victims. My cats do so all the time. They bring flies or other "victims" to the living room and not only pride themselves of having made a catch but also play with the victim for some time. If I observe this, I take a way the victim, after all it is also a human being, isn't it? (well almost, did you know we were exremely close to flies , gene wise?)


----------



## heidita

Just in case it wasn't clear enough so far:



> ...They’d ripped his trachea out, they’d removed his testicles, they’d torn off toe nails and finger nails, and it was clear what had happened, was that some of the males had held him down while the others attacked.
> NARRATOR: Slowly it dawned on scientists that chimpanzees were not like us just because they could think, reason and use tools. They were like us because they could be cruel....
> That just made the chimps seem even more like us than I’d ever thought before.


 
This last sentence is possibly one of the most important ones.

*We only know of two mammals in the world in which males make deliberate attempts to guard and kill members of neighbouring groups. And those two mammals are chimpanzees and humans.*

(Sorry, I thought using "quotes" one could. )


----------



## emma42

I have to say I do not feel qualified to argue with Jane Goodall on this.  This is new information to me and something to think about.


----------



## cuchuflete

This has been a nice digression.  Would anyone care to return to the thread topic now, or shall we just give him to the chimps for judgment?


----------



## LouisaB

luis masci said:


> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays.
> Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one?


 
No, luis masci, you're not.

It may be simply the choice of hanging that makes me feel this way. The electric chair at least gives one a sensation of modern technology. Lethal injection gives one a (totally false) sense almost of 'medical treatment'. Hanging _is_ medieval, and it shows. Occasionally our newspapers publish photographs of justice in countries other than our own, probably with the intention of selling papers on the shock value. I've seen pictures of a teenage boy stabbing a bound prisoner who murdered his father. I've seen pictures of stoning. I've seen pictures of multiple hangings. The proposed hanging of Saddam Hussein gives me exactly the same sensation. 

But this time I have no smug sense of 'well, it's nothing to do with _us,_ we're civilised people'. It _is_ to do with us. Yes, I know the trial was by his own people, so technically we can wash our hands of it. But who caught him? I'm from the UK, but I consider myself as implicit in this as anyone in the U.S. We took part in this monstrous war too.

Personally, I'm against capital punishment anyway, but that's not the question. Rationally, I would be hard put to say why the idea of this hanging is so abhorrent (especially as some people have argued it's less painful than some options), but in terms of _feelings_ I find it almost unbearable. I wouldn't want my children to see a picture of this (and I bet there'll be one) and have to explain this is what a civilised country considers justice.

I'm sorry if this isn't very rational. But that's not what the question asked for. My answer again, is 'No. You're not the only one to _have this feeling._ No. No. No.

Louisa


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> G'day Maxiogee,
> I think that you may have missed the point being made by Natahsa.
> I think that her point is that you never see a whale maltrreating another whale or a seal maltreating another seal.


We don't know enough to say that with confidence.
What Natasha wrote was about an animal torturing "his fellow being". I responded to that. We know so little about what actually goes on inside the heads of other humans - let alone animals - as to make it well nigh impossible to put ourselves in their places.

When you say you have an excruciating pain in your side, what do I understand you to mean? I can't measure your pain, nor can I 'empathise' (in the truest sense of that word) with you.

If we find ourselves wishing to torture or torment Saddam Hussein we would need to look to our own motives seriously. Are we concerned to mete out "justice" or just good old fashioned "vengeance" or is there (among those who are religious) a concern that whatever punishment God might deem suitable isn't enough somehow and he must be seen to suffer terribly here before he gets to meet his maker?


----------



## heidita

LouisaB said:


> Personally, I'm against capital punishment anyway, but that's not the question. Rationally, I would be hard put to say why the idea of this hanging is so abhorrent (especially as some people have argued it's less painful than some options), but in terms of _feelings_ I find it almost unbearable. I wouldn't want my children to see a picture of this (and I bet there'll be one) and have to explain this is what a civilised country considers justice.


I feel the same, but this might just be a question of culture. We are not used to seeing people getting killed on the street. In Arab countries women are stoned for adultery, isn't that worse than hanging?

What I mean is, if we agree to hang Hussein, where do we stop? Or where do we draw the line? 

Isn't it just as bad for a mother to see her only daughter get killed by a rapist? Wouldn't she want to see this man just as dead as Hussein? 

I admire people who can forgive such atrocities. I have seen on TV a programme in America which includes family members of the killed visit their children's murderers. As to confront themselves with the face of the murderer, they say it makes them feel better. Surprising. How can you forgive? 

But then, how can you torture a man you have nothing to do with? I mean, who is actually going to torture him? People who have stated here, OK, let's kill him, who is going to put his head trough the rope, who is going to manage the device which makes him fall? Would anybody here be prepared to do this, especially the ones claiming and screaming, yes, kill him!?
Or do you think, what has this got to do with it? Don't we have professional torturers who do this work!? Let them do their job!!!



maxiogee said:


> We don't know enough to say that with confidence.
> What Natasha wrote was about an animal torturing "his fellow being".


True, and she is wrong.




> If we find ourselves wishing to torture or torment Saddam Hussein we would need to look to our own motives seriously. Are we concerned to mete out "justice" or just good old fashioned "vengeance" or is there (among those who are religious) a concern that whatever punishment God might deem suitable isn't enough somehow and he must be seen to suffer terribly here before he gets to meet his maker?


 
I think it is an excellent point. I think the line between vengeance and justice is a very thin one.


----------



## la reine victoria

With you 100% Heidi.  





LRV


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> If you torment someone beyond their endurance they will "lose their mind" and become mentally ill.
> If you continue the torment, can you still claim to be punishing the same person?


 
Good question, and I have an answer that actually makes sense at least in my head.   In the case of this "man" I believe that he is already severely mentally ill.  I mean, how can a completely saine person commit such crimes as he did?  Even if that were not the case, I very much like and think that the Mongolian philosophy would be adequate in this scenario.  
With the claiming to be punishing the same person...............  That's a tricky one.  I would have to say not exactly because of the fact we are never the same person in two seperate seconds, but that is very off topic.


----------



## Poetic Device

Lemminkäinen said:


> Who gets to draw the line for how bad you have to behave in order to be tortured (I assume that's what you mean by 'psychological games)?
> 
> Some parents whose child has been killed would surely have wanted to see the one who did the deed tortured (as natasha2000 so aptly put it: "Every victim is a world for himself"), but the courts are there exactly in order to stop people in taking justice into their own hands. Justice isn't about taking revenge on people, but to punish and protect.
> 
> Torture is _never_ acceptable.


 
You have a degree of a point, but don't you think that letting him rot in solitary confinement is a little more suitable of a punishment than hanging?  My point is that immidiate death is too easy of a way out.  WHere's the punishment in that?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Good question, and I have an answer that actually makes sense at least in my head.   In the case of this "man" I believe that he is already severely mentally ill.  I mean, how can a completely saine person commit such crimes as he did?



We like to distance ourselves from the more ghastly actions of our fellows.
We hear of a callous murder and we immediately say "How could anyone do such a thing?" and we see judges calling for psychiatric assessments before sentencing - but the truth of the matter is that a vast number of 'ordinary' people have proved again and again that perfectly sane people are capable of extra-ordinary "exploits" - some of them we call heroes, and we never doubt their sanity - some of them we call psychopaths and we doubt their very humanity.
We see a hero and we feel we would be unable to be like them. 
We see a villain and we know how easily we could be like them.
As William Golding and many other writers tried to show us, the veneer of civilised behaviour can be exceedingly thin at times.

I was once part of a protest march which started peaceably and well-intentioned. Some few whipped it up into a frenzied mob and few indeed were seeking to leave. I know I didn't. I stayed willingly and watched the events unfold. The police seemed to have been either given orders not to interfere or else were overwhelmed by the course the protest took. They held a 'watching brief' and when the incident had almost played out, and the rabble-rousers tried to re-focus the mob on another target they intervened. They broke up the crowd without provoking a total riot. The mob had had its vengeance and drifted away in dribs and drabs.
That was the day the British Embassy in Dublin was burned. The police prevented an attempt to burn the Chancellery, which was some short distance away.
Had someone told me earlier that day that I would watch and do nothing, not even dissociate myself from the event, as repeated attempts would be made to set the building on fire I would have questioned your sanity.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:


> *We see a hero and we feel we would be unable to be like them. *
> *We see a villain and we know how easily we could be like them.*


 
This is so true Maxi. So true...


> Had someone told me earlier that day that I would watch and do nothing, not even dissociate myself from the event, as repeated attempts would be made to set the building on fire I would have questioned your sanity


 
This, too. I myself experimented the same. Never say never. Because we just might find out that we were fooling ourselves pretending we are something we are not.


----------



## Victoria32

heidita said:


> What I mean is, if we agree to hang Hussein, where do we stop? Or where do we draw the line?
> 
> Isn't it just as bad for a mother to see her only daughter get killed by a rapist? Wouldn't she want to see this man just as dead as Hussein?
> 
> But then, how can you torture a man you have nothing to do with? I mean, who is actually going to torture him? People who have stated here, OK, let's kill him, who is going to put his head trough the rope, who is going to manage the device which makes him fall? Would anybody here be prepared to do this, especially the ones claiming and screaming, yes, kill him!?
> Or do you think, what has this got to do with it? Don't we have professional torturers who do this work!? Let them do their job!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is an excellent point. I think the line between vengeance and justice is a very thin one.


All excellent points, Heidita! 
Yes, Saddam Hussein committed 'atrocities', but is the truth as 'pure and simple' as we are told? For most or all of the 1980s, he was an American 'asset'... and we know where the (allegeed) 'weapons of mass destruction' would have come from! 

Quite aside from the persistent rumour that the _*real*_ Saddam Hussein (like the real OBL) has been dead for years!


----------



## natasha2000

Victoria32 said:


> All excellent points, Heidita!
> Yes, Saddam Hussein committed 'atrocities', *but is the truth as 'pure and simple' as we are told?* For most or all of the 1980s, he was an American 'asset'... and we know where the (allegeed) 'weapons of mass destruction' would have come from!


If Sadam was first american friend then enemy, is not the issue here. Try to question the veracity of his atrocities in front of some of his victims. I am sorry, but I think this comment lacks of taste, especially putting the word atrocities in inverted commas. Where I come from, when you put a word in inverted commas it means you doubt in existence of what is between them, in this example, *atrocities*...



> Quite aside from the persistent rumour that the _*real*_ Saddam Hussein (like the real OBL) has been dead for years


 
Yes, as well as Bin Laden, who actually never existed! And Hitler is still alive. C'mon.  This is science fiction. I thought we were having a serious discussion here.


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> If Sadam was first american friend then enemy, is not the issue here. Try to question the veracity of his atrocities in front of some of his victims. I am sorry, but I think this comment lacks of taste, especially putting the word atrocities in inverted commas. Where I come from, when you put a word in inverted commas it means you doubt in existence of what is between them, in this example, *atrocities*...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as well as Bin Laden, who actually never existed! And Hitler is still alive. C'mon.  This is science fiction. I thought we were having a serious discussion here.


We are and I am quite serious.. I am not minimising or dismissing the things he did - just pointing out what seems to me to be hypocrisy on the part of many Americans - they aided SH in his actions and now, through their proxy, the Iraqi government, attempt to kill him for his compliance with their wishes in the 1980s! 
I am sorry if I have been tasteless - Natasha. The inverted commas were meant to show my scepticism not about the existence of SH's atrocities, - but _their precise nature_.

VL


----------



## natasha2000

Victoria32 said:


> We are and I am quite serious.. I am not minimising or dismissing the things he did - just pointing out what seems to me to be hypocrisy on the part of many Americans - they aided SH in his actions and now, through their proxy, the Iraqi government, attempt to kill him for his compliance with their wishes in the 1980s!
> VL


I don't say you are wrong. As a matter of fact, on this issue I have pretty similar opinion. I just say that it has nothing to do with Sadam being a criminal, nor it diminishes his crimes. In other words, mentioning the US here is a little bit off topic. At least I see it like this.



> I am sorry if I have been tasteless - Natasha. The inverted commas were meant to show my scepticism not about the existence of SH's atrocities, - but _their precise nature_.


 
Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I am not quite sure I understand what is that you want to say. Atrocities are atrocities - how can they have varous natures? As far as I see the issue, atrocities have only one nature - the worst one. They are vil, cruel, mersiless and they kill body and soul. Please, explain what you thought by this. I would appreciate it in order to understand you better. Thank you.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Poetic Device said:


> You have a degree of a point, but don't you think that letting him rot in solitary confinement is a little more suitable of a punishment than hanging?



Maybe you missed a word or something, but yes, I think solitary confinement is an infinitely more suitable punishment than hanging. 



> My point is that immidiate death is too easy of a way out.  WHere's the punishment in that?



The punishment is in losing the most cherised thing you have, the one thing that not only makes you human, but also alive - your life. 
_Punishment_, not revenge. 

Sure, we could say "let's torture this bastard for some years before putting him out of his misery", but where's the justice in that?


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> I don't say you are wrong. As a matter of fact, on this issue I have pretty similar opinion. I just say that it has nothing to do with Sadam being a criminal, nor it diminishes his crimes. In other words, mentioning the US here is a little bit off topic. At least I see it like this.


You are correct, Natasha, and I am not minimsing his crimes... but we heard so much before the beginning of 2003, about things SH has supposedly done... that is why I am sceptical... Things that were found to be untrue. 




natasha2000 said:


> Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I am not quite sure I understand what is that you want to say. Atrocities are atrocities - how can they have varous natures? As far as I see the issue, atrocities have only one nature - the worst one. They are vil, cruel, mersiless and they kill body and soul. Please, explain what you thought by this. I would appreciate it in order to understand you better. Thank you.


I am not expressing myself very well, my issue is not with the nature so much, as the details... 
Please have a look at this article by John Pilger which expresses much better than I can do, about some of what I am thinking... 
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/10pilger.cfm


----------



## emma42

Thanks for the John Pilger link, victoria.  For forer@s who do not know, John Pilger is a widely respected and trusted investigative journalist in this country.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:


> Thanks for the John Pilger link, victoria.  For forer@s who do not know, John Pilger is a widely respected and trusted investigative journalist in this country.



Mr. Pilger may be good at investigations—he seems to have all of his facts in order—by I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him into a headwind.  He makes some sweeping and mistaken assertions in the linked article, and refers strangely to "A report for the UN secretary general by a world authority on international law describes the embargo" when he might just have given the name of the authority.

What's perplexing is that the facts he does present make his case convincingly enough. Why does he need to be so polemical and throw in gratuitous distortions?  

His conclusion is that the trial and conviction of the monster are "fake justice" because others who collaborated with him were not also tried and convicted.  That's logical and legal and ethical rubbish.


----------



## mytwolangs

Hopefully they will hang him in some country other than the USA, or the appeals will drag on for 10 years...

Execution of Saddam is not about brutality or punishement, it is about ridding the world of a disease.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Mr. Pilger may be good at investigations—he seems to have all of his facts in order—by I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him into a headwind. He makes some sweeping and mistaken assertions in the linked article, and refers strangely to "A report for the UN secretary general by a world authority on international law describes the embargo" when he might just have given the name of the authority.
> 
> What's perplexing is that the facts he does present make his case convincingly enough. Why does he need to be so polemical and throw in gratuitous distortions?
> 
> His conclusion is that the trial and conviction of the monster are "fake justice" because other who collaborated with him were not also tried and convicted. That's logical and legal and ethical rubbish.


I don't agree with you there, Cuchuflete... Pilger makes a very good point! It seems the rankest hypocrisy on the part of Bush'nBlair  to ooh and aah in horror and to talk of 'justice' in hanging someone. For goodness' sake, we have no_ modern_ tradition of capital punishment in Britain or New Zealand, although the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-crime nutmegs here want to bring it back...


----------



## ElaineG

> His conclusion is that the trial and conviction of the monster are "fake justice" because other who collaborated with him were not also tried and convicted. That's logical and legal and ethical rubbish.


 
Amen!

For the zillionth time, the Americans did and are doing horrible things in Iraq. 

That doesn't make Saddam Hussein one whit better.  The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

Stalin fought Hitler.  Stalin was a really really bad guy.  Probably even worse than George W. Bush.  The fact that a really evil guy was fighting Hitler didn't make Hitler any nicer, more sympathetic or less guilty of really terrible crimes.

Saddam did not cause 9/11.  He didn't have WMDs in 2003.  The U.S. lied about these things.  W. is not a nice guy, and he went after Saddam.

Does that mean that the attempted genocide of the Kurds, the political murders and assasinations, the chemical gas attacks on his own people, the warmaking against Iran and Kuwait didn't happen?

The answer is a resounding _no_, in my book.

If anyone has evidence suggesting that Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity are U.S. fabrications, I'd find _that_ interesting.


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> I don't agree with you there, Cuchuflete... Pilger makes a very good point!



Try reading my post again.  He does make a good case that the beast had collaborators.  That doesn't justify his non sequitur.
He also distorts a few little facts, like the diversion of billions of dollars in oil revenues by SH.  He would have you believe that Blair, Clinton and others starved Iraqi children to death.  That's rot.  The money to feed them was in Iraqi hands, and went into Swiss banks and to weapons dealers.  

Did the US government cynically collude with SH over a period of many years? Yes.  Was it wrong? Yes.  Does that earn Mr. Butcher/torturer/murderer a free pass to heaven?  NO!

Should he hang?  Should he be locked in a small cell for the rest of his life?   Either way, justice will be served.  Some people prefer one version over another.  Those who would have us believe that there is only "one right form of justice" will be quick to impose their "One and only true religion" on us as soon as they can.

Justice has been described in this thread as including

-punishment [hanging or life imprisonment will both accomplish this]
-protection of society  [both will accomplish this]


----------



## natasha2000

ElaineG said:


> His conclusion is that the trial and conviction of the monster are "fake justice" because other who collaborated with him were not also tried and convicted. That's logical and legal and ethical rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> For the zillionth time, the Americans did and are doing horrible things in Iraq.
> 
> That doesn't make Saddam Hussein one whit better. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Click to expand...

 
Alleluyah! Thanks to both for saying it. That is exactly my point. In some other discussion, I would say it is not FAKE justice, rather INCOMPLETE, but here I would be off topic.



> Stalin fought Hitler. Stalin was a really really bad guy. Probably even worse than George W. Bush.


Well, that can be argued...



> The fact that a really evil guy was fighting Hitler didn't make Hitler any nicer, more sympathetic or less guilty of really terrible crimes.


Again, alleluyah! This cannot be said more clearly.




> Saddam did not cause 9/11. He didn't have WMDs in 2003. The U.S. lied about these things. W. is not a nice guy, and he went after Saddam.
> Does that mean that the attempted genocide of the Kurds, the political murders and assasinations, the chemical gas attacks on his own people, the warmaking against Iran and Kuwait didn't happen?
> 
> The answer is a resounding _no_, in my book.


 
In mine, too.



> If anyone has evidence suggesting that Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity are U.S. fabrications, I'd find _that_ interesting.


They're not US fabrications, they happened for real, and the US for some time turned the blind eye. 
So, Victoria, in general, I do agree with you, but the US guilt is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is if Sadam should be ejecuted or not. For sure, the timing of the sentence is perfect, due to elections etc.. But this is not the issue here.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Try reading my post again. He does make a good case that the beast had collaborators. That doesn't justify his non sequitur.
> He also distorts a few little facts, like the diversion of billions of dollars in oil revenues by SH. He would have you believe that Blair, Clinton and others starved Iraqi children to death. That's rot. The money to feed them was in Iraqi hands, and went into Swiss banks and to weapons dealers.
> 
> quote]
> No, that is not undisputed fact, Cuchuflete! The Swiss banks and arms dealers are a good story, but as I say, not undisputed.
> 
> VL


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> No, that is not undisputed fact, Cuchuflete! The Swiss banks and arms dealers are a good story, but as I say, not undisputed.
> 
> VL


I agree.  There have been so many lies told in this matter that the objective observer no longer has a real ability to tease fact from hyperbole.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Amnesty International describes Saddam's trial as "deeply flawed and unfair".


----------



## Poetic Device

I know that I am probably going to sound like a closed-minded jerk with this, but I have to say it.

Even if the trial *was* "unfair"  How would anyone get away from the fact that he has breeched so many war rules (whatever they are called) and also is the reason why so many people are dead?


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> Even if the trial *was* "unfair"  How would anyone get away from the fact that he has breeched so many war rules (whatever they are called) and also is the reason why so many people are dead?


That's the word on the street. But in a democracy you're supposed to prove accusations in a fair trial, before convicting people because of them. If the proof happens to be trivial to find, that does not excuse democrats from holding a trial.
Anyway, Amnesty's biggest objection seems to be to the death sentence, to which Saddam and a few others were convicted.


----------



## Redisca

Although I am against the death penalty generally, I think a strong argument can be made that lifetime incarceration, even where the prisoner's basic necessities are met, is also inhumane -- and, perhaps, more cruel than death.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Poetic Device said:


> I
> Even if the trial *was* "unfair"  How would anyone get away from the fact that he has breeched so many war rules (whatever they are called) and also is the reason why so many people are dead?



No one is "getting away" with it. But no matter what you have done, you have the right to a fair trial. 

Again, he might have given his subjects farcical trials (if any at all), but that doesn't mean we should give up our standards of human rights and condone it when it happens to him.


----------



## cuchuflete

Lemminkäinen said:


> But no matter what you have done, you have the *right* to a fair trial.



How many hundreds of times have I read declarations in these pages that everyone has a *right* to something or other?

Why does any individual have that right?  Billions of people in this world live in countries in which that so-called right does not exist.  Rights didn't fall from the sky. They come from social compacts, agreements among majorities, not from the theoretical, ethereal plane.  Most of us who participate in this forum think it would be very nice indeed if all people had such rights as a fair trial, but that doesn't make such things 'rights' in all nations.

This conversation demonstrates that there are intellectual concepts, such as universal rights, that simply do not exist in the real world.  Presumably, those who say that a criminal in any country, at any time, under any circumstances, has such rights are prepared to acknowledge that this is theory, and that the facts are often contrary.  Where is the authority for such rights?  If it is a UN document, that is close to meaningless when the actual power in a signatory nation ignores it, and when it was signed under false pretenses.

Many "rights" are things we might aspire to, but they simply do not exist yet.


----------



## Outsider

So Saddam's trial was a farce, and there is no democracy in Iraq, after all -- is that what you're saying?...


----------



## Redisca

cuchuflete said:


> Why does any individual have that right?  Billions of people in this world live in countries in which that so-called right does not exist.  Rights didn't fall from the sky. They come from social compacts, agreements among majorities, not from the theoretical, ethereal plane.


  Most people take a natural-law approach to the concept of rights, and see a fair trial as a basic human entitlement.  You are right, however, that the term "right" has been impossibly diluted; in fact, its usage has degenerated into denoting _anything that's nice to have_, such as a college degree.  Personally, I think the term "right" should be narrowly defined as something that is _both_ codified (or created by contract) AND practically enforceable. 

Apart from that, there is also a problem with defining "fair trial".  I would venture a guess that there is a great deal of disagreement in the world as to what makes a trial fair, and a great many people asking the legitimate question: fair _to whom_?  to the accused? to the victim? to the prosecution?  to everyone?  Many people believe, for example, that SH could be tried fairly _only_ somewhere other than Iraq and by people other than Iraqis.  A strong argument can be made  to the contrary, as well, that no trial could be fair unless it is held in the jurisdiction where the alleged crimes were committed, and administered by the community whose members are the victims.


----------



## emma42

Because once you start saying that someone has no right to a fair trial, but others do, you are on the slippery slope to double standards.  If a justice system is to have any integrity at all, it must treat all people equally.  The evidence must be examined in a forensic setting.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> Because once you start saying that someone has no right to a fair trial, but others do, you are on the slippery slope to double standards.  If a justice system is to have any integrity at all, it must treat all people equally.  The evidence must be examined in a forensic setting.



So there is hope yet for those in Guantanamo? Or those who have been flown through our Shannon airport on the notorious 'extraordinary rendition' flights?


----------



## emma42

What's your point?  I am saying equality under law is a good thing.  I didn't say it exists everywhere.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> What's your point?  I am saying equality under law is a good thing.  I didn't say it exists everywhere.



My 'point' should be apparent.
Those who so arranged things so that Saddam would be seen to get a fair trial should so arrange things for all their 'enemies'.
It is possible to respond to posts here without addressing that response to the person quoted.


----------



## emma42

I am aware that you may not have been addressing me directly, but I assumed you were addressing what I had said, as you quoted it immediately before your comments.

Your point was not apparent.  That is why I asked what it was!

I was not saying that Saddam had a fair trial, an unfair trial, nor that "those who arranged" should not do the same for all their enemies.  I was simply providing poeticdevice with an answer to her question.


----------



## Victoria32

Outsider said:


> So Saddam's trial was a farce, and there is no democracy in Iraq, after all -- is that what you're saying?...



That is about the size of it! 



VL


----------



## cuchuflete

I have no idea if Saddam's trial was a farce. I read a little about it in daily superficial news reports.  From those, I gather that evidence was presented by eyewitnesses, he rebutted that evidence as best he was able, the first judge resigned, Saddam threw fits in the courtroom, some of the defense attorneys were murdered (outside of court, so that was not part of a trial farce.) He had help from legal experts from outside Iraq.  Add it all up and it was probably a flawed procedure.  To wax all melodramatic and call it a farce would be convincing, perhaps, with some specific facts and a logical line demonstrating why it qualifies as a farce. Maybe it was.  I won't take that on faith just because a few people so charactrize it without any factual backup.

If there is any democracy in Iraq, it's going through a very tormented infancy, and seems to have poor prospects for reaching adolescence.  Does that justify any particular opinion about the best way to impose justice on the murderer and torturer SH? Are democracies the only countries able to offer fair trials?  Do "real" democracies always conduct fair trials?

The link between democracy and justice is not so apparent as some may like to assume.


----------



## Outsider

You mentioned the attorneys who were murdered -- wouldn't that alone be good reason to at least have postponed the trial?

Put yourself in the place of one of Saddam's attorneys. Would you have called it a fair trial when your life was under threat? They didn't seem to think so.

If it's acknowledged that democracy is still in its infancy in Iraq, then shouldn't people have waited until it's more mature before holding a trial this important _for the construction of the new nation of Iraq itself_?


----------



## la reine victoria

Outsider said:


> If it's acknowledged that democracy is still in its infancy in Iraq, then shouldn't people have waited until it's more mature before holding a trial this important _for the construction of the new nation of Iraq itself_?


 

Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that this infant democracy will never reach maturity.  There are still too many divisions and warring factions.  Remove the invading troops and the supporters of Sadaam will overthrow this shaky government.  Even more innocent blood will be shed.

What a b****y mess!  




LRV


----------



## ireney

The "right" to a fair-trial, the "right" of free-speech etc are not part of nature true. Nor is the "right" not to be killed by someone who can kill you. Following this logic, Saddam Hussein didn't commit any crime because well, he could murder and torture all these people and no one should bother with a trial anyway because why talk about the "right" to a _fair_ trial and not talk about the "right" to a trial period.

The fact that it didn't fall from the sky doesn't mean that we have to talk about "rights" only when it comes to us. 

Of course one might say that what we consider a "right" is not considered so in all the world (in fact I think that's what cuchuflete is saying). That's true. BUT a) was the trial of  Saddam Hussein as "dfair" as the other trials in the new, infant democracy of Iraq? In other words was what is consider "right" in Iraq these days followed? b) I believe that children have a "right" to basic education to say the least (although I admit that different people define "basic education" differently) etc. I know thatthis is not the case world-wide. I will not try to impose my views to others but I will judge what I consider an infringement of their rights by my standards and say that, according to my way of thinking, the children have a "right" to basic aducation and that I consider it wrong that kid in Lalaland don't have one.

Your Majesty why asterisks? You missed a perfect opportunity for a very appropriate pun there


----------



## natasha2000

Can someone explain me what is considered unfair in Saddam's trial?


----------



## Outsider

la reine victoria said:


> There are still too many divisions and warring factions.  Remove the invading troops and the supporters of Sadaam will overthrow this shaky government.  Even more innocent blood will be shed.


Saddam's supporters are mostly Sunni, and the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. Not only that, but Iran, which has supposedly been pulling lots of strings in Iraq, is also mostly Shi'ite.

Shedding innocent blood in Iraq is inevitable, now. The question should be how much innocent blood is going to be shed.


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> Can someone explain me what is considered unfair in Saddam's trial?


The threats to, and killing of his lawyers, to start with! Is not that bad enough in itself? 



VL


----------



## natasha2000

Victoria32 said:


> The threats to, and killing of his lawyers, to start with! Is not that bad enough in itself?
> 
> 
> 
> VL


 
Are you saying that the current gouvernment in Iraq killed and threatened to his lawers?


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> Are you saying that the current gouvernment in Iraq killed and threatened to his lawers?


No, I am not saying the government did it, but it certainly makes a fair trial pretty difficult, not so? 



VL


----------



## natasha2000

Victoria32 said:


> No, I am not saying the government did it, but it certainly makes a fair trial pretty difficult, not so?
> 
> 
> 
> VL


 
Exactly. If killings and threats were not made by gouvernment, I don't see the reason to say Saddam had unfair trial. Whoeverd did killings and threats, shoud be brought to justice, too. It can be said that the trial was complicated, complexed, difficult, but not unfair unless there is a proof that Iraqui gouvernment made such things.

Then, if I may make comparison, the trials to some mafia capos where witnesses were treatened and even killed, can be called unfair, too? Or a farse? One does what one can, so I assume Iraqui gouvernment, if they lead the process honestly, did what they could. Considering the situation in Iraq now, they did a pretty good job, didn't they? Saddam could have escaped, couldn't he? Besides, who says that judges and prosecutors weren't threatened, too?


----------



## Conrado Herrera

Lemminkäinen said:


> Who's saying the people who oppose this death penalty aren't doing this as well?
> 
> What is required to win a death sentence?
> 
> a) to Kill 6 Million People
> b) to kill all the people that live in your city
> c) to kill your wife, children and parents
> 
> Surely there are many people able to forgive any first-degree *murder *but what about *Murder* of wife, children, parents and brothers?
> 
> It's arrogant to forgive another's murder
> 
> Who can determine in accordance to the justice if the death sentence is fair?


----------



## emma42

Hi conrado.  I don't think that all people who oppose the death sentence (for anyone) do so because they believe it is a form of forgiveness.  Forgiveness does not come into the matter for many.  The death sentence is opposed for lots of other reasons, many of which have already been outlined in this thread.

I certainly agree that it is not for others to "forgive" on behalf of someone who has lost a loved one to murder.


----------



## .   1

Conrado Herrera said:


> It's arrogant to forgive another's murder


I have not before looked at forgiveness as arrogance but it takes all kinds.
I do not believe that life in prison with no hope of parole is a form of forgiveness.
Forgiveness would be a pardon and freedom.
Iron bars and iron rations for life is a fate in some ways worse than death.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

Hello.

These days started the trial to Tony King for murdering Rocio Wnninkof. He has been already sentenced for the murder of another girl, Sonia Caravantes. As I see the news, I begin to realize, maybe you guys are right. Public shameful exposure, bars and the very same fact that you're condemned to more years than a life time are maybe better punishment than death penalty. King suffers, and he suffers a lot. Maybe not physically, as he made his victims, but he get his own portion of suffering that he deserved.


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> ... I don't see the reason to say Saddam had unfair trial...



Coincidentally, this afternoon, I was reading an article in our local paper, The New Zealand Herald of September 28, 2006, reprinted from _The Independent_, on this very subject.. 

The writer, Kim Sengutpa says in part...

"Seven people connected with the trial have been killed and one lawyer has fled abroad. Saddam's chief defense lawyer, Khamis  al-Obaidi, a prominent Sunni public figure, was abdicted, tortured and murdered by men claiming to be from the Interior Ministry." 

I am looking for the article to link to. http://http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1761625.ece

VL


----------



## natasha2000

Victoria32 said:


> Coincidentally, this afternoon, I was reading an article in our local paper, The New Zealand Herald of September 28, 2006, reprinted from _The Independent_, on this very subject..
> 
> The writer, Kim Sengutpa says in part...
> 
> "Seven people connected with the trial have been killed and one lawyer has fled abroad. Saddam's chief defense lawyer, Khamis al-Obaidi, a prominent Sunni public figure, was abdicted, tortured and murdered by men claiming to be from the Interior Ministry."
> 
> I am looking for the article to link to. http://http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1761625.ece
> 
> VL


 
This is completely another story. I asked because I didn't know anything about it, not to provoke... Sorry if it seemed like this.


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> This is completely another story. I asked because I didn't know anything about it, not to provoke... Sorry if it seemed like this.


No problem! I found the article by coincidence and it seemed like a good thing to link to it... 

By the way, the man's name is Sengupta! Excuse my terrible typing errors, please!


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Conrado Herrera said:


> It's arrogant to forgive another's murder



*.,,* already pretty much summed this up. It's not a dichotomical choice of either death penalty or forgiveness and freedom. Of course you should be punished if you have murdered, but there are other punishments than another murder.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:


> but he get his own portion of suffering that he deserved.




This is where I have a problem.

Do we set up laws, courts and trials - all the paraphernalia of our judicial systems - to give people 'what they deserve', or do we do it to safeguard the rest of society from those who would do it harm?

If it is what they deserve, why does a criminal in one jurisdiction receive a different sentence than someone who commits the same crime elsewhere? And sometimes that 'elsewhere' can be in the same state. Irish judges are notoriously independent of each other and this has led to longer time for lesser crimes quite often. There is a minimum/maximum penalty associated with most offences, and it is not uncommon to find one judge who nearly always tends towards the minimum while another will nearly always tend towards the maximum.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:


> This is where I have a problem.
> Do we set up laws, courts and trials - all the paraphernalia of our judicial systems - to give people 'what they deserve', or do we do it to safeguard the rest of society from those who would do it harm?


I would say, both. To punish and to prevent him from repeating his felony.




> If it is what they deserve, why does a criminal in one jurisdiction receive a different sentence than someone who commits the same crime elsewhere?


Because diffrent places have different laws. It depends on people who create those laws, and people are not the same everywhere.




> Irish judges are notoriously independent of each other and this has led to longer time for lesser crimes quite often. There is a minimum/maximum penalty associated with most offences, and it is not uncommon to find one judge who nearly always tends towards the minimum while another will nearly always tend towards the maximum.


Because judges are only humans. And they are different among each other. So their judgement about the same crime is different.


----------



## Nunty

_To my intense surprise advanced searches of this forum yielded 0 results for both "capital punishment" and "death penalty". With all us political hotheads socially conscious wordsmiths in the forums, I find that remarkable._

Sadam Hussein was hanged this morning for crimes against humanity. Was that the right thing to do? Is the death penalty always appropriate for murderers? Is it always wrong? Is it appropriate only for really, really bad people?

Fair disclosure: I am against the dealth penalty, both personally and as a member of the Catholic Church, which has also taken a public stand against it. 

I correspond with three American men on Death Row in three different states: one is a charming, well-educated serial killer who was convicted of 16 torture-murders, but probably committed more than thirty; one is a man in his thirties with borderline developmental disability, who was terribly abused in childhood and had never been arrested in his life, working at various low-level service jobs until he "cracked" one day, killed a lady who refused his attentions and tried to cover up the death; the third is a man who has been in trouble with the law since childhood and who is on Death Row for a kidnap-robbery-killing committed shortly after he was released from serving a sentence for two other killings committed while he was a juvenile.

These three men are incredibly different from each other, their crimes are incredibly different from each other's crimes, they are in three different prisons in three different parts of the US, they are all guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted, they are all sentenced to die. The first has been on Death Row for more than 20 years, waiting for the appeal process to come to an end one way or the other; the other two have been on Death Row for "only" a few years. Sadam was sentenced to death and executed within the space of, I believe, well under a month.

Should the death penalty never be applied? Should it be applied only to "Hitlers and Sadams" and people like my serial killer penpal? Should it be applied to anyone who unlawfully takes a life?

*I am interested in a discussion in principle, a discussion of the morals and ethics of capital punishment, and not a discussion of particular crimes or particular people.*


----------



## jester.

I usually don't participate here in the Cultural Discussions Forum but I'd like to say one thing here.

I find it astoundingly cruel of the US to let someone wait to die for more than several decades and I find it very humane of the Iraqi administration to kill someone who has been sentenced to death within several days.


----------



## Nunty

It's not really the topic of this thread, but I agree with you, Jester. In Hebrew we have an expression "torture by legal process", which refers to just this kind of situation.

As long as you are here, though, would you like to respond to the question? I'd like to hear your opinion. If the sentence were always carried out promptly, would you be in favor of the death penalty or against it? Would that apply to all cases? To certain ones?


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> To my intense surprise advanced searches of this forum yielded 0 results for both "capital punishment" and "death penalty".



A search for —> "Capital punishement" <— yielded me 14 threads in the Cultural Discussions forum alone. 
A search for —> "Death penalty" <— yielded me 33 threads, again in the Cultural Discussions forum alone.




> Fair disclosure: I am against the dealth penalty, both personally and as a member of the Catholic Church, which has also taken a public stand against it.





> I am interested in a discussion in principle, a discussion of the morals and ethics of capital punishment, and not a discussion of particular crimes or particular people.



I too am against it. Not for religious/Church-based reasons, but just because I cannot see any justification for it whatsoever.
I firmly believe that it makes us lesser persons - that to kill a killer reduces us to their level. We hold ourselves (in most societies) to be superior to these people. Our languages rarely cope with discussing them without resorting to animal references - brutal murder, inhuman actions, monstrous etc.
I have yet to meet anyone who seriously believes that the death penalty has any deterrent value. It is, to me, a ritual of pure vengeance - and a bad one at that - as I have frequently read of relatives of murder victims who thought that they wanted the death of the killer, but having achieved that, find it is no comfort to them.

Gordon Wilson had it right.


----------



## jester.

Nun-Translator said:


> As long as you are here, though, would you like to respond to the question? I'd like to hear your opinion. If the sentence were always carried out promptly, would you be in favor of the death penalty or against it? Would that apply to all cases? To certain ones?



I am against death penalty and that applies to all cases. Nonetheless, at times, when there is someone on TV who commited terrible crimes like murder or rape and those crimes are described on the news, I have the feeling that those criminals deserve to die. But, due to those TV reports, those are just momentary impressions (if you know what I mean).

Generally, if I think the whole idea of death penalty to an end, I find that there are only bad things related to it and only bad results will be caused by it.

I'd like to add something else to this discussion.

This is entirely hypothetical, as nobody knows what would have happened if Saddam had been left alive:

I think it would have been possbile that Saddam being left alive would have caused public unrest. Maybe the Irai people would have lost their trust in the new government had it not sentenced Saddam to death.
This is not a justification of Saddam being executed but just an idea of what might have happened if he had not been killed. I don't know what would or could have happened.


----------



## badgrammar

I am against the death penalty, although I agree it seems far more humane to carry out the sentence quickly, as was done is Hussein's case in Iraq (although this precludes the possibility that someone might be found innocent at a later time).

My son walked by and saw the CNN headline with a picture of Hussein in the noose and said "Eww!  That's horrible!  DO we still do that"!?


----------



## jester.

badgrammar said:


> I am against the death penalty, although I agree it seems far more humane to carry out the sentence quickly, as was done is Hussein's case in Iraq (although this precludes the possibility that someone might be found innocent at a later time).



This does not only happen in Saddam's case. According to Iraqi law, a death sentence must be carried out within, I think, 30 days. There's no choice.
That law is, apart from the fact that I'm generally against death penalty, not a bad thing, in my opinion.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Death penalty was a practical decision in ancient times. Let's imagine a neolitic tribe dealing with a killer, a violent person that could repeat such a violent behavior. Imagine that tribe, periodically facing famine and plague, trying to keep alive the criminal, feeding him, watching him, controling victim's relatives in their long for retailiation. No way, capital punishment was the only conclusion available.

Dozens of centuries later, we live in societies which have a rich standard of life -in comparison with those old ancestors-, body fat in excess ammounts maybe a hundred million tons. We can now keep the criminals alive and convicted until the end of their natural lifes. Is a price we can pay for keeping clean our conscience, avoiding any possible error, and giving the message that killing a fellow person is bad.

We have nowadays countries where capital punishment is legal for murderers because killing other person is bad. Those countries have executioners who kill because performing their office is right. The same countries wrap their youth up with militar uniforms, and being these young people under age for drinking alcohol, send them to kill people in the war, because it is good. This inconsistency is often called reason of State, and it is around no matter any ethical considerations you can make.

I live in a country where capital punishment is not accepted, though more people is in favor each day to wrongly compensate the flaws of an ill pseudo-justice system that frees murderers after an average 8 years of incarceration. The debate here arises periodically each time a brutal murderer is put on trial.

I participated in such informal debates and I've been saying the following since I was 19: I agree with capital punishment established by popular vote. But that plebiscite must be this way:

1) The vote is not anonimous but signed
2) If 2/3 of voters wanted, capital punishment would be established
3) Each time a person must be executed, there will be draw lots from the list of those who voted YES, to select these groups
a- 30 executioners, to be given rifles, 15 with bullets, 15 with blanks
b- 10 people to assist the doctor to certificate the fellow is death
c- 10 people to clean the mess
d- 10 people to inform the criminal's relatives that the execution took place and their relative is now death.
e- 10 people to assist the forensic surgeon
f- 20 people to organize and assist to the wake
g- 10 people to bury the fellow
4) Under no circumstances, a relative, friend, neighbour or coleague of the victim must be a member of these groups. This system is designed to call for justice, not revenge.
5) No person who has voted YES shall be excused for performing his or her duty, not even in case of serious illness.

I think that people simply can't want capital punishment and expect other to perform the needed steps. We can't create offices with a job description containing "kills people". If we want capital punishment we must get involved and fully compromise with achieving the death itself.

Cowardly aspect of our societies, most people are really saying "I want capital punishment. Let's have it and then let *them* to execute". These arguments -making people conscious of what capital punishmente really involves- always end up the debate. *Of course, I anticipate I will vote NO.

*However, in some cases like Mr. Hussein, where there is a reason of State,  he had to be executed, not for his terrible crimes but for the potential deaths his survival could surely promote. I agree in this case with capital punishment. Also with certain few cases like a "Hannibal Lecter" like person, when people in charge of the inmate is in peril o live miserable lifes. I that cases, with all the pain in my heart and further impact in my life, I'd participate in the groups I described above, because it would be my duty.

Dear Sister, my vision of this subject is anchored in positivism and the ethical rumminations of who is comfortable in his atheism. It can be summarized as simple as this: "If killing people is bad, then killing people is bad", a tautology most people disregard.

Thank you for giving consolation and the hope of faith to those fellows who are suffering, no matter they should deserve this or not.


----------



## Cintia&Martine

Hi,

I´m against dealth penalty in all cases. Not for religious reasons only for the though the word humanity means something.

I think that a society that applies the dealth penalty put it self in the same rank of the morder.
Only the victimes' families can agree with and I respect their felling.

A *strict* application of a condemnation for the whole life would be enough to make the convicted thinks about his actions and perhaps repents. (We all know about this kind of case.) 
If he dies he has no chance to realize the opportunity to be part of humanity. And the society has no chance to prove it's an human society.

And it´s clear that the dealth sentence is not an example that serves to avoid the apparition of others dictators.

Martine


----------



## michita

I would want that somebody explain me, what have we won with his death?
Against the Spanish sentence says: muerto el perro, no se acabó la rabia.


----------



## Kong Ze

I am horrified by the Saddam’s execution news. And every time I think about it, I can’t believe that people are legally tortured and killed in a country that has so many libraries per inhabitant (I mean USA). Haven’t we evolved since the Middle Ages?

I am against death penalty in all cases. Setting aside the risk of killing innocent convicts, I’d rather see criminals carrying out useful tasks for society. I’d rather see Saddam facing the consequences of his acts. Besides, even if difficult to achieve, reintegration should be a principal aim. 

Surely if none of us felt to have the right to kill another human being, the Earth would be a far better place. (And here I am including terrorists, murderers, rulers, executioners, soldiers, governors, and anyone who might feel qualified for it.)

“An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind”: Gandhi had it right, too.


----------



## LV4-26

Let me say first that I'm as much concerned about the execution of any convict anywhere on this planet as I am about Saddam Hussein's. It so happens that there seems to be a huge media focus on that one, therefore let's take this opportunity to comment on capital punishment in general. I believe that's precisely the way you meant it, isn't it Sœur Claire?

Tony already made exactly all the points I wanted to make. I would not have much to add to what I already said in the "Hussein sentenced" thread and which was rightly and simply summarized by AleCcowaN's tautology at the end of his post.


----------



## invictaspirit

I am very firmly against the death penalty.  If a man is a monster, let him spend decades in jail reflecting on his submission to decency and justice, and the gravity of his crimes.  It is the greater punishment.


----------



## cuchuflete

I am very firmly uncertain.   As a generality, I don't think the death penalty is a good idea.  I live in a state that abolished it
in the 1880s, long before it became fashionable to hold street demonstrations, and proclaim moral superiority based on the rightness of not killing killers.  

I cannot imagine campaigning for the death penalty, given the available alternative of life imprisonment for a heinous crime or crime.  I also cannot imagine campaigning against it
when the target is a butcher of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of innocents.  If it is prescribed by a culture different from my own, whether in Iraq or Texas, I do not feel a compulsion to try to change those cultures, even if I find them repulsive.  

If someone were to try to propose the death penalty in the State of Maine, I would oppose it.  I think that other means exist to deal with criminals, whether the motives are vengeance, punishment, rehabilitation of the criminal, or separation of the criminal from society for the protection of that society.

The last point is the one that makes me just a little bit ambivalent.  If a captured criminal's continued existence is likely to be used as a pretext or motive for supporters to begin or continue violent action, and that action is likely to cause many deaths, then I have a moral dilemma.  Should the state act to protect the lives of many presumably innocent people by taking the life of the criminal, or put those many lives at risk by taking the 'moral high ground' and sentencing the criminal to life imprisonment?  

One may argue endlessly and pointlessly about whether such theoretical conditions ever exist.  But the discussion of the morality of the death penalty is based on doing what is theoretically most right, in all conditions and in all circumstances... 


Invictaspirit has written 





> If a man is a monster, let him spend decades in jail reflecting on his submission to decency and justice, and the gravity of his crimes. It is the greater punishment.


 Whether a man such as Sadam Hussein would reflect on those subjects is unknown. The humiliation of imprisonment, the total loss of power, is very likely a greater punishment than hanging.  So on the vengeance scale, I would vote for a life in prison sentence.
That leaves the question of whether his continued existence would be used, by others, as a prextext for further murders, counter murders, counter-counter-murders.   I really don't know the answer to that one.  It's a question that cannot be addressed other than in theory.  The killings happened when he was alive and in control.  More killings followed his capture and imprisonment.  More killings will happen now that he has been executed.   

Will any lives be saved by the execution?   I don't know, and believe that any answer is speculative.  Should a goverment attempt, as best it is able, to protect the lives of the many at the expense of the life of a criminal?  

That is the crux of the moral dilemma.   If a government has reason to believe that an execution will save innocent lives, (As I have already said here, I don't think that is the case in Iraq, nor do I believe it to have been the motivation for that particular execution.) what is its moral obligation?


----------



## mickaël

cuchuflete said:


> The last point is the one that makes me just a little bit ambivalent. If a captured criminal's continued existence is likely to be used as a pretext or motive for supporters to begin or continue violent action, and that action is likely to cause many deaths, then I have a moral dilemma. Should the state act to protect the lives of many presumably innocent people by taking the life of the criminal, or put those many lives at risk by taking the 'moral high ground' and sentencing the criminal to life imprisonment?


 They could transfer him in another country. It probably would have discouraged most of his supporters, I think.
 Futhermore, wouldn't have been a sign of force, independance and greater intelligence not to kill him?


----------



## Nunty

I appreciate that this is now part of the thread about the sentencing of Saddam Hussein   but I wonder if even so we can't keep to the topic I proposed, i.e. a discussion in principle about the death penalty, as my original post (now #157 on page 8 of this thread) asked. Is capital punishment a good thing some of the time? All of the time? None of the time?


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is the original thread topic, from post #1..rather close to Nun-Translator's discussion topic, although the words are a little different:




> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this *trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays. *




Please do not repeat the discussion of Saddam Hussein that occupies much of the first 150+ posts, and try to discuss the death penalty. (Which occupies many other threads as well......)


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I appreciate that this is now part of the thread about the sentencing of Saddam Hussein   but I wonder if even so we can't keep to the topic I proposed, i.e. a discussion in principle about the death penalty, as my original post (now #157 on page 8 of this thread) asked. Is capital punishment a good thing some of the time? All of the time? None of the time?



I second the request for a re-establishment of the independence of this thread.
It raises questions which go beyond personalities or cases.

As to the question Sr Claire Edith asks, I think it can only be answered 'all of the time' or 'none of the time' —> if one can make a moral case for it then it stands as a moral action, otherwise it falls as one.


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

This is confusing.  Why post this-"Sadam Hussein was hanged this morning for crimes against humanity. Was that the right thing to do? " to start a discussion, and then complain that people are talking about Sadam Hussein?


----------



## Nunty

RAPHUS CUCULLATUS said:


> This is confusing.  Why post this-"Sadam Hussein was hanged this morning for crimes against humanity. Was that the right thing to do? " to start a discussion, and then complain that people are talking about Sadam Hussein?



You have proved my point (post #170 on page 9 of this thread).

I started a thread whose title was *Sadam hanged: Is capital punishment a good thing?* and in the opening post (now #157 on page 8 of this thread, to which it was appended) I specified that I am interested in a *discussion in principle*, not a discussion of specific cases.

One of the moderators merged my thread with this one. Their right and duty to maintain order in the forums. But the reason that I am complaining about people talking about Sadam Hussein is because the thread I started is *not about Sadam Hussein, but about whether or not capital punishment is a good thing*, as you can read in the last paragraph of post #157 on page 8 of this thread.* The background to thinking about the question is the media orgy of this morning, but it is only background.

I agree that it is confusing. I am sorry that it is confusing. Not my fault that it is confusing. 



* Yes, I'm feeling a bit bolshie about this.


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> [...]
> As to the question Sr Claire Edith asks, I think it can only be answered 'all of the time' or 'none of the time' —> if one can make a moral case for it then it stands as a moral action, otherwise it falls as one.


I agree with you, Tony, but I have been surprised to discover that many people - intelligent ones, too - propose what I call The Hitler-Stalin Argument, i.e. that capital punishment is not right in most cases, but is a good idea in certain others, where "really, really bad people" are concerned, as I put it in the post that is now #157 on page 8 of this thread.

We can say that stealing is wrong in general, but that stealing food to stay alive, or to keep a helpless dependent alive is acceptable. My position is that this kind of reasoning, based on personal (or even social) survival, does not apply in the general question of capital punishment. I might kill someone who is trying to kill me, but if I have disabled the would-be killer and taken her prisoner, I no longer have the right to kill her. Not even in the name of justice. 

Particularly not in the name of justice.


----------



## maxiogee

A court in this country recently acquitted a 61-year-old man who admitted shooting a 42-year-old trespassing member of our Travelling People community.
The trespasser had been shot, then savagely beaten, and (the farmer having reloaded his shotgun) shot once again - this time in the back - after he had already left the accused's property and was struggling to get away.

So, it seems that there are people here who disagree with the concept of 'the sanctity of life' in some cases, and who disagree even with your view of the 'in self defence' plea.


----------



## ElaineG

Well, the Hitler-Stalin argument makes sense to me for this reason.

I am not morally or ethically opposed to the death penalty. I believe that living in society is a privilege, and acts can be committed that are so heinous (probably not, in my book, a single "ordinary" murder, but serial murder or serial violent rape) that a person is rightfully deprived of the privilege to live in society. You are then left with life in prison w/out parole or the death penalty -- each imposes a certain amount of brutalization on the society that performs it, but the death penalty does answer a need for vengeance on the part of some victims and their families that I believe is human. 

Now, the problem with the death penalty is that the shedding of innocent blood by the justice system is morally unacceptable in my view. No justice system on the planet has shown itself capable of getting it right all or even close to all of the time. Hence, the endless delays in the U.S. system that was criticized earlier in this thread. I personally believe that given the current inequities and infirmities in the U.S. system, we'd be better off not having the death penalty at this point in time.

But - in the Hitler/Stalin case (or Saddam's case) -- we have guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The chance that they are innocent of the crimes that they are accused of is nil. And the chance that some justification (mental retardation, a history of abuse, economic desparation-- to cite some of the factors that come up over and over again in U.S. criminal justice) mitigates their crimes and moves the balance in favor of compassion is nil -- the crimes are too great in scope. 

So, if you want to put that type of people to death, you don't have to wait for the DNA evidence. You don't have to torture yourself about ineffective assistence of counsel. 

I am glad that Nuremberg happened. I am glad that Eichmann was caught and punished. I am glad that we were spared those people growing old in jail, while bands of Neo Nazis held celebrations outside their prisons every year, and they all wrote books and became sought after interview targets by serious and unserious journalists from around the world. (Tonight: A Barbara Walters exclusive: Eichmann Explains). 

I have been struck by reading that European politicians were hunger striking and the like to stop the execution of Saddam Hussein. I did not read of similar actions being taken with regard to the 4 Japanese men who were executed on Christmas Day, to name just one recent example. 
It seems that on both the pro and anti side certain cases are treated differently.

P.S. To go back to something that Cuchu said about different cultures, I was struck by this quote from an essay in today's NYT by John Burns:



> That I could feel pity for him [Saddam Hussein] struck the Iraqis _with whom I talked as evidence of a profound moral corruption_. I came to understand how a Westerner used to the civilities of democracy and due process — even a reporter who thought he grasped the depths of Saddam’s depravity — fell short of the Iraqis’ sense, forged by years of brutality, of the power of his unmitigated evil.


 
Perhaps it makes no sense to speak of "morality" and "ethics" on any kind of a global scale (as I have done too), when they are only products of our own experience, and far from universal


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> A court in this country recently acquitted a 61-year-old man who admitted shooting a 42-year-old trespassing member of our Travelling People community.
> The trespasser had been shot, then savagely beaten, and (the farmer having reloaded his shotgun) shot once again - this time in the back - after he had already left the accused's property and was struggling to get away.
> 
> So, it seems that there are people here who disagree with the concept of 'the sanctity of life' in some cases, and who disagree even with your view of the 'in self defence' plea.


I don't see  how shooting, beating and then shooting someone in the back as he is trying to get away counts as self defense, I don't see how trespassing can be compared with trying to kill someone, and I really don't see what it has to do with what I said. Have I missed something?


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I don't see  how shooting, beating and then shooting someone in the back as he is trying to get away counts as self defense, I don't see how trespassing can be compared with trying to kill someone, and I really don't see what it has to do with what I said. Have I missed something?



I don't either - but the accused claimed that he was acting in self-defence. He also claimed that the dead man and his community had put him in fear of his life.
The relativity to what you have said was in my point that there are people here who don't even agree with you (or me) on the sanctity of life, or on the concept that for a citizen to take a life in unnecessary circumstances even merits a sentence for manslaughter.
The people who freed this man — and those who approve of their actions (and there are many who appear to) — are going to shed no tears for Saddam Hussein, believe me.

I despair of my fellow humans frequently. We are not a nice bunch.


----------



## LV4-26

It is perfectly human for people under intense emotional stress for having lost members of their family in tragic and cruel circumstances, it is perfectly human for those people to feel a (sometimes temporary*) need for vengeance. It is even their right to express it. But I think it's the duty of a society, exempt from that same emotional stress, to leave this need unsatisfied, i.e. not to reproduce/copy/imitate the same act that caused those people's distress.
___________________________
*What I mean by "sometimes temporary"
(click on "about us")


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> It is perfectly human for people under intense emotional stress for having lost members of their family in tragic and cruel circumstances, it is perfectly human for those people to feel a (sometimes temporary*) need for vengeance. It is even their right to express it. But I think it's the duty of a society, exempt from that same emotional stress, to leave this need unsatisfied, i.e. not to reproduce/copy/imitate the same act that caused those people's distress.
> ___________________________
> *What I mean by "sometimes temporary"
> (click on "about us")




This is what I meant when I said…


maxiogee said:


> Gordon Wilson had it right.



Check out the wikipedia entry about him here. A man of immense courage and personal integrity who showed many in ireland that vengeance is not something we need to find our answers when we feel unbearably wronged by others.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

I am against the death penalty *without exception*, especially because we shouldn’t low ourselves to the level of the monsters. Not for religious reasons: I just hope that who say that they are against the death penalty because of religious reasons would say the same if they were atheist like me.

Not even Sadam Hussein should be an exception. He and other recent monsters like him (do I have to name them?) should be in jail for the rest of their life as compensation to their victims. Later on, I might expect and perhaps accept, as a satisfaction, a sincere repentance from any of these monsters.


----------



## Porteño

Forget about all the moral arguments, I turned against the death penalty for a very simple reason; the danger of killing the wrong person, especially when the evidence is circumstantial and not fully proven, which often happened in the past before the days of forensic medicine and DNA.

I was raised in a relatively small community and discovered I had two 'doubles' also living there, one of whom was so identical (poor beggar) that even my own mother confused him with me. I actually met him once and honestly believed I was looking in a mirror. Curiously the three of us dressed alike, too.

Well, I began wondering what would happen if one of us committed murder and witnesses identified the wrong one, who could not prove where he had been at the time of the crime. A sound enough reason for me. at least, to oppose the death penalty.


----------



## heidita

Hussein was hanged today. It was even filmed and brought on TV. 
Hussein looked drugged, completely so. 
What I do not understand is how the hangman could put the rope around his neck and how the other executioner could pull the lever. I have always said that I could understand even though, of course, not defend, a person kill in "hot blood" never in cold blood though.

Personally I think they have made a martyr out of Hussein.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> I cannot imagine campaigning for the death penalty, given the available alternative of life imprisonment for a heinous crime or crime.



I don't have any strong opinions on the issue of the death penalty, but I'm honestly puzzled why most people find it self-evident that life imprisonment is necessarily more humane than the death penalty -- especially if the latter is carried out in a quick and relatively painless way. In the past, this was by no means considered self-evident. For example, Cesare Beccaria, a highly influential 18th century theorist of criminal justice, was opposed to the death penalty on the grounds (among others) that life imprisonment is a harsher penalty than death and thus more appropriate for heinous crimes. 

Personally, I would much prefer a quick and clean death over a lifetime (or even several decades) in a typical American prison. Of course, one can reply that a prisoner always has the alternative of suicide, but the problem is that in a high-security prison environment, it can be very hard to come up with a way of killing oneself that wouldn't be too painful and gruesome. 

Thus, as long as sentenced criminals don't actually have a choice between a quick death and long-term imprisonment, I don't think it's possible to claim that the latter is necessarily a less harsh and torturous option. Curiously, whenever I propose that such a feature should be built into the criminal justice system, people react as if I were proposing something utterly outrageous, even if they are proponents of the death penalty.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> Personally I think they have made a martyr out of Hussein.


You are sadly correct.  He was allowed to look dignified.  He was allowed to not wear a hood.  His death was immortalised.
I will be seriously surprised if those who orchestrated this whole unfortunate charade are not hoist by their own petard or charred by the blowback effect.

.,,


----------



## DickHavana

. said:


> You are sadly correct.  He was allowed to look dignified.  He was allowed to not wear a hood.  His death was immortalised.
> I will be seriously surprised if those who orchestrated this whole unfortunate charade are not hoist by their own petard or charred by the blowback effect.
> 
> .,,



Yes, Hussein was perfectly conscient: His death would be the last of the scenes. He died with dignity and strength. He knew that his death would be his last (and it's possible the most important) match for a lot of people.

Now, Husseein is not only the dictatorial villain. Hussein is too the martyr of an unjust war that knew to die with the dignity of a sheikh. A new heroe for the Islam.


----------



## Porteño

I'm afraid I have to agree with both heidita and ... . Absolutely nothing was gained by this farcical display other then to ensure that SD goes down as a martyr in the eyes of many who do not see us in a very good light.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Now, the problem with the death penalty is that the shedding of innocent blood by the justice system is morally unacceptable in my view. No justice system on the planet has shown itself capable of getting it right all or even close to all of the time. Hence, the endless delays in the U.S. system that was criticized earlier in this thread. I personally believe that given the current inequities and infirmities in the U.S. system, we'd be better off not having the death penalty at this point in time.



But I have the impression that in practice, the death penalty cases are in fact the least bad type of criminal cases in this regard. It seems to me that an innocent suspect sentenced to death has very realistic practical chances of contesting the verdict, and the proof of guilt of those who actually get executed is generally much stronger than the standard of proof that is typically considered conclusive for prison sentences. 

On the other hand, my impression is that an innocent person sentenced to a long prison term (including life) has extremely low chances of ever contesting the verdict. I know that in some U.S. states, even an indisputable proof of innocence doesn't constitute grounds for appeal or re-trial after a certain period, which can be as short as several weeks (21 days in Virginia, for example). And anything less than an indisputable proof of innocence will certainly not be helpful once the original verdict has been brought; not to mention that most prisoners, innocent or not, don't have the vast legal funds necessary to struggle with the system. 

This of course doesn't mean that I consider the current practice of death penalty as highly just and impartial; I merely believe that other criminal cases are far more often handled in an even more outrageously unjust way. This situation is probably a result of the widespread (and very mistaken) popular belief that innocent prisoners can somehow easily appeal and reverse their sentences, so unlike the death penalty, the imprisonment is not irreversible. But I have a strong impression that for practical purposes, imprisonment is often as irreversible as the execution -- and the former is far more easily imposed without anything resembling proof "beyond reasonable doubt." 

Of course, I'm not a resident of the U.S., and I'm not involved in the criminal justice system in any way, so as someone who has insider knowledge of the legal profession, please correct me if my impressions are misguided.


----------



## Victoria32

Nun-Translator said:


> _To my intense surprise advanced searches of this forum yielded 0 results for both "capital punishment" and "death penalty". With all us political hotheads socially conscious wordsmiths in the forums, I find that remarkable._
> 
> Saddam Hussein was hanged this morning for crimes against humanity. Was that the right thing to do? Is the death penalty always appropriate for murderers? Is it always wrong? Is it appropriate only for really, really bad people?
> 
> Fair disclosure: I am against the death penalty, both personally and as a member of the Catholic Church, which has also taken a public stand against it.
> 
> I correspond with three American men on Death Row in three different states: one is a charming, well-educated serial killer who was convicted of 16 torture-murders, but probably committed more than thirty; one is a man in his thirties with borderline developmental disability, who was terribly abused in childhood and had never been arrested in his life, working at various low-level service jobs until he "cracked" one day, killed a lady who refused his attentions and tried to cover up the death; the third is a man who has been in trouble with the law since childhood and who is on Death Row for a kidnap-robbery-killing committed shortly after he was released from serving a sentence for two other killings committed while he was a juvenile.
> 
> These three men are incredibly different from each other, their crimes are incredibly different from each other's crimes, they are in three different prisons in three different parts of the US, they are all guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted, they are all sentenced to die. The first has been on Death Row for more than 20 years, waiting for the appeal process to come to an end one way or the other; the other two have been on Death Row for "only" a few years. Sadam was sentenced to death and executed within the space of, I believe, well under a month.
> 
> Should the death penalty never be applied? Should it be applied only to "Hitlers and Saddams" and people like my serial killer penpal? Should it be applied to anyone who unlawfully takes a life?
> 
> *I am interested in a discussion in principle, a discussion of the morals and ethics of capital punishment, and not a discussion of particular crimes or particular people.*


Well, my opinion is that the death penalty is always wrong. No exception should be made for 'evil dictators'. That's partly a religious view, and partly a view I have always held, since seeing a cartoon in the Daily Mirror about Timothy Evans when I was 10 years old. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans


badgrammar said:


> My son walked by and saw the CNN headline with a picture of Hussein in the noose and said "Eww!  That's horrible!  DO we still do that"!?


That made me feel physically ill when I read it, badgrammar. They had a picture on TV with Saddam in a noose? (On the other hand, seeing the reality of it might make people stop and think! 


heidita said:


> Hussein was hanged today. It was even filmed and brought on TV.
> Hussein looked drugged, completely so.
> What I do not understand is how the hangman could put the rope around his neck and how the other executioner could pull the lever. I have always said that I could understand even though, of course, not defend, a person kill in "hot blood" never in cold blood though.
> 
> Personally I think they have made a martyr out of Hussein.


Yes, a very bad move on the part of the Americans! (Personally I believe that the present Iraqi government is as 'independent' as Musharraf. (Note to mods, please don't delete this post because of that remark, it is both relevant because the USA is the only developed country with the death penalty, and just an aside anyway!) 

Vicky


----------



## Porteño

I think you're quite right Victoria32. I also remember the Evans' case and also the Craig/Bentley one where another mentally retarded individual was put to death, erroneously in my opinion.

To me the most terrible thing about the death penalty is that, if there has been a miscarriage of justice, there is precious little that can be done to correct it. At least if the person is in prison, they can be released and maybe compensated in some way.

The other thing that I find so terrible relates to the US system which has been amply referred to. There a person can wait as much as 20 years before being executed. can this be called justice? In some cases the person has been virtually rehabilitated, if such a thing can really happen, and then when everything else fails, they are led to the death chamber. Horrific!


----------



## ElaineG

> On the other hand, my impression is that an innocent person sentenced to a long prison term (including life) has extremely low chances of ever contesting the verdict. I know that in some U.S. states, even an indisputable proof of innocence doesn't constitute grounds for appeal or re-trial after a certain period, which can be as short as several weeks (21 days in Virginia, for example). And anything less than an indisputable proof of innocence will certainly not be helpful once the original verdict has been brought; not to mention that most prisoners, innocent or not, don't have the vast legal funds necessary to struggle with the system.


 
In reality, there is not much procedural difference between capital cases and other cases in terms of rights to an appeal. 

Appellate rights are extensive and elaborate regardless of the penalty. In addition to state appellate rights (if you are in the state system), there are numerous avenues -- despite the best efforts of some conservatives to restrict them -- to challenge a conviction in federal court.

One difference is that more pro bono lawyers of a higher quality will often take on a capital case because of an extensive national network of anti-death-penalty groups. But not every death row prisoner has a crack legal team.

Another difference is that an enormous percentage of non-capital crimes are disposed with through the plea bargaining system. A plea agreement is, of course, not normally subject to appeal. I have yet to hear of anyone pleading guilty and agreeing to the death penalty as part of the sentencing agreement.

The 21 day rule that you cite in Virginia refers to the introduction of new DNA evidence, and does not preclude filing an _appeal, _it precludes motions at the trial court level related to newly discoverable evidence. It was in fact devised for capital cases, in an attempt to cut short the long delays, and has little to do with drug crimes, for example, where DNA evidence is unlikely to be key.

My boyfriend/life partner is a criminal defense lawyer here in New York (former prosecutor so he's been on both sides of the fence), and I have to say I am consistently amazed and impressed by the amount of due process that criminals are due and receive. I have worked on a number of pro bono federal appeals as a lawyer, and I have clerked at the federal appellate level and find the federal judiciary to be even more scrupulous and hardworking when it comes to criminal cases then they are in civil cases, which is for the vast majority of them, an already high standard.

As Cuchuflete said, Maine, is not Texas, is not New York, and I believe that the state justice system can be rougher and messier in some of other states. The federal justice system (if you are not being detained under one of GWB's novel terrorism schemes) is replete with procedural protections which are uniform throughout the country. 

This is not to say that miscarriages of justice don't occur. Of course they do. But it would be a mistake to think that routine criminal cases are handled in some fashion that's procedurally fundamentally different than death penalty cases -- aside, from as I said, the fact that death penalty cases attract some national attention and some national quality legal talent.

The main difference is that someone who proves actual innocence, even after an exhaustion of the normal appeals process, will usually get out of jail, perhaps deprived of many years of their life, etc. etc. etc., if they are still alive. If they are dead, there is nothing to be done for them.

I fear that most if not all of this is sadly off topic. 



> it is both relevant because the USA is the only developed country with the death penalty, and just an aside anyway!)


 
Japan is not a developed country?!? As I noted before, four murderers were just hanged on Christmas there.

China might argue that if it is not developed it is fast getting there.

Ditto South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, India. 

Almost all Middle Eastern countries have the death penalty. Is Qatar not a developed country? From what I understand, their standard of living is equivalent to that of most European countries.

I'm not sure what definition of developed you are using.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> I cannot imagine campaigning for the death penalty, given the available alternative of life imprisonment for a heinous crime or crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any strong opinions on the issue of the death penalty, but I'm honestly puzzled why most people find it self-evident that life imprisonment is necessarily more humane than the death penalty -- especially if the latter is carried out in a quick and relatively painless way.
Click to expand...


I'm honestly puzzled at the juxtaposition of a quote from one of my posts, and the remark at "why most people find ....life imprisonment...more humane."  I have commented at least once in this thread that a life sentence may be a harsher punishment.  I didn't comment on either life imprisonment or a death sentence being "humane".   Frankly, I do not worry about either being humane for a murderer.  They should serve to remove the convicted offender from society, and offer some form of justice to society, and especially to those related to the victim.   Incarcerating or executing a murderer should serve first and foremost to eliminate the risk to society of further attacks.  I think that in the great majority of cases, life sentences do that most effectively—perhaps in all cases.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> I don't have any strong opinions on the issue of the death penalty, but I'm honestly puzzled why most people find it self-evident that life imprisonment is necessarily more humane than the death penalty -- especially if the latter is carried out in a quick and relatively painless way.


I agree with our esteemed bedel.
I have seen no evidence to argue that execution is less humane than life inprisonment but I have seen a number of indications that some would prefer death to life in gaol.

.,,


----------



## Nunty

Dear Elaine, 

I want to thank you for your long, well-argued post in favor of the Hitler-Stalin argument. (It's too long, I think, to quote here in full, but I included the link for the interested at the end of this response.)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both life in prison without parole and capital punishment brutalize the person, "but the death penalty does answer a need for vengeance on the part of some victims and their families that [you] believe is human." The problem that you see is "that the shedding of innocent blood by the justice system is morally unacceptable..." However, you continue, "in the Hitler/Stalin case (or Saddam's case) -- we have guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The chance that they are innocent of the crimes that they are accused of is nil."

Is that a fair summary of your argument? (For those who missed Elaine's post, and it is worth reading, please click on the link below.)

Unlike some of us, you feel that the death penalty is appropriate in certain exceptional cases. Society, you claim has the right to take a life for particularly heinous crimes.

Now, I won't do you the injustice of invoking the slipper slope argument, and I know that I will not convince you any more than you will convince me. I am content to have understood your argument (please correct me if I have not).

I agree, by the way, that it is very sad that people get up on their hind feet for the execution of an infamous criminal, but yawn and go back to sleep when it's Joe Blow.

Thanks for the contribution.



ElaineG said:


> Well, the Hitler-Stalin argument makes sense to me for this reason. [major snip]


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> I don't either - but the accused claimed that he was acting in self-defence. He also claimed that the dead man and his community had put him in fear of his life.
> The relativity to what you have said was in my point that there are people here who don't even agree with you (or me) on the sanctity of life, or on the concept that for a citizen to take a life in unnecessary circumstances even merits a sentence for manslaughter.
> The people who freed this man — and those who approve of their actions (and there are many who appear to) — are going to shed no tears for Saddam Hussein, believe me.
> 
> I despair of my fellow humans frequently. We are not a nice bunch.



Thanks for the explanation. Yes, as a group, we humans are a very not-nice bunch much of the time.

Your explanation points up the major weakness in my self-defence argument: the definition of a clear and present danger to life. However, I would have thought that most reasonable people would agree that a person running away no longer presents an immediate danger, any more than a person cuffed/chained/tied/locked in a cell does.

I agree that human life is sacred, but I also hold we have to make choices. Leaving my pitiful self out of it, if I witness someone attempting to kill someone else -- to make it very clear and extreme, let's say the victim is a blind old man and the attacker a young person who wants to kill him to take his money. I will intervene, and that intervention will be carried to whatever point necessary. 

There is a very delicate moral point at stake here. The would-be killer, the victim and I are all humans and the life of all three of us is sacred. The would-be killer has made a choice, the victim has not. I then make a choice and in this scenario my choice is that the victim's life is "more sacred" than the attacker's and that I am willing to risk my own to save it.

Theologically, this is ridiculous. But morally?

Taking it further, let's say I get the attacker's weapon away from her and kill her with it. Am I justified in doing so at this point?

If I manage to disable the attacker and hold her at bay, but with difficulty, knowing that she may get lose at any moment and kill us both, do I have the right to go ahead and kill her at that point?

If meanwhile the old man has a heart attack and dies of it two days later, the law of many states in the US then makes this attempted armed robbery a capital offense. The attacker may then be executed.

This is such a complicated issue, a moral and ethical one, which is why I am glad if we can keep it away from specific cases.


----------



## Nunty

Athaulf said:


> I don't have any strong opinions on the issue of the death penalty, but I'm honestly puzzled why most people find it self-evident that life imprisonment is necessarily more humane than the death penalty -- especially if the latter is carried out in a quick and relatively painless way.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thus, as long as sentenced criminals don't actually have a choice between a quick death and long-term imprisonment, I don't think it's possible to claim that the latter is necessarily a less harsh and torturous option. Curiously, whenever I propose that such a feature should be built into the criminal justice system, people react as if I were proposing something utterly outrageous, even if they are proponents of the death penalty.



Thank you, Athauf. I  am aware that some people are against capital punishment because they find it more brutal  than life in prison, but I am not one of them.  Most of the prisoners with whom I have had contact would far rather die than stay in prison the rest of their life.

My opposition to the death penalty is moral. I think it is wrong to take a life in that way.

I didn't quite understand what you mean by "such a feature". Could you explain, please? Thanks.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I'm sure Mr. Hussein was not condemned to death prior the court sentence, and the fact that he was hanged was just one of many possible punishments until de last second of the trial . Give me a break!

Hilter-Stalin-Milosevic-Hussein cases are the last act of war, a bussiness, you know, where killing -the enemy, of course- is rewarded. Reasons of State are above any moral consideration here, that's the naked truth, and moral considerations of the masses are an input regarded in order to keep their votes, and "fair" trials a formality to pass as clean as possible the judgement of history. I didn't watch media execution clips, nor will do, as being Coliseum closed for repairs since 5XX Rome's earthquake, it seems that CNN eagerly took the rod in the relay race. Saddam was a very bad guy and his execution confirms he was really a very bad buy. Circular logic, beyond that individual's probable merits to burn in hell.

I repeat what I said in my previous post, these reasons of State and a "preventive" self defense in Dr. Lecter-like cases are the unique situations where I justify death penalty.

Murder is a brutal act coming from the most primitive layers of human nature. How to deal with murderers seems to arouse the most primitive aspects of our societies. I regret death penalty is used to hide and disguise the flaws of our law inforcement policies. I was in NYC only once, in October 1993, a month which was the highest record in assasinations -I think there were about 230 murders-, and they tried to robb me twice -insisting in keep my camera neck hung and my city map unfolded in 207st and Broadway wasn't a good idea-. Three months later was Giuliani's inauguration and Bratton was in office. They used the Broken Window Theory -or broken heads if you like- and now NYC has a monthly average of 60-65 murders.

In 2003 there was a similar plague of assasination here in Buenos Aires, up to 150  in a month, mostly associated to car robbery. The authorities -our mediocre, corrupt, goofy authorities- acted against the points where such robbed cars marketed -they acted quicky as they knew where to go collecting their brives and no further investigation was needed-, and the rate dropped about 30%.

Capital punishment has nothing to do with the ammount of crimes. It's just something to bring to the altar of the "Lord of the Flies". The capital punishment plague in USA, propagated from Texas to most states, leaving a few ones not infected cornered against the Canadian border or isolated, was a reaction against a criminal wave that broken windows-like policies is now slowly driving away.

Capital punishment has no return. Many cases in the States of people on dead row who were found finally not guilty with ADN tests and other edge techniques and were finally freed. How much was their finantial compensation for spending years in continuous angst expecting their execution and seeing their lifes ruined while their know themselves inocent? Research that, but you'll find that a leg broke in a town carousel is much more "profitable", because moral damages of an accident are greater than those emerging by being unjustly incarcerated waiting for you to be put to sleep like an ill dog. Look at the whole scene and get your conclusions.

USA and China holds the most cases of capital punishment. Many countries follow that model in some extent. I think it is a model I hated my country would like to copy. It's a smoke screen to cover public disturbance about the lack of proper law inforcement policies or political freedom.

The I-am-against-capital-punishment-in-any-case-by-motive-of-principles approach is not more useful. It is a self-indulgent position that promotes our feelings that we are good boys and girls and each time we repeat it we feel we got an aditional floor tile in heaven.

He or she who thinks capital punishment is good, get involved in the process of achieving that dead.

He or she who thinks capital punishment is bad, get involved in promoting a law inforcement system that works better, not in self-indulgent "principles".

Lastly, Oscar Wilde's opinion about the kind of destiny Saddam Hussein had.

"It is sweet to dance to violins
When love and life are fair;
To dance to flutes, to dance to lutes
Is delicate and rare;
But it is not so sweet with nimble feet
To dance upon the air"

something that anticipated the theatrical fashion that movies and television would promote in later decades about killing the "bad guys".


----------



## Nunty

Alec, thank you for your very carefully thought-out argument. I'm sorry that you feel that principles are something that needs to be put in quotation marks, though, as if you do not believe they are real and that you think they are necessarily self-indulgent.

Like Buenos Aires, my city is one that is no stranger to violence. Does the fact that I am for peace make me self-indulgent? Then so be it. I can live with that.

I have avoided too much personal disclosure here, but I will say that I have first hand knowledge of the feelings of the family members of victims. I have experienced the blood-chilling desire for vengeance, but thank God my higher faculties prevailed. 

We disagree, but I'm very glad you expressed your point of view so I can understand it better. Thank you.


----------



## LV4-26

Not only am I self-indulgent but I'm also a fool if I believe that the mere expression of an opinion, position or principle can win me any "additional floor tile in heaven".
On the other  hand, as I don't think it will lose me any either, I'll go on... 

Our principles can certainly cause us to be considered as self-indulgent. And maybe we actually are. Who can be sure about their true motives? So you would be perfectly right to point that out *as a potential danger.*  But my assumption is that I'm in a better position than anyone (human) else to evaluate that. So am I allowed to sort that out with my own conscience or am I judged once and for all?


----------



## aleCcowaN

Nun-Translator said:


> Alec, thank you for your very carefully thought-out argument. I'm sorry that you feel that principles are something that needs to be put in quotation marks, though, as if you do not believe they are real and that you think they are necessarily self-indulgent.
> 
> Like Buenos Aires, my city is one that is no stranger to violence. Does the fact that I am for peace make me self-indulgent? Then so be it. I can live with that.
> 
> I have avoided too much personal disclosure here, but I will say that I have first hand knowledge of the feelings of the family members of victims. I have experienced the blood-chilling desire for vengeance, but thank God my higher faculties prevailed.
> 
> We disagree, but I'm very glad you expressed your point of view so I can understand it better. Thank you.


Dear Sister, 
I should have made a distinction between principles and "principles". I apologize for not doing so.

I'm sure your moral considerations about capital punishment are deep, thoughtful, sensible, consistent with your beliefs and your calling. You also know about the back stage of dead row from your correspondence with inmates, and wanted to share a bit of your experience with us. You're against capital punishment for good principles, the worthy ones. I'm against capital punishment too, for "principles", free and rational meditation about the issue and my actual state of mind, opened to changes, but I don't think I'll change my mind much on this issue along the rest of my life.

I refer as "principles" what it is not "_a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a  basis for reasoning or conduct_" or "_a basic truth or law or assumption"_. Personal conclusions are not "principles", at most they are personal values, if they have also a certain degree of emotional investment.

In this age of naked hedonism and postmodernism, when anybody makes his or her belief system summing up heterogeneous sources chosen _à la carte_, (Virgin Mary devoted + believes in reincarnation + aborts when needed -but, yes, with a lot of pain and tears- + vegetarian + environmental caring + lefthanded pointing of social unevennesses + righthanded spending of money + whatever your epistemological hedonism requires ) I clearly call self-indulgent the ones who holds such a circus of beliefs and chose to be against capital punishment because "human life is sacred" and this idea make them feel comfortable with themselves, being them probably the first ones in crying out for revenge and head-chopping in case they or any person close to them should become a victim of any agression.

By other hand, many people stated here that they do not care for hideous crime perpetrators, an opinion no one can disregard for being against his or her "principles". They are in fact valiant people as they hold their opinion no matter what someone else can think of their "morality". These are the people we have to convince in order to have death-penalty-free societies. And we have to depart from the way they think and what they expect, not from our values that in many cases just mirrors what is fashion and comfortable to believe.

And we have to compromise that there are certain limited number of cases and social situations in which capital punishment is not so wrong. Starting a debate about capital punishment departing from Saddam Hussein execution is risky, as it can promote a noticeable exception aiding to mantain the general rule.

Let's promote a debate about capital punishment within the context of law enforcement as it belongs to it. Personal values and principles are left to each person's autonomy of conscience.

I think capital punishment must be abolished worldwide and UN has an important role in doing so. Any iniciative toward this has my support and vote. This will contribute to uncloud human vision about human life, and may reduce the risk of war, as peace is -I think- our ultimate goal.

You can see, dear Sister, we have a similar opinion coming from very different origins. Myself, as a person who believes no reward of punishment is waiting for me after dead, because I think, like Jorge Luis Borges said, I plan to die both body and soul, this conviction is not obstacle for me to think that deep and good values are the most important of life, and what we will leave to the world, our only personal contribution to eternity. To do so, I'm not afraid of breaking a symbolic mirror over Narcissus head.


----------



## maxiogee

aleCcowaN said:


> I was in NYC only once, in October 1993, a month which was the highest record in assasinations -I think there were about 230 murders-, and they tried to robb me twice



Wrong!
*"They"* didn't do anything - two incidents occurred in which people tried to rob you. There is no "they" involved.
You make it seem as if all New Yorkers were out to get you.




> The I-am-against-capital-punishment-in-any-case-by-motive-of-principles approach is not more useful. It is a self-indulgent position that promotes our feelings that we are good boys and girls and each time we repeat it we feel we got an aditional floor tile in heaven.


As I don't foresee a heaven or a hell I'm not in it for the floor tiles!
I think that the espousal of principles is how society moves forwards - people come to see that certain commonly-held opinions/beliefs are morally wrong and work to convince the rest of society - that is why we don't send small children up chimneys nowadays. Not because people who believed in heaven were trying to pre-book a seat, but because they just knew they were doing the right thing.




> He or she who thinks capital punishment is bad, get involved in promoting a law inforcement system that works better, not in self-indulgent "principles".


Oh grow up!
a) Speaking of something working 'better' is to imply that capital punishment 'works' - it patently doesn't.
b) There is more to social living than mere "law enforcement".
c) You have no way of knowing who is involved in social justice work here.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just listened to a BBC report/debate about the death penalty, using S.H. as a starting point.  One of the particpants kept repeating that, in order to persuade people to abandon support of the death penalty, criminal justice systems need to come up with "better alternatives".  

That brought to mind Alec's call for "a law inforcement system that works better", and made me wonder what on earth either of those folks had in mind.  If life imprisonment is not
a valid alternative to the death penalty, then what is? Life imprisonment in solitary confinement?   Both of those options already exist.

Murderous dictators, serial killers, other varieties of "sacred life but still vile scum" are no more dissuaded by a noose than a small, cold cell.  They operate on the assumption that they will not be brought to justice, or that they and their actions are just.  Tinkering with the law enforcement system is immaterial as a deterrent for such people.


----------



## emma42

I agree with Cuchuflete that neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment has a deterrent effect.

In relation to "better alternatives", one often hears the phrase in Britain "Life should mean life", meaning that if a sentence of life imprisonment is passed, then the offender should spend the rest of his/her natural life in prison.  Here, there is a mandatory "life sentence" for murder, and the sentencing judge may recommend how long the prisoner should spend behind bars - yes, it is contradictory.  Ultimately, the Home Secretary (a senior member of the Government) decides when such a prisoner will be released.  Such a prisoner will be "on licence" for the rest of his/her days, but free from prison.

It is extremely rare that the recipient of a "life sentence" in this country spends the rest of his/her life in prison.


----------



## Nunty

cuchuflete said:


> [...]
> Murderous dictators, serial killers, other varieties of "sacred life but still vile scum" are no more dissuaded by a noose than a small, cold cell.  They operate on the assumption that they will not be brought to justice, or that they and their actions are just.  Tinkering with the law enforcement system is immaterial as a deterrent for such people.



What a wonderful turn of phrase "sacred life but still vile scum".

So many people who hear of my fierce opposition to capital punishment for everyone and anyone jump to the conclusion that I am full of fluffy pink tender feelings for these people. I am not. My penpals the serial sex-torture-murderer, the bad-since-childhood murderer, and the just-sort-of-snapped rage killer are all people who should never again be in society. I would be... distressed... if they were granted parole.

None of them were deterred by knowing about the death penalty. None of the hundreds (or thousands?) of men and women in the US's Death Rows were deterred. There is no reason to think that their deaths will deter others.

Charles Manson has been in solitary confinement for years in what is widely considered the toughest SHU of the toughest prison in America (California's Pelican Bay Prison). I am not sorry about that. He will probably never leave there, but those few who do leave are permanently psychiatrically disabled by the experience. To the best of my knowledge, not even one drug abusing murderer has been deterred by knowing that. 

I complete agree with Cuchu that changing the law enforcement system or the court system will not make the slightest difference to such people. I'm not sure what he proposes, but I believe that we have an obligation to house them with a certain minimum of dignity, medical care, food and clothing for the rest of their natural lives. I believe that this is part of the price we pay for living in society - the obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Tinkering with the law enforcement system is immaterial as a deterrent for such people.



The question is - who are the 'deterrent' sentences designed to deter? I would suggest that there are those among us who would be criminal if they felt they could get away with it. The prospect of the punishment is what keeps many on the straight and narrow.
How often have we seen a wealthy individual or corporation, found guilty of some offence, being 'smacked' with a paltry fine, which is the maximum the law provides - to the appalled horror of "the public" who feel that the offender can well afford it. This shows the way the average person thinks - they're only good because we fear the consequences.


----------



## cuchuflete

Nun-Translator said:
			
		

> I believe that this is part of the price we pay for living in society - *the obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.*


Let's extend that to the victims, past and potential, of a murderer.

Capital punishment serves to-

deter future crime
give emotional closure/vengeance/retribution to victims, victims' families 

(Please note that the  does not mean I am declaring this to be good or bad, principled or moral or unprincipled or immoral.  That will depend on one's principles and morals.)

Remove the executed from society, thus "...to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves."  (but so will life imprisonment.)

Rehabilitate the convicted: N.A., That is not a logical or valid objective of either the death penalty or lifetime incarceration.


----------



## curly

Nun-Translator said:


> None of them were deterred by knowing about the death penalty. None of the hundreds (or thousands?) of men and women in the US's Death Rows were deterred. There is no reason to think that their deaths will deter others.


 
Just because something isn't 100% effective it doesn't mean that it should be stopped.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> Just because something isn't 100% effective it doesn't mean that it should be stopped.



Would you care to hazard a guess as to what level of effectiveness it enjoys?


----------



## curly

Population in an area where capital punishment is practised minus those who have committed a crime punishable by death expressed as a percentage against total population.
I believe most people would would commit murder if there were no punishments.

Although it's only a guess.

And just to mention Saddam Hussein, i'm against his hanging.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> I believe most people would would commit murder if there were no punishments.


This could be one of the most cogent arguments against execution.
State condoned murder has the potential to blur the line in the mind of the citizen making murder seem to be logical under some circumstances.
Murder is never logical.
I believe that most people have an inherent compulsion to not murder.  One of the planks of my belief in the genetic abhorence of murder is our survival as a species.
How many tales of murderers losing their sanity do we have in our literary memories.  Macbeth is a perfect example.
The taking of a human life is such a significant matter that it is my belief that less than 1% of the population is capable of taking a human life.


.,,


----------



## curly

Well I believe a lot of people would kill another under the right circumstances, I realise it's impossible to gauge exactly how many would would do anything if conditions were different, such as no punishment at all, or no capital punishment, or whatever. I'm against capital punishemnt, because I don't see it as useful, i'm just disagreeing that nobody has stopped themselves from killing or doing wrong by thinking of capital or other punishment.

I don't think there's any point punishing someone like Hussein at all, I doubt he would ever change his ways, or be able to turn over a new leaf and start a new life an improved man, his atrocities are to great for any normal life to continue, the only thing that one can do is make sure he has no power, by execution or life imprisonment, but niether would be a punishment in my eyes, merely a way of keeping him under control. ( That's why I don't prefer either, and am completely against his torture)


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> I agree with Cuchuflete that neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment has a deterrent effect.
> Such a prisoner will be "on licence" for the rest of his/her days, but free from prison.
> 
> It is extremely rare that the recipient of a "life sentence" in this country spends the rest of his/her life in prison.


Yes, but as you know, it is extremely rare for a prisoner on licence to reoffend. Looks at that Eastenders actor, wossname, and various others...


cuchuflete said:


> Rehabilitate the convicted: N.A., That is not a logical or valid objective of either the death penalty or lifetime incarceration.


Why is rehabilitation not a valid objective for incarceration? 


curly said:


> I believe most people would would commit murder if there were no punishments.
> 
> Although it's only a guess.


Fortunately, I believe you are very wrong about that, Curly!


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> Why is rehabilitation not a valid objective for incarceration?


If you take my statement out of context, your question is a good one.  In the context in which I said it was "N.A."
I spoke of *lifetime* incarceration as an alternative to execution.

Is it clear now?


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> If you take my statement out of context, your question is a good one.  In the context in which I said it was "N.A."
> I spoke of *lifetime* incarceration as an alternative to execution.
> 
> Is it clear now?


I don't think you needed to get offended Cuchuflete! I was simply asking... which brings to Tookie Williams and people like him. Pardon me but what in blue blazes is gained by executing someone who has turned his life around and is an influence for good? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams#Anti-gang_activism

Vicky


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't think I needed to get offended either, Vicky.  I saw no cause for offense.  I did feel just a very slight twinge of befuddlement that the context seemed to have been so elusive.


I have vague memories of Mr. Williams, who seemed to have
reformed himself, or been reformed.  I don't see any point in killing such a person.  

Others may ask, though, and not without cause, if their duties as citizens include paying for lifetime maintenance of murderers.  I don't share that concern, but that does not invalidate it.  

I suppose we could take the AlecCowan approach, and say that all those who want all death row inmates to have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment should show that they are moral and/or principled enough to stop telling "society" how to manage its affairs, and reach into their own highly principled and moral pockets for the wherewithal to pay for such an alternative.  

I expect howls of righteous indignation.


----------



## mickaël

cuchuflete said:


> I suppose we could take the AlecCowan approach, and say that all those who want all death row inmates to have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment should show that they are moral and/or principled enough to stop telling "society" how to manage its affairs, and reach into their own highly principled and moral pockets for the wherewithal to pay for such an alternative.


I don't know if the commutation would be more expensive, but at least in USA, capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment according to Amnesty International. 

(I offer my apologies if I missed something, I don't understand all the subtleties of English)


----------



## mytwolangs

luis masci said:


> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays.
> Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6117910.stm
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Corrections will be always welcome


 
This was not about cruelty or execution and if it is right or wrong, it was about ridding the planet of a disease. And this is not medieval brutality. This was mercyful compared to anything medieval. He got what he deserved.

Capital punishment sets an example of why one should not act the way he did.


----------



## Nunty

cuchuflete said:


> Let's extend that to the victims, past and potential, of a murderer.[...]



Yes, of course. We need to care for the families of murder victims, for the victims of rape, robbery, all sorts of violations of personhood... and we need to care for the potential victims by protecting them from the aggressors. That means taking the "bad guy" out of circulation; I think we all agree on that.

It is terribly expensive to keep someone in prison for life. The way things are run in the US now it is even _more expensive_ to keep her on Death Row for years until all the appeals are finished. If we want to look at the economic argument, I submit that there would probably be far fewer appeals against a life-without-parole sentence than against a death sentence. It is also demonstrably far less expensive to house a prisoner in the general population, or even in some special sector thereof, than to house her in a private cell with extra staffing, special electronic security measures and so on.

One of my Death Row penpals recently complained to me that the prison authorities refused him permission to take a correspondance course, like the GP prisoners. That would be ridiculous, but it seems to be the kind of thing some people are afraid of if we choose life-without-parole instead of death. Keeping someone in prison for life as an alternative to capital punishment doesn't mean we have to provide rehabilitation for living in society: she is not going back to society. We have to provide the minimum conditions for human dignity, medical care, food and clothing. Such prisoners could even <gasp> work! (Death Row prisoners are not allowed to work.)

I forgot to use multi-quote, but I want to second the Lord of the Commas in his comments about state murder. I agree that it blurs moral distinctions. Now that I think about, I think he is also right about some kind of built-in imperative that abhors murder, probably having something to do with the continuation of the species.

Tookie Williams (the Cryps founder, if I'm not mistaken) and the lady in Texas who was executed a couple of years ago are examples of "jailhouse conversions". It would require a lot more than making positive statements from a Death Row cell to convince me that someone had turned her life around. And even if she had, I do not believe that so doing would relieve her of the responsiblity of paying the consequences of her crime; to be clear, I think she should stay in prison, even so.


----------



## Victoria32

Nun-Translator said:


> Tookie Williams (the Cryps founder, if I'm not mistaken) and the lady in Texas who was executed a couple of years ago are examples of "jailhouse conversions". It would require a lot more than making positive statements from a Death Row cell to convince me that someone had turned her life around. And even if she had, I do not believe that so doing would relieve her of the responsiblity of paying the consequences of their crime; to be clear, I think she should stay in prison, even so.


Oh yes, I agree, I am not saying Mr Williams should have been released! Just that there were very good grounds for not executing him (aside from the moral ones.) He was achieving something valuable . 

Vicky


----------



## emma42

Hi Victoria.  In relation to offenders on licence rarely reoffending:  Unfortunately, this isn't true.  I can say this with some authority, having worked in the criminal justice system, and having friends who still do.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

ElaineG said:


> [...]I did not read of similar actions being taken with regard to the 4 Japanese men who were executed on Christmas Day, to name just one recent example. [...]


I read this article about even not knowing the day of hanging in Japan (the prisoner, his family and his lawyer), thanks to a forero here. I think Japan doesn't make a lot of ad of this practice...


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> Hi Victoria.  In relation to offenders on licence rarely reoffending:  Unfortunately, this isn't true.  I can say this with some authority, having worked in the criminal justice system, and having friends who still do.


I am sorry (and surprised) to hear that! Thank you for that information... 

Vicky


----------



## TRG

Lemminkäinen said:


> And here again do my opinion differ from yours. I'm fully convinced that Hitler and his henchmen were convinced they were right. Why? Simply because I think it is impossible for someone to do atrocities like they did and still know inside that it's wrong.


 
You should detach yourself from the notion that people who commit crimes (on any level) do so believing that what they are doing is not wrong. It is a fundamental part of humanity to commit acts with the full knowledge that what we are doing is wrong! It is part of what makes us so interesting.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> You should detach yourself from the notion that people who commit crimes (on any level) do so believing that what they are doing is not wrong. It is a fundamental part of humanity to commit acts with the full knowledge that what we are doing is wrong! It is part of what makes us so interesting.



Indeed! And people like Hitler do what they do because they felt cerain that they can, and get away with it. 
No-one seemed to be willing/able to oppose Hitler.
Many people do things they know are wrong for the very same reason. There is no-one on hand to stop them.


----------



## cuchuflete

Nun-Translator said:
			
		

> And even if she had, I do not believe that so doing would relieve her of the responsiblity of paying the consequences of her crime; to be clear, I think she should stay in prison, even so.


 We should really leave license/parole for another thread.   For all of the reformed and supposed reformed, there are plenty of 'seemingly reformed' such as Jack Henry Abbott.  That convicted murderer was released, in part due to the publicity gained by Norman Mailer's book based on correspondence with him, _In the Belly of the Beast._

If my memory is correct, Abbott was released on parole, and committed another murder the day before the book was published, to great critical acclaim.  



Taking a sharp turn here, there is a general assumption running throught this and other threads about the death penalty that vengeance is not a proper motive for its application, that acts of vengeance somehow "lower humanity" yet another notch, that vengeance is, by implication, not on the same high moral plane as locking someone up for all their remaining days on this earth, and throwing away the key.

I won't argue that as a generality.  In the specific case of a mass murderer such as Josef Stalin, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein (I hope this list of vermin spans the political spectrum enough that the apologists for any and all of those named run off to open their own threads...), why shouldn't 'society', and specifically individuals whose family members have been tortured and killed not want vengeance?  It is retaliation, and serves to protect society from further horrific acts by the criminal.  

I don't find any of that to be good justification for death penalty in general, but do not join the majority here in dismissing a desire for retaliation on moral grounds.  Aren't most major religions' holy books full of admonitions that if people are bad, terrible things will be done to them?


----------



## emma42

The question of "retaliation/vengeance" is an important one.  

As someone brought up in a broadly Christian culture (I would say the generally accepted "morality" in the England of the 1960s and 70s), I suppose I have been conditioned to think that vengeance is a bad thing.  My gut feeling is that it is wrong and that it diminishes those who seek it.  This is not based on Christian principles per se, but by having been conditioned by my upbringing in such a culture.  However, "gut feeling" aside, I find it useful to examine what place vengeance might have in any justice system, and what purpose it might serve.  (Incidentally, in the British justice system, vengeance supposedly has no place - there is only provision for rehabilitation and punishment).  If it can be shown that vengeance serves a useful purpose in society at large, then, surely, it is a good thing.  Does it cleanse?  Does it serve to appease?  Is it just?  Or does it soil and dissatisfy, and is it unjust?  There is a world of difference between a hot-blooded killing of someone who is attacking your brother, and a cold-blooded state execution.


----------



## cuchuflete

What distinguishes punishment from retaliation?  Is the former somehow just directed at the person punished, with cold objectivity, and dispassionate logic on the part of those doing—directly or through agents—the punishing?


----------



## LV4-26

One thing is to decide whether the victims and their relations should or should not want vengeance (that, I don't know - isn't it a bit like deciding whether one should or shouldn't be hungry?). Another is to decide whether or not that vengeance should be accomplished.

The concept of vengeance is as old as humanity. I'd dare say it is as old as religion. And by "religion", I'm referring to *pagan* religions. Those in which the idea of sacrifice is so important, the idea that solemnly killing a creature (animal or  human) may have an operational effect in improving the life of others. It is as irrational as those religions. It is based on the idea that blood must be "washed" in blood, that a murder can "repair/*cancel*" another murder, restore some sort of parity: it is rooted in the unusual arithmetic assumption that 1 + 1 = 0.
I don't really think the fact of investing society with the task of accomplishing that vengeance (provided it's what we're actually doing) changes anything.

I don't know to what extent the above can be convincing but I'm offering it just as a different angle.


----------



## emma42

Answering Post #230:  Basically, yes. To my mind, "retaliation" has an element of emotionality absent in "punishment".  I do admit this could be seen as a fine point, however.

 Chambers has "punish" as "to cause someone to suffer for an offence", and "retaliate" as "to repay in kind".


----------



## LV4-26

emma42 said:


> Chambers has "punish" as "to cause someone to suffer for an offence", and "retaliate" as "to repay in kind".


I take this opportunity to elaborate on what I've just said. Retaliate, in this sense, has to do with symbolic exchange. It's connected to the world of symbols, not to the world of reality (that may explain why, in such a world, 1+1=0).


----------



## emma42

Surely, LV4-26, "retaliate" can also mean an eye for an eye?  Society may punish a killer with life imprisonment, or retaliate by killing the killer?  Why must it be symbolic now, notwithstanding its historical roots?


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> What distinguishes punishment from retaliation?  Is the former somehow just directed at the person punished, with cold objectivity, and dispassionate logic on the part of those doing—directly or through agents—the punishing?



Indeed, and can punishment be truly deemed to have taken place if the injured party is not aware of it?

Mr X is killed in the course of a mugging.
Sometime later, the culprit is caught and punished according to the laws of the land.
Some years later the widow of Mr X dies a natural death not knowing that the culprit was caught, nor that he was "justly" punished.

Has justice been done?
Would knowing have changed her life?
— If so, is it justice or vengeance which changes her?

I am aware that there is a saying that "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." Who must do this "seeing"?


----------



## LV4-26

emma42 said:


> Surely, LV4-26, "retaliate" can also mean an eye for an eye?  Society may punish a killer with life imprisonment, or retaliate by killing the killer?  Why must it be symbolic now, notwithstanding its historical roots?


I'm not sure I can exactly answer your question, not being sure of the difference, if any,  between vengeance and retaliation. Let's put it this way. Punishment, deterrence, protection of society are based on a more or less rational way of thinking. Conversely, vengeance, this idea that killing the killer might cancel the murder commited, might have a beneficial effect on the lives of the victims, seem to pertain to a magical way of thinking. At least to me....
OK, I'm revenged, I'm paid back, but I can do nothing with that "money". It's a symbolic satisfaction.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

I think I've stated my opinions on the death penalty previously in this thread (to mention the most important buzzwords for me though: no deterrence, not cheaper, crual and usual, arbitrary, anachronism, impossible to be sure of guilt), so I'll just address this:



TRG said:


> You should detach yourself from the notion that people who commit crimes (on any level) do so believing that what they are doing is not wrong. It is a fundamental part of humanity to commit acts with the full knowledge that what we are doing is wrong! It is part of what makes us so interesting.



What I meant was less that mass-murderers like Hitler and Saddam did not know that certain actions were deemed wrong, but more that in their mind (this is of course only a thought play - I'm not a psychologist; this is merely my idea of it), there were exceptions to these actions.

Killing people is wrong, yes, but üntermenschen aren't people: they're vermin we must get rid of. Killing them is doing the world a great justice.
That sort of thinking was what I meant. I did, however, like your comment, and will have to think more about that.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Indeed, and can punishment be truly deemed to have taken place if the injured party is not aware of it?
> 
> Mr X is killed in the course of a mugging.
> Sometime later, the culprit is caught and punished according to the laws of the land.
> Some years later the widow of Mr X dies a natural death not knowing that the culprit was caught, nor that he was "justly" punished.
> 
> Has justice been done?
> Would knowing have changed her life?
> — *If so, is it justice or vengeance which changes her?
> *
> I am aware that there is a saying that "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." Who must do this "seeing"?



I think Tony has asked the right question...it helps me think this through.  Justice/punishment/retaliation/vengeance are all pretty close on a continuum, and probably overlap.  If society punishes a criminal, it is acting on behalf of both the immediately aggrieved family members, and the extended family of society itself.  Punishment of criminals by society may differ from vengeance only in the removal of emotional impetus.  Yet we—some of us in this thread at least—call juridically applied punishment 'moral' or 'principled' while condemning vengeance as a base instinct.  Might it not be that they are really quite similar, with one wrapped up in procedural and intellectual abstractions, to make it appear less instinctive?  

Ritual punishment minus emotion therefore =morally good.


----------



## emma42

LV4-26 said:


> I'm not sure I can exactly answer your question, not being sure of the difference, if any,  between vengeance and retaliation. Let's put it this way. Punishment, deterrence, protection of society are based on a more or less rational way of thinking. Conversely, vengeance, this idea that killing the killer might cancel the murder commited, might have a beneficial effect on the lives of the victims, seem to pertain to a magical way of thinking. At least to me....
> OK, I'm revenged, I'm paid back, but I can do nothing with that "money". It's a symbolic satisfaction.



The issue is becoming confused by the addition of more concepts.  I didn't mention the difference between "vengeance" and "retaliation", but "punishment" and "retaliation".  

Yes, one notion of the rightness of "retaliation" is that another death might cancel out the first (I don't think this, by the way); another is that it might appease in some way the loved ones of the [first] victim; another is that it might appease society's need for justice; another is that it might deter; another is that it is a form of "natural" justice (that's probably the same as the first).  I don't know whether any of the above would benefit the bereaved or society - I hope for further discussion.

I understand what you are saying about "symbolic satisfaction" - but is it symbolic?  There may be cases of bereaved loved ones feeling some real satisfaction, or some sort of closure, at the execution of their loved one's killer.

Also, whether it's a question of retaliation or punishment, should the nature of either be decided by victims' loved ones or by those elected/appointed (judges etc) to take such decisions on society's behalf?   In some countries the victims of crime (including the bereaved) are able to make statements in court describing the effect of the crime on themselves and asking for certain outcomes.

I hope I am understanding what you are saying, LV4.


----------



## LV4-26

emma42 said:


> The issue is becoming confused by the addition of more concepts. I didn't mention the difference between "vengeance" and "retaliation", but "punishment" and "retaliation".


 Yes, that's precisely where we're currently trying to sort out (see cuchu's last post).



> Yes, one notion of the rightness of *"retaliation*" is that another death might cancel out the first (I don't think this, by the way); another is that it might appease in some way the loved ones of the [first] victim;


 My assumption is that those two are directly linked. They are appeased because of what they somehow sense as a symbolic cancellation, a redress of some sort. 





> another is that it might appease society's need for justice;


 which is still something different, has more to do with us, society, being happy to have a "bad guy" to impersonate "Evil" in our place. 





> another is that it might *deter*; another is that it is a form of "natural" justice (that's probably the same as the first).


Deterrence is again something else which has little to do with retaliation, *as a motive. *


> I understand what you are saying about "symbolic satisfaction" - but is it symbolic? There may be cases of bereaved loved ones feeling some real satisfaction, or some sort of closure, at the execution of their loved one's killer.


Yes, I addressed that above. I don't deny the feeling per se imay be real.

EDIT : Oops, wrong move, I hadn't finished.


----------



## LV4-26

> I hope I am understanding what you are saying, LV4.
> Reply With Quote


I'm sure you don't.  
Kidding, well, half-kidding. That doesn't depend only on you. It also depends on my own ability to express myself, on our respective mental structures, culture, history and hundreds of other factors which make communication an almost impossible task.  Firs off, I hope *I* am understanding what I'm saying.  



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Ritual punishment minus emotion therefore =morally good.


Well, it's true that if you consider punishment in isolation. If you separate it totally from deterrence. If it's punishment for it's own sake and not for the sake of deterrence, then.....
Tough question. If I follow your point without revising mine, I might be led to put punishment (for its own sake) in the same bag as vengeance....well, well.....There *must* be a way out, let me think of it.


----------



## emma42

Je crois que je te comprends mieux maintenant, LV4.  Merci pour l'élucidation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I don't think capital punishment is a good thing, what was that Mahatma Gandhi quote "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Besides, after seeing how Saddam got taunted before his death by some Shiites in the crowd, and the reaction of the Sunnis on seeing it, will his death really close a chapter in Iraq's history, or just open an even bloodier one?

I don't know.


----------



## infinite sadness

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I don't think capital punishment is a good thing, what was that Mahatma Gandhi quote "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".


I agree.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> I don't find any of that to be good justification for death penalty in general, but do not join the majority here in dismissing a desire for retaliation on moral grounds.  Aren't most major religions' holy books full of admonitions that if people are bad, terrible things will be done to them?


IMO, such admonitions are to be taken as warnings, what will happen to those who do bad things, rather than  a general statement of principle... 



emma42 said:


> The issue is becoming confused by the addition of more concepts.  I didn't mention the difference between "vengeance" and "retaliation", but "punishment" and "retaliation".
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying about "symbolic satisfaction" - but is it symbolic?  There may be cases of bereaved loved ones feeling some real satisfaction, or some sort of closure, at the execution of their loved one's killer.


I saw this debated on (American) TV back in the 1990s, and I remember a family member of a murder victim saying that she had attended the 'perp's' execution, expecting to feel better - but all she felt was bitter and hollow. 

Vicky


----------



## tvdxer

I am generally, but not completely, against capital punishment.  By that I mean I am opposed to it in the vast majority of cases in which it is currently used (e.g. in Texas or China) but am not in very rare cases where it might be the only reasonable option.  In the case of Saddam, I'm not really sure - on one hand, letting him live might lead to attacks on the prison he is incarcerated in, on the other hand, letting him be hanged has initiated all kinds of violence from very volatile people.  So I'm not quite sure.

Whatever the case, it's nothing compared to other things going on in the world.  It's hard to say that he didn't deserve what he got.


----------



## caballoschica

I don't agree with the death penalty at all and I've done quite a bit of research on it.  I saw a documentary on it awhile ago by an Englishman coming to the USA and looking at our system regarding the death penalty.  He called it barbaric.  That word has stuck with me and I agree with it.  That was the very first impression I got when I heard Hussein was hanged.  I thought "hanged?! How barbaric is that? We're in the 21st Century!"  If they're going to go for capital punishment, have it at least be somewhat, if you can consider it, humane by injecting the preferred poison into the doomed person.

It is not a deterrent to crime.  There are statistics that say that the amount of homicides in states with the death penalty is higher than that of the states without the death penalty.  

It is racially biased.  More minorities are on death row than whites.  More minorities accused are innocent which brings me to the following:

There are innocent people on death row. 

An eye for an eye?  Are we going to stoop to the criminal's level by killing them in return? That's what I envision it as.  

Oh yeah, the countries that don't have the death penalty, have less violence than the USA.  There are statistics to prove it.

Sure, Hussein caused a lot of harm to many many people, and he deserved a severe punishment, but I'm not sure about hanging.  Actually, in my personal opinion, life without parole is a harsher sentence.  People on death row get separate cells all to themselves and don't have to face other inmates.  Rather nice cells, mind you.  Someone's cell was looking out over the ocean in California.  Ah! Scott Peterson! And they get put out of their misery.  They don't have to mull over it every second of their lives.


----------



## KateNicole

caballoschica said:


> It is racially biased.  More minorities are on death row than whites.  More minorities accused are innocent which brings me to the following:


I'm 100% against the death penalty, and I, too, find it barbaric.  However, I was wondering if you have evidence of it beeing "racially biased."  Where I live, for example, the "minority" is NOT white, and if I looked into it, I would probably find that more non-whites commited murder than whites.  Would it be racist if they recieved the death penalty?

On a sidenote, I can imagine places in the deep south where a black man would not be able to get a fair trial.   (Maybe I'm off-base)  But at any rate, I doubt that MOST people on deathrow are innocent, so I don't see how statistics on race would indicate a racial bias.


----------



## don maico

The death penalty is never a good thing:
a) the state must NEVER lower itself to the same standard as the common criminal by killingh people ( wars being an unfortunate exception).
b) there have been far too many miscarriages of justice, ie people having served lengthy prison sentences for something they havent done. At least they are stil alive today
c)I believe a convict must have a chance to redeem himself. i think he should spend his time in prison reflecting on his bad deeds , feeling guilt and then he should do whatever he can to seek redemption. The death penalty removes that possibility.I also believe prison conditions should be humane where prisoners are not kept in islotaion, deprived of daylight and that they should be able top do useful activities which are not punative but are productive.


----------



## TRG

Something that is important to remember is that you cannot always judge for others how they should organize their society. Each sovereign state or nation has the right to decide if they will use capital punishment in dispensing justice. You may consider it barbaric, but in some instances you must accept that for others it is the right thing. I do not consider it morally wrong, but I wish that we would abandon it as a form of punishment where I live (in the USA). My main reason is that I do not trust the justice system enough to never make a mistake and since you cannot recind an execution the mistake cannot be corrected even partially. My other primary concern, which stems partially from the first concern, is that in those cases where the party is guilty and deserving of the punishment, it takes too long to carry out... justice delayed is justice denied.

This is a little off point, but when thinking about capital punishment I am always struck by the incredible irony that those who advocate most forcefully in favor of keeping our worst criminals alive are generally the same people who don't seem to lose much sleep over the destruction of innocent human life through abortion or mercy killing. Please know that I am not a hard line abortion opponent. I just wonder how people reconcile these two positions.


----------



## KateNicole

TRG said:


> Something that is important to remember is that you cannot always judge for others how they should organize their society. Each sovereign state or nation has the right to decide if they will use capital punishment in dispensing justice. You may consider it barbaric, but in some instances you must accept that for others it is the right thing


 
In certain Islamic African societies, women are stoned if they are found guilty of having premarital sex. Do you accept this because the people in charge there believe that it is "the right thing"? What about female genital mutilation? Do you accept it because that is the cultural norm in some places, or do you believe that it should stopped, even if by outsiders? I understand that the context of any situation can change from culture to culture, but there are certain things that I, personally, find to be definitely barbaric, no matter how ethnocentric or closed-minded that makes me. Of course, anyone is welcome to disagree with me though.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> This is a little off point, but when thinking about capital punishment I am always struck by the incredible irony that those who advocate most forcefully in favor of keeping our worst criminals alive are generally the same people who don't seem to lose much sleep over the destruction of innocent human life through abortion or mercy killing. Please know that I am not a hard line abortion opponent. I just wonder how people reconcile these two positions.


The matters are non sequiturs not capable of reconcilliation.

.,,


----------



## gaer

Only 60 people were executed in the US in 2005, and in only 16 states. Only 38 states (I believe) have capital punishment.

In my view, capital punishment does nothing for our reputation around the world, and I have yet to see any facts or figures that prove to me that it works.

Hussein may or may not have deserved the sentence he received. I won't argue that point.

I don't think that hanging him was advantageous in any way to the US, since a great deal of the world (whether it is fair or not to so is another matter) will assume that the whole process was really orchestrated by the US.

Gaer


----------



## don maico

TRG said:


> Something that is important to remember is that you cannot always judge for others how they should organize their society. Each sovereign state or nation has the right to decide if they will use capital punishment in dispensing justice. You may consider it barbaric, but in some instances you must accept that for others it is the right thing. I do not consider it morally wrong, but I wish that we would abandon it as a form of punishment where I live (in the USA). My main reason is that I do not trust the justice system enough to never make a mistake and since you cannot recind an execution the mistake cannot be corrected even partially. My other primary concern, which stems partially from the first concern, is that in those cases where the party is guilty and deserving of the punishment, it takes too long to carry out... justice delayed is justice denied.
> 
> This is a little off point, but when thinking about capital punishment I am always struck by the incredible irony that those who advocate most forcefully in favor of keeping our worst criminals alive are generally the same people who don't seem to lose much sleep over the destruction of innocent human life through abortion or mercy killing. Please know that I am not a hard line abortion opponent. I just wonder how people reconcile these two positions.


On your first point of course every nation/ state has the right to determine its penal system but that doesnt mean that others cannot express an opinion on it or press for reform if that some aspects of that system are particularly barbaric .
Here  in the UK we  have had a number of well publicised  cases of miscarriages of justice resulting in innocents spending many years in jail- the Irish Guilford four and Birmingham six being the most notorious. We still have a few awaiting their appeals and I am not at all convinced the guy the police charged for the murder of the Ipswich prostitutes is the guilty one. The police are under enormous pressure to arrest and charge someone, the evidence is often entirely circumstancial and one is left feeling  that justice is not so much about finding the truth but on convicting someone.
Abortions and mercy killings are a different ball game in my view although equally emotive issues.Both very ,very difficult but I wouldnt lump them in the same category.An unmarried woman without visible means of support aborting a foetus  which is only a few weeks old  and a wife  wanting to end a loved husbands suffering. Both of these I can understand and in no way would I classify them as murder


----------



## LV4-26

About nations' right to decide if they will use capital punishment. Telling my neighbour that I think what he's doing is wrong is no infringement of his sovereignty. I'd go as far as to say that it's a duty and, when done sincerely, a mark of respect. I hold this to be valid between nations as well as between individuals. I don't care whether it has any effect or not. Now, here, I'm doing principles again.


----------



## LV4-26

Nobody really commented on Cuchu's "ritual punishment minus emotion therefore = morally good?".
Well, maybe, it might lead us too far off topic. If we want to discuss about the notion of punishment, we can't restrain ourselves to deah penalty. We might even want to make excursions (I'm chancing this expression)  outside the legal system. After all, making a child write 50 times "I mustn't etc....." is also a punishment. 


			
				don maico said:
			
		

> I believe a convict must have a chance to redeem himself. i think he should spend his time in prison reflecting on his bad deeds , feeling guilt and then he should do whatever he can to seek redemption. The death penalty removes that possibility


And there comes yet another concept : correction/redemption, which hasn't really been addressed so far.


----------



## Nunty

Correction... punishment... vengeance... these are the kinds of issues I was thinking about when I started posting about capital punishment. To my mind, correction is certainly valid and necessary. Punishment? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure about "punitive correction" (making a child wash all the windows in the school because she defaced a wall with grafitti, for instance).

Yes, I'm a believing a and practicing Catholic, but our theology teaches us that vengeance is reserved to God. In fact, however we treat the bad guys, their real judgement and consequences comes after their death, in my belief system. We probably are wandering into another topic here, though, so I'll stop short.


----------



## don maico

Nun-Translator said:


> Correction... punishment... vengeance... these are the kinds of issues I was thinking about when I started posting about capital punishment. To my mind, correction is certainly valid and necessary. Punishment? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure about "punitive correction" (making a child wash all the windows in the school because she defaced a wall with grafitti, for instance).
> 
> Yes, I'm a believing a and practicing Catholic, but our theology teaches us that vengeance is reserved to God. In fact, however we treat the bad guys, their real judgement and consequences comes after their death, in my belief system. We probably are wandering into another topic here, though, so I'll stop short.


Punishment is ok if it has a useful purpose ie a positive outcome. People, after all,have to be aware of the consequences of their own actions.Unfortunately too many see it as way of exacting revenge. Thats not to say one should forget the victims ,but at the end of the day we must all come to terms with our own losses.


----------



## Flaminius

I regard vengeance as an important part of an infrastructure that a state should guarantee.  In fact I think the infrastructure of justice is based on merit and punishment.  If one does good, one shall be rewarded.  If one does wrong, one shall be made to make amends for the wrongdoing.  Correction of the perpetrator might prove useful for preventing a  subsequent offence but I doubt it has the moral justification to replace the necessity of reparation.  Punishment is a right of a state consigned by the people in order to assure they are living in a fair society where goods are rewarded and wrongs are punished.  Maintaining justice is a necessary task for a state to stay legitimate governing entity.

If a crime or offence is committed agaist the life of a person or persons, there is no redress to make amends for the lost life/lives.  Therefore, the culprit must die.  Private vengeance has been generally banned and states are the proxy nowadays.  However, the main purpose in my view is unchanged; If you take a life, you lose your life.

Theoretically, capital punishment is the necessary consequence of a person who is answerable for a lost human life.  Yet, in practise that consequece might be avoided in cases where the malignant intent of the culprit is not established or the victim is found causing great damage to the culprit.  These considerations should be taken into account in order to better establish justice.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

KateNicole said:


> I'm 100% against the death penalty, and I, too, find it barbaric.  However, I was wondering if you have evidence of it beeing "racially biased."



You can find statistics on the race of people executed, victims and people currently on death row here.


----------



## Juliomelecio

The death penalty does not punish the guilties, but their relatives instead.


----------



## Kajjo

Juliomelecio said:


> The death penalty does not punish the guilties, but their relatives instead.


... I do not want to join the general discussion, but your sentence is only a nice aphorism, but does not hold true at its core. Capital punishment is a severe punishment for the guilty. Period.

Naturally, the relatives can be thought of having been punished, too -- this is the same as relatives of victims feel somewhat like victims, too. That's life.

Kajjo


----------



## Cache

People have different views on capital punishment. Some say it is a fair action taken to do justice. Others are totally against capital punishment and think no one has the right to decide whether kill or not somebody

Some people think that if someone kills, he or she has to be killed with the capital punishment to do justice. They believe it is not enough to put the murderer in prison for the rest of his/her life. This is what happened with Saddam Hussein. It is not the first time capital punishment has been implemented in USA.....

On the other hand, we have people who definitely are against capital punishment because it exceeds human being's rights. They think no one is allowed to kill another person because they are not God to decide who will live or who will not. They believe the best sentence for a killer is to die in prison.

To sum up, people is in two minds about this subject. In my opinion, no one  has to kill another person, it is totally wrong for me. To my mind, the solution is to put the killer in prison in the worst conditions till the person dies.

*Please, correct my mistakes *


----------



## cuchuflete

Cache said:


> People have different views on capital punishment. Some say it is a fair action taken to do justice. Others are totally against capital punishment and think no one has the right to decide whether kill or not somebody
> 
> Some people think that if someone kills, he or she has to be killed with the capital punishment to do justice. They believe it is not enough to put the murderer in prison for the rest of his/her life. This is what happened with Saddam Hussein.  It is not the first time capital punishment has been implemented in USA..... Or in many other countries, Argentina for example...
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who definitely are against capital punishment because it exceeds human being's rights. They think no one is allowed to kill another person because they are not God to decide who will live or who will not. They believe the best sentence for a killer is to die in prison.
> 
> To sum up, people is in two minds about this subject. In my opinion, no one  has to kill another person, it is totally wrong for me.  To my mind, the solution is to put the killer in prison in the worst conditions till the person dies.  Sounds like a heartfelt cry for vengeance.
> 
> *Please, correct my mistakes * I believe I have.


----------



## Cache

Yes, that is vengeance for killing a lot of people


----------



## Victoria32

Cache said:


> People have different views on capital punishment. Some say it is a fair action taken to do justice. Others are totally against capital punishment and think no one has the right to decide whether kill or not somebody
> 
> Some people think that if someone kills, he or she has to be killed with the capital punishment to do justice. They believe it is not enough to put the murderer in prison for the rest of his/her life. This is what happened with Saddam Hussein. It is not the first time capital punishment has been implemented in USA.....
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who definitely are against capital punishment because it exceeds human being's rights. They think no one is allowed to kill another person because they are not God to decide who will live or who will not. They believe the best sentence for a killer is to die in prison.
> 
> To sum up, people is are in two minds about this subject. In my opinion, no one has to kill another person, it is totally wrong for me. To my mind, the solution is to put the killer in prison in the worst conditions till the person dies.
> 
> *Please, correct my mistakes *


Just two things, Cache... 
I am in agreement with you,  because life in prison can be worse vengeance (_for those inclined to want it_) than capital punishment. 

Vicky


----------



## .   1

Justice is polluted by vengeance.

Robert


----------



## emma42

Yes, our "western democratic" ideal of justice might be polluted by vengeance, but this brings us back to the question of whether vengeance (or revenge) is, indeed, a bad thing, a diminishing thing, an unjust thing.

Justice is, I think, a subjective term, its character determined by different cultural, historical, political perspectives.


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> but this brings us back to the question of whether vengeance (or revenge) is, indeed, a bad thing, a diminishing thing, an unjust thing.


Emma, you put up a very important question. Is vengeance a bad thing? Why is it that this emotion and thought is so dominant in humans? Might it be that there is an evolutive, biological factor favoring vengeance? I can easily imagine that societies that do not punish crimes will suffer more than societies that promote proper behaviour and fight against improper behaviour. I suppose it is natural not to accept trespassing of rules.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

How should we characterize a viewpoint that

1) objects to the death penalty on "moral" grounds, and
2) calls for maximum, vengeful imprisonment?

To look at it another way

1) killing is bad
2) torture is good

See post #263 for an example.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

cuchuflete said:


> See post #263 for an example.





> To my mind, the solution is to put the killer in prison in the worst conditions till the person dies.



I wonder what exactly is meant with "the worst conditions". No TV? Isolation? Or, perhaps, torture? 

As for whether vengeance has a place in society, I say no. Revenge perpetuates suffering; justice seeks to end it.


----------



## Cache

When I said worst conditions, I meant No TV, Isolate the person from anybody, sleep on the ground and so on.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Kajjo (#269).  In fact, I think Cuchuflete brought up this point some time ago.

Cuchuflete (#270).  Yes, indeed.  Such a viewpoint seems to be a "life at any cost because it is sacred" position.  The same position that holds that suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia are wrong in any circumstance.  I don't want to go off-topic, however.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> How should we characterize a viewpoint that
> 
> 1) objects to the death penalty on "moral" grounds, and
> 2) calls for maximum, vengeful imprisonment?
> 
> To look at it another way
> 
> 1) killing is bad
> 2) torture is good
> 
> See post #263 for an example.


Illogical from my point of view.  If push came to shove I know that I am capable of killing a person but I swear that I am incapable of administering torture.
I believe that torture identifies a person as being beyond the pale of humanity and I can not envisage the circumstances in which I would respect a torturer.
I have killed dogs and cats as a necessity but I have never been cruel to a cat or dog.
A person incarcerated should not be treated badly.  I am sick of hearing about the 'Country Club Prisons'.  This is complete tosh.  It does not matter how luxurious the surroundings; a prison is still a prison where liberty and choice and control are totally controlled by The State.
Hussein should have been incarcerated in comfort for life and perhaps his forlorn photo should have been displayed once every few years as he greyed down to his isolated powerless death.  This would have had far more positive impact on potential followers than his apparently defiant death.

Robert


----------



## heidita

. said:


> Illogical from my point of view. If push came to shove I know that I am capable of killing a person but I swear that I am incapable of administering torture.
> I believe that torture identifies a person as being beyond the pale of humanity and I can not envisage the circumstances in which I would respect a torturer.
> I have killed dogs and cats as a necessity but I have never been cruel to a cat or dog.
> A person incarcerated should not be treated badly. I am sick of hearing about the 'Country Club Prisons'. This is complete tosh. It does not matter how luxurious the surroundings; a prison is still a prison where liberty and choice and control are totally controlled by The State.
> Hussein should have been incarcerated in comfort for life and perhaps his forlorn photo should have been displayed once every few years as he greyed down to his isolated powerless death. This would have had far more positive impact on potential followers than his apparently defiant death.
> 
> Robert


I agree with this completely. I have also stated that in a rush of passion or such, one can never know how one would react. I think myself I would be able to kill, too. I don't know, to defend children? For example.
But the administration of death or the torturing of the criminal  so to speak in cold blood, has always been a mystery to me. Lately I saw a film where George Clooney is tortured and his fingernails are torn out. It made me sick to my stomach and it was only a film!

I feel the same, he should have been kept prisoner for life. A similar case was the German Nazi* Rudolf Hess*, who was held prisoner for over 20 years,* in sole confinement*. Can anything be worse than that? I think the punishment was adequate.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment at Spandau Prison, West Berlin. 



> After the release of Albert Speer and Baldur von Schirach on October 1, 1966, Hess was the only prisoner until his suicide in 1987. So for more than twenty years, Hess was the sole prisoner in a prison designed for about six hundred. .....
> Only the closest members of his family were allowed to meet with him. It was forbidden to shake hands or embrace. Presents were also forbidden, even on birthdays or at Christmas.


----------



## Nunty

. said:


> Illogical from my point of view.  If push came to shove I know that I am capable of killing a person but I swear that I am incapable of administering torture.[...]
> A person incarcerated should not be treated badly.  I am sick of hearing about the 'Country Club Prisons'.  This is complete tosh.  It does not matter how luxurious the surroundings; a prison is still a prison where liberty and choice and control are totally controlled by The State.[...]
> 
> Robert



I also would like to add my voice to this. (Actually, I would say "here, here", but I'm not sure if it shouldn't be "hear, hear".) 

In a self-defense situation, I have fought and injured my attacker, so I cannot be numbered among the strict pacifists. However, if the same person were arrested and in jail, I would not hit him. 

There was a case here three years ago where a man killed his two-year-old daughter, buried her in the forest in a hole he had prepared a month earlier, and then claimed she had been kidnapped. The whole country was looking for the little girl for days, thousands of police, soldiers and volunteers, until the man finally confessed, after an accidental witness to the burial came forward. His account was horrifying, and so was the confession. The father never expressed regret and even dared to say that his daughter smiled at him from under the water as he was drowning her. A truly unrepentant murderer, he was sentenced to life in prison.(*) 

I'm getting to the point.

After some time in prison this man tried to hang himself. He was rescued and taken to hospital, where he was placed in a general department, under guard. When he was being transferred back to prison, he was shackled and bound to wheelchair. A woman who saw and recognized him -- his grinning face had been all over the media -- she slapped him and spit in his face. No one interfered and not only was she not arrested, she was even interviewed in the media with a sort of semi-hero status.

This woman was wrong and should have been prosecuted.

The man had been in general population in a prison that is not particularly bad or particularly stringent. The facts of loss of liberty, loss of privacy, loss of autonomy were enough to bring him to despair. (He has repeatedly said that he does not regret the deed at all.)

I still cannot think of this man or hear his name or see his photo without feeling all the physical signs of rage. I would be tempted to slap him and spit on him myself, though I hope I would have enough self control not to do so. But even given all that, the despicable nature of his crime, his lack of repentance, all of it -- I still would not want to see him killed for two reasons: The first, taking a life under such circumstances in wrong in my moral system. The second, my human desire for vengeance is satisfied by the mere fact of his imprisonment.


(*) Divorced, he killed the little girl to "punish" his ex-wife for leaving him. He has repeatedly stated that he is glad he did it, would do it again, that he attained his goal. There are a number of articles and blogs about him online. If you are interested, you can do a search on Eli Pimstein. He killed his daughter Hodaya, may she rest in peace, in December 2002.


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> If push came to shove I know that I am capable of killing a person but I swear that I am incapable of administering torture.
> I believe that torture identifies a person as being beyond the pale of humanity and I can not envisage the circumstances in which I would respect a torturer.


Never say never. Imagine your child being kidnapped and hidden in an underground hole. You got the perpetrator but he does not want to tell you where your child is, no matter what you tell or offer him. -- There was just a case in Germany very close to this scenario and one police officer threatened the offender with torture -- finally he told the place but it was too late, the child had died after unimaginable suffering. I could not despise any parent who at least _thinks about torture_ in such a situation. Sometimes we need to focus on victims rather than offenders.

Naturally, I am against torture in the general, political sense. But never say never and do not comdemn people whose situation you do not know.

Kajjo


----------



## Lemminkäinen

. said:


> If push came to shove I know that I am capable of killing a person but I swear that I am incapable of administering torture.
> I believe that torture identifies a person as being beyond the pale of humanity and I can not envisage the circumstances in which I would respect a torturer.



While I have no doubt you're sincere in your first statement, I think this article is an interesting read, especially regarding your last statement.

Note that this does not provide an excuse for either the act of torture or the actual torturer, but it is a warning about thinking "regular" people are incapable of commiting these acts.


----------



## LV4-26

The fact that over 50% people are able to commit torture in obedience to authority has alrready been demonstrated by Stanley Milgram in 1963.


----------



## emma42

I fear we are going off topic, but I have little doubt that many/most (?) human beings are capable of torture, given the right circumstances, pressure, grooming.  History is littered with examples of people torturing other people whom they have been taught are sub-human, the torturer then perhaps returning home and having dinner with the family and playing with his/her children.

I strongly doubt that the security/policing organisations of the USA are any more prone to this behaviour than any other country.  In my view, anyone who thinks that their "moral, democratic" nation would not stoop to such acts is naive in the extreme.


----------



## Amityville

..,, you're right - prison is not a country club. My eyes were opened when I knew and visited someone in prison (on remand) for several months. Conditions - extremes of heat and cold, infestations of ants and cockroaches, unpartitioned-off toilets in cells for 2/3, tv always on because one of the 2/3 wants it on (though emitting high-pitched buzz), no fresh food, constant noise day and night, screaming etc, aggression, the hospital wing being worse as full of psychiatric cases, many casual injustices, visits and any contact with family made difficult by bureaucratic inconsistency and blunders, transport to and from court in confined space, no toilet, and with no food or drink for the whole day. That's in England - I know there's worse.
Not an existence that leads to contemplation. It's a case of bracing yourself to survive another day in the knowledge that casual injustices are not even deliberate - for example being locked up in 'the cage', a temporary holding area, so that you are not there for your visitors who have travelled a distance (they still have to work, look after their kids etc)- it's not done to punish, it's done because of understaffing - that being a genuine reason and also an excuse - the officer is on his fag break, reading the newspaper your relatives had sent in - so hard luck, no one's meting out justice, no one's considering your case. 'Suicide watch' is a horrific thing, a mockery of care, just someone's job.
It's de-humanising and there's no chance of remorse when someone becomes barely human any more.

Re Nun-Translator's post-
This man must be about as evil as it is possible to be.  
I don't understand that you say your human desire for vengeance is satisfied but you still are tempted to slap and spit at him ? 
For me the (human) desire for vengeance remains unsatisfied because I feel I want the perpetrator to fully appreciate his crime - he'd have to be more sensitive before he could be punished enough, not less - the suicide of an insensible brute is meaningless so I too would want to slap and spit but that might be the highlight of his day - someone treating him as an individual. I think the desire for vengeance comes from wanting to believe in the possibility of redemption, because the desire for vengeance doesn't end with the suicide/death of the perpetrator of the crime. It would only end with them admitting guilt, showing continuing visible remorse, some kind of reparation or atonement. As if everyone is curable and redeemable. But certainly if the crime is murder, that's not possible, and particularly this awful case, and in prison, very doubtful.
Ruling out capital punishment and suicide lets us keep the moral high ground, whilst few of us look closely at the pragmatic alternative - it's very expensive too - but we can't spit and slap as well, that's having it both ways. Paying lip-service to the redeemability of sinners, because to do otherwise is unthinkable, the slippery slope to Hitleresque final solutions.


----------



## emma42

Interesting, Amityville.  I have to say I don't agree that the desire for vengeance has much to do with belief in the possibility of redemption.  This implies some care for the soul/feelings of the guilty - something which seems at odds with redemption.


----------



## Nunty

Amityville said:


> [...]
> Re Nun-Translator's post-
> This man must be about as evil as it is possible to be.
> I don't understand that you say your human desire for vengeance is satisfied but you still are tempted to slap and spit at him ? [...]


I probably expressed myself poorly, so may I explain what I meant? I said, "I still cannot think of this man or hear his name or see his photo without feeling all the physical signs of rage. I *would be tempted* to slap him and spit on him myself, though I hope I would have enough self control not to do so." To me, "being tempted" and "wanting" are two different things. If I saw Eli Pimstein, the rage I would feel would be very strong, so strong as to urge physical expression. That does not mean that I feel like that now, that I want to slap him and spit on him. But even if I did want to, that would be an expression of my rage, not a desire for vengeance.

I think we need to distinguish between hurt, rage, outrage on the one hand, and vengeance on the other. My desire for vengeance, not very saintly, but very human, is satisfied by knowing that he is in prison and that he hates it there.

Vengeance being linked to redemption? Not in my thought. Vengeance is a knee jerk reaction: you did something to me, so I'm going to do something to you. The idea of punishment leading to repentance and redemption is why prisons were once called "penitentiaries" (and some still are) in the US: the idea was that the people incarcerated in them would be brought to repentance, to understanding that what they did was wrong, and to feeling sorry for that.


----------



## Amityville

Emma42 and Nun-translator,
I think you are saying the same thing.
What would happen to your desire for vengeance (imagine you are still under its sway) if you recognised true repentance and remorse in the criminal ? 
For me genuine r&r would dissolve the anger and desire for vengeance, and bring a kind of closure, if this were ever possible or possible to know. Understood that the crime cannot be undone.


----------



## Nunty

Amityville said:


> Emma42 and Nun-translator,
> I think you are saying the same thing.
> What would happen to your desire for vengeance (imagine you are still under its sway) if you recognised true repentance and remorse in the criminal ?
> For me genuine r&r would dissolve the anger and desire for vengeance, and bring a kind of closure, if this were ever possible or possible to know. Understood that the crime cannot be undone.



Of course it would. I have three penpals on Death Row in different prisons in the US. Two of them are utterly unrepentant; one is very sorry and has turned his life around, but my relationships with all three are about the same. My "desire for vengeance" does not influence my behavior any more than my other passions and strong emotions.

I don't know what kind of response you are trying to elicit, Amityville. I am already on record as being against capital punishment and in favor of life imprisonment, with the basic requirements of human dignity being met, in its stead.


----------



## emma42

I have never said that I desire vengeance, nor, incidentally, that I am in favour of capital punishment.  I merely wished to examine our views on vengeance - mine included (I haven't worked out exactly what I think yet).


----------



## Amityville

Hi Emma, sorry for bagging you up together - I was only referring to the vengeance/repentance bit myself - ought to have said so, I know, sorry. Your second sentence reflects my own sentiments exactly. If it clarifies at all, I meant that repentance is a kind of self-vengeance.....?

Good morning, N-T, I am trying to elicit whatever kind of response you may care to give ! I didn't mean to come over tendentious - far from it - my ideas are still quite woolly. I had fully appreciated your position on capital punishment/imprisonment but was having trouble with your view of vengeance as an isolated knee-jerk reaction. Bit slow....get it now, I think.


----------



## .   1

Kajjo said:


> Never say never. Imagine your child being kidnapped and hidden in an underground hole. You got the perpetrator but he does not want to tell you where your child is, no matter what you tell or offer him. -- There was just a case in Germany very close to this scenario and one police officer threatened the offender with torture -- finally he told the place but it was too late, the child had died after unimaginable suffering. I could not despise any parent who at least _thinks about torture_ in such a situation. Sometimes we need to focus on victims rather than offenders.
> 
> Naturally, I am against torture in the general, political sense. But never say never and do not comdemn people whose situation you do not know.
> 
> Kajjo


This is an incredibly rare event.
How often does this happen?
How often do circumstances where a parent has access to the kidnapper?
Your own example was a *threat* of torture by a non parent but it appears that the threat was not carried out and that the child died.
There is a huge problem with this type of thinking.
How do you utterly know that the person you have is guilty?
How do you know that his is not just a mentally deranged nutter gettign his rocks off by pretending to be a monster because it surrounds him with attention?
How do you know that some over zealous police officedr did not verbal an innocent man because the cop knew that the bloke was guilty but could not prove it?
Yes there is an exception to every rule but I would probably not be capable of torture even if my child was kidnapped and even if I knew that the hoodlum was guilty because I am now old enough to know that I can be utterly sure of nothing I did not experience myself.

Robert


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Yes there is an exception to every rule but I would probably not be capable of torture even if my child was kidnapped and even if I knew that the hoodlum was guilty because I am now old enough to know that I can be utterly sure of nothing I did not experience myself.


If I knew for a fact that someone was guility of kidnapping my child and that torturing him would increase my chances of getting him/her back alive, I believe I would authorize the torture in a hearbeat.

However, I think I would replay my decision for the rest of my life.

I may have just given you and others a good reason why "victims" should not be in charge of the fate of those who commit violence.

I'm honestly not sure, and that's why I have refrained from commenting at all in this thread.

The subject of capital punishment, which gets us back on topic, is something I would personally fear much less—if it were carried out quickly—than life imprisonment.

I wanted to "throw that out there", because the incredible cruelty of life-imprisonment, at least in all the prisons I have read about, makes execution seem to me more like one of two possible evils rather than clearly the worse of two.

My thoughts on these subjects are not clear. I would favor the abolition of executions—lets use the right word—if only it were possible to reform our system of justice, which is so horribly flawed.

Gaer


----------



## heidita

gaer said:


> If I knew for a fact that someone was guility of kidnapping my child and that torturing him would increase my chances of getting him/her back alive, I believe I would authorize the torture in a hearbeat.
> 
> Gaer


Yes, I would probably _authorize_ it , too. But, and that's my saying all along, would you be able to do it yourself. Or do you think that this should be done by "professionals"?
I am my self an aggressive persona, throwing things around and such. But to tortures somebody, like the "professionals" do, without even knowing the person in question, is above my understanding.


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> If I knew for a fact that someone was guility of kidnapping my child and that torturing him would increase my chances of getting him/her back alive, I believe I would authorize the torture in a hearbeat.


It is possible that maltreating such a person would only harden their heart against you.
If you beat and torture the perpetrator that gives the perpetrator instant justification to not reveal the information you seek because you have revealed yourself as being a torturer.
Reason and negotiation are the only methods that show consistently positive results.
I would give the kidnapper anything requested.
If my child was kidnapped with the intention of negotiation and exchange this is what I would do to allow the hoodlum to complete the intended plan.
Execution and torture are both beyond the pale of humanity and there are no justifications for either. I have heard a number of politicians making noises about the most barbaric torture methods and I am aware that these methods have infiltrated mainstream film and television and I fear that this is being done on puropse to sway the minds of the public and give the impression that such methods are acceptable.
Violence begets violence and agression will face agression but rationality and lucidity reveals all to all.

Robert


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Gaer*
> I wanted to "throw that out there", because *the incredible cruelty of life-imprisonment*, at least in all the prisons I have read about, makes execution seem to me more like one of two possible evils rather than clearly the worse of two.


 
Two of our most notorious child abusers and murderers, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, did things which I can't mention here.  Those who wish to know can read this link.

Such *incredible cruelty and sheer evil* deserves to be punished by life-imprisonment.  In their case they were incarcerated for the rest of their lives.  Myra Hindley is now dead.

Far from being imprisoned in squalid conditions, they lived in comfortable surroundings.  The press published pictures, from time to time, of Myra Hindley in her cosy room.  She had a champion fighting for her release, the eccentric Lord Longford, after she expressed remorse for what she had done.  Whether or not her remorse was genuine is something only she would have known.

It is a bone of contention amongst most British people that prisoners, today, are living in surroundings which are often better than those they enjoyed in the outside world.

People who commit crimes must be made aware of the consequences - their loss of liberty. 

When Britain had capital punishment it was used to serve as a deterrent.  Murder rates were much lower then.  Since its abolition the number of murders has steadily risen.

However, I do not approve of capital punishment.  Polls are sometimes conducted here to see if Brits would like to see the restoration of the death penalty.  Latest results link.  The problem with polls is that the number of people participating is, in my view, far too low.

LRV


----------



## emma42

Hi Amityville.  No problem, my friend!


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:


> When Britain had capital punishment it was used to serve as a deterrent.  Murder rates were much lower then.  Since its abolition the number of murders has steadily risen.




The number of murders has risen since many things changed - it is seriously difficult to tie it exclusively to the abolition of capital punishment. The numbers of all sorts of crime have risen in many countries - with and without capital punishment and with varying degrees of severity of other punishments for serious crime.

One could as easily compare the number of murders rising with the advent of XYZ, and not be able to prove a connection.


----------



## .   1

la reine victoria said:


> When Britain had capital punishment it was used to serve as a deterrent. Murder rates were much lower then. Since its abolition the number of murders has steadily risen.


I doubt if there is a link between the abolition of execution and a rise in murder rates.
I must say that I am surprised that the murder rate in Britian has risen since the abolition of executions as I think that the murder rate in Australia has fallen since the abolition of executions in Australia.
The whole statistics argument is often fraught with fallacies.  It is possible that murder rates have remained static but detection methods have improved so more murders are being disclosed.
It is possible that statistics are canted by governments to give an impression of a need for more money to be spent on law and order.
It is my suspicion that murder rates have remained pretty static throughout human history and that methods of punishing murderers have had little or no impact on the number of murders committed.

Robert


----------



## gaer

la reine victoria said:


> It is a bone of contention amongst most British people that prisoners, today, are living in surroundings which are often better than those they enjoyed in the outside world.


I would be quite surprised to hear that people in the US have the same opinion about our prison system. However, I don't know for sure.


> People who commit crimes must be made aware of the consequences - their loss of liberty.


I would certainly agree that if people who have committed violent crimes are "rewarded" with lives that are more comfortable than those they experienced before the crimes, something is very wrong.

However, I should say that I have not studied such matters. My opinions may have been formed by reliable information or from very unreliable information. I don't know.

Gaer


----------



## heidita

gaer said:


> I would be quite surprised to hear that people in the US have the same opinion about our prison system. However, I don't know for sure.
> 
> I would certainly agree that if people who have committed violent crimes are "rewarded" with lives that are more comfortable than those they experienced before the crimes, something is very wrong.
> 
> However, I should say that I have not studied such matters. My opinions may have been formed by reliable information or from very unreliable information. I don't know.
> 
> Gaer


 
Talking about luxury prisions:



> First, there was the sheer opulence of the place. The "cells" were lavishly furnished suites with living rooms, bathrooms, bedrooms, kitchens and balconies that offered a stunning vista of Medellin, the surrounding valley and hills.
> 
> Just outside Escobar's suite was a small table with telephones and a metal box mounted on the wall that was the main circuit box for all the communications lines to the prison -


 
Surprising.



> CONVICTED prisoners are telephoning members of the public from a call centre which has been set up inside a jail.
> Women with convictions for violence and theft have been working in the call centre at the top security Styal prison in Cheshire which is being used by a charity to sell lottery scratch cards to businesses and shops. Last night Tory MPs said that the system could result in criminals calling their victims, obtaining financial information about companies or even child abusers talking to youngsters.


 
Another such story. This time a prision in the UK.


----------



## gaer

heidita said:


> Talking about luxury prisions:
> 
> Surprising.


link

I'd say MORE than surpising. Scary!


----------



## Nunty

Prison conditions - from the megaluxurious to the subhuman - are undoubetdly fodder for a CD thread, but could please keep the discussion in this thread to the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment (excecution a punishment, the death penalty)?

Thanks


----------



## winklepicker

la reine victoria said:


> When Britain had capital punishment it was used to serve as a deterrent. Since its abolition the number of murders has steadily risen.


 
In 1900 there were 9.6 murders per million population in England & Wales. In 1950 there were 7.9. A low point was reached in 1960 with 6.2. Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty for murder in 1965. The figure for 1997 was 14.1 murders per million population. Link

BUT the same trend has been seen in the US - where of course the death penalty still exists in many states, and homicide rates are between 5 & 10 *per hundred thousand.* Link. And there does not seem to be a correlation between murder rates and countries with the death penalty. It has much more to do with gun ownership.

According to Amnesty, during 2005, at least *2,148* people were executed in *22* countries. In 2005, *94* per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. *Iran* executed at least 94 people, and* Saudi Arabia* at least 86. There were 60 executions in the *USA*. 

Taking into account social and other historical changes, I think you would find it difficult to make a case that a return to the death penalty in the UK would have any measurable deterrent effect. And I for one would be disconcerted to find myself in the company of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

And here's the full list of death penalty countries: AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

Not a very enlightened bunch are they?

What IS certain is that the death penalty is sometimes imposed on the innocent - which was why the UK got rid of it after three high-profile posthumous pardons. And if we kill innocent people we're no better than murderers ourselves, are we?


----------



## gaer

Nun-Translator said:


> Prison conditions - from the megaluxurious to the subhuman - are undoubetdly fodder for a CD thread, but could please keep the discussion in this thread to the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment (excecution a punishment, the death penalty)?
> 
> Thanks


But I can't. Sorry. For me life-imprisonment and the conditions people face when given that sentence are linked to my feelings about capital punishment.

You are asking us to discuss an incredibly complicated and emotional issue. Maybe you can isolate it from all other things. I can't.

I hate mindless cruelty, or what I think of as mindless cruelty. In a world that made sense to me, in a world that had a criminal justice system that I felt was truly fair, both to those who commit crimes and those who have been hurt by criminals, I would say, without a second's hesitation: I'm against capital punishment.

But the world, in my opinion, is NOT consistent, fair or even civilized. To me that means that if a topic such as this is kept "on topic", to the satisfaction of some, it will become simplistic and therefore useless to others.


----------



## Nunty

I am sorry if I am simplistic in your eyes, Gary. You may be surprised to learn that I am indeed fully cognizant of the complexity of the issue from viewpoints of law enforcement, offender and victim. Its very complexity is an excellent reason to keep the discussion manageable. If we go ranging in all directions we will all have the satisfaction of expression ourselves on the issues that are important to us, but there will be too many different "bits" floating around to follow with any kind of coherence.

It is possible that we have, at least for the time being, finished discussing the pros and cons of capital punishment and their respective arguments, and that we should now -- in a new thread -- begin a discussion on the limits ("if any", I suppose one should add) imposed on the right of a society to punish. Such a topic could and should include issues such as indeterminate vs determinate sentences, parole, prison conditions, torture, restitution to victims, repercussions on offenders' innocent family members and many other facets of the question; it could include the philosophical questions of punishment and vengeance, as well as issues of rehabilitation and "redemption" as one contributor put it.


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> What IS certain is that the death penalty is sometimes imposed on the innocent - which was why the UK got rid of it after three high-profile posthumous pardons. And if we kill innocent people we're no better than murderers ourselves, are we?


And if we kill innocent people we're no better than murderers ourselves, are we?
Thank you.  I couldn't have said it better myself.
On a separate thread one poster let us know that his brother had considered desertion from the American military rather than go to Vietnam.

This brought to my mind the observation that the death penalty possesses little or no deterrent effect.

Many young people ran away to Canada rather than fight in Vietnam and most of these people did this in the full knowledge that they faced the death penalty if caught.  Here's the difficulty with punishment as a deterrent; no one believes that they will be caught so the deterrent effect does not exist.

I believe that criminals are not executed as a deterrent but rather as retribution condoned by tub thumping politicians appealing to the basest and most intense emotions of their constituants.

I have yet to hear even one cogent argument to support executions and the certainty of wrongful executions outweigh any possible marginal gain to be made by another violent death.

There is nothing to be gained from executions.

.,,


----------



## gaer

Nun-Translator said:


> I am sorry if I am simplistic in your eyes, Gary.


Those are your words, not mine. If you wish to discuss this in a PM, I'd be more than happy to, but it's not true. I have an honest disagreement with you, perhaps, about what the boundaries of this topic should be.

From what I've read of your opinions in these forums, mostly what I feel is a great deal of respect. I'll leave it at that.


> You may be surprised to learn that I am indeed fully cognizant of the complexity of the issue from viewpoints of law enforcement, offender and victim.


On the contrary. I think you know much more than I do and probably more than most people in this discussion. Your knowledge may make it easier to draw boundaries.


> Its very complexity is an excellent reason to keep the discussion manageable. If we go ranging in all directions we will all have the satisfaction of expression ourselves on the issues that are important to us, but there will be too many different "bits" floating around to follow with any kind of coherence.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. In such a topic, drawing a line, establishing what is relevant and what is not, means drawing a very fuzzy line. Obviously some sort of limit is necessary. Defining one is nearly impossible. It's a dilemma.


> It is possible that we have, at least for the time being, finished discussing the pros and cons of capital punishment and their respective arguments, and that we should now -- in a new thread -- begin a discussion on the limits ("if any", I suppose one should add) imposed on the right of a society to punish.


How can we do that and exclude discussion of the right of a society to execute criminals? I see a Catch 22 here. You would have to, for instance, start a topic that asks for discussion of the rights of a society to punish in ways _*other than*_ execution. I don't believe that will work.


> Such a topic could and should include issues such as indeterminate vs determinate sentences, parole, prison conditions, torture, restitution to victims, repercussions on offenders' innocent family members and many other facets of the question; it could include the philosophical questions of punishment and vengeance, as well as issues of rehabilitation and "redemption" as one contributor put it.


In my opinion, such a topic would be too large. I admit that trying to limit a topic to any one of the issues above will probably be impossible, but including all of them is an invitation to choas, again in my opinion, because so many issues would be involved that would be highly emotionally-charged. I foresee many angry posts and personal attacks, with no room for control.

I would like to say, on the record, that I think merging the topic you started with the topic about Hussein was unfortunate. I am not criticizing the actions of anyone, including any moderators who were attempting to logically connect similar threads, but I see the public execution of Hussein and capital punishment as two separate issues.

So, fair is fair. Let me state my own feelings, which I have tried to avoid for personal reasons.

I feel that IF executions (capital punishment is such a sanitary term) decrease crime—a very questionable assumption in my opinion—this is a symptom of something far more serious: a system of justice that is not working. I won't try to justify that opinion logically either.

Gaer


----------



## Nunty

gaer said:


> [...]How can we do that and exclude discussion of the right of a society to execute criminals? I see a Catch 22 here. You would have to, for instance, start a topic that asks for discussion of the rights of a society to punish in ways _*other than*_ execution. I don't believe that will work.[...]


I have started such a thread, but execution is not excluded from discussion. I have simply changed the focus from a specific (unacceptable, in my opinion) exercise of such rights to the definition of those rights, their limits and their concomitant obligations. 

Shall we give it a chance?


----------



## gaer

Nun-Translator said:


> I have started such a thread, but execution is not excluded from discussion. I have simply changed the focus from a specific (unacceptable, in my opinion) exercise of such rights to the definition of those rights, their limits and their concomitant obligations.
> 
> Shall we give it a chance?


Why not. Only time will tell how such a thread will develop. Let's hope it is peaceful and productive. 

Gaer


----------



## cuchuflete

From a news article today, about two more hangings in Iraq:



> Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the gallows were built to international standards and in accordance with human rights organizations.


Can someone enlighten us as to who sets international standards for execution equipment, and why?
What human rights organizations have anything to say about the death penalty other than that they don't like it?
Here

is the news report, for anyone who would like to get as confused as I am by such references.

Is capital punishment a good thing?   Well, if that quoted snippet is accurate, somebody has accepted that it is a real thing,
in need of standards.  Bewildering.


----------



## Nunty

Gallows built to international standards is a truly scary concept. You don't suppose there is an ISO 9000 spec?

(I don't really want to know.)


----------



## Amityville

It is horrible. But I believe there is a proper way to do it so that death is instant. Suicide by hanging is often prolonged.


----------



## Nunty

cuchuflete said:


> [...] What human rights organizations have anything to say about the death penalty other than that they don't like it?
> Here
> 
> is the news report, for anyone who would like to get as confused as I am by such references.
> 
> Is capital punishment a good thing?   Well, if that quoted snippet is accurate, somebody has accepted that it is a real thing,
> in need of standards.  Bewildering.


I knew I had read something about about the gallows business. Here it is, a British farmer who saw nothing wrong with his gallows export enterprise. The article makes it clear that Amnesty International is against it. Surprised?


----------



## Victoria32

Nun-Translator said:


> I knew I had read something about about the gallows business. Here it is, a British farmer who saw nothing wrong with his gallows export enterprise. The article makes it clear that Amnesty International is against it. Surprised?


Man alive! There is business, and then there is ...* that*. 

Vicky


----------



## emma42

Well, no one can accuse him of hypocrisy, at least.  I will not, however, be doing lunch with him in the near future.


----------



## maxiogee

What's the difference between him and the arms industry?
The arms industry has government backing.


----------



## cuchuflete

A person sentenced to death may be hanged, stoned, shot, or otherwise despatched.
Hence the value of Maxiogee's question.  Does Britain export guns and bullets?

I've never seen an execution of any kind, and don't want to.  I'm not a proponent of
the death penalty.  Yet I wonder why those who oppose it demonstrate such hysterical outrage
at a manufacturer of gallows.  If a criminal is put to death, is that morally better or worse
depending on the country of origin of the equipment or the type of equipment?


----------



## la reine victoria

Who are we to interfere in another country's culture?.  At least with properly constructed gallows, death by hanging should be quick.  Without gallows, criminals will simply be strung up on a tree and left to die a lingering death.

Let's not forget the USA's collaboration with Sadaam during the murder of the Kurds.  Link.  Sadaam wasn't put on trial for this crime - too embarrassing for the US.  

LRV


----------



## Poetic Device

The only thing that eases (for lack of a better word) me about the entire thing is the fact that he was tried and convicted by his own people and not another country. However, for many r4easons, I am against the death penalty. Sometimes, like this case, I feel that living can be more of a punishment. For instance, they could have sent him to a prison. I think that it would have done him (and us to a degree) some good. 

 The following statement is one of the many reasons why I am against the death penalty.
 
 Tell me if you think I am going overboard with this one:
Because we (or they) executed him by our own hands, are we no better than he was? We did spill human blood... Does this technical wrong when next to his wrong make everything right, or did we only make ourselves feel better?


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> A person sentenced to death may be hanged, stoned, shot, or otherwise despatched.
> Hence the value of Maxiogee's question. Does Britain export guns and bullets?
> 
> I've never seen an execution of any kind, and don't want to. I'm not a proponent of
> the death penalty. Yet I wonder why those who oppose it demonstrate such hysterical outrage
> at a manufacturer of gallows. If a criminal is put to death, is that morally better or worse
> depending on the country of origin of the equipment or the type of equipment?


 
I think that people oppose the gallows so much because of two reasons:
1.  It is a very primative way of exterminating someone.
2.  If the hanging is not performed correctly their neck will not break, and that is why they're strangled.


----------



## cuchuflete

I fail to be convinced that the gallows is any more or less "primitive" than stoning, killing with poison,
the guillotine, cutting a person's head off with a sword, stabbing them to death, dropping a grenade in their cell,
or starving them to death.  The intent and the result are death.

If, in the act of being killed by hanging on a gallows, a neck breaks or doesn't break, capital punishment will have been done.

It is ludicrous to have an examination of what is right and wrong about capital punishment, and try to
simultaneously argue the aesthetics, cosmetics, mechanisms and other procedural matters of how a killing is done.  All of that assumes that (1)the death penalty is used, (2)the result will be the killing of the convicted.
If a person is on the gallows, and does or doesn't have a mask put over his head, is he any more or less dead after the hanging?


----------



## la reine victoria

Stoning someone to death is far more barbaric than hanging them.  

For those countries who practise captal punishment, the aim should be to perform the execution as quickly and painlessly as possible.

LRV


----------



## maxiogee

I have a problem with capital punishment.
But - it happens in some countries.

In those countries where it happens I have a problem with some forms of capital punishment.
Quick, clean and with a minimum of attendant to-do about it ought to be 'best practise'. I would also like to think that the executioner is a voluntary and qualified person.

There will, no matter what form is chosen, be instances where the condemned person doesn't die immediately for whatever reason. Those reasons need to be minimised.
With that in mind I have no problem with hanging, or lethal injection, or electrocution.
Ideally I would like the corpse to be rendered to the relatives of the deceased for their own funerary rituals and private burial (with cautious stipulations, if necessary).

Anything such as beheading, stoning or riddling with bullets leads to a situation where the relatives receive a grossly disfigured corpse and this is cruel. They, at least, out to have the right to a 'presentable' corpse.


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> I fail to be convinced that the gallows is any more or less "primitive" than stoning, killing with poison,
> the guillotine, cutting a person's head off with a sword, stabbing them to death, dropping a grenade in their cell,
> or starving them to death. The intent and the result are death.
> 
> If, in the act of being killed by hanging on a gallows, a neck breaks or doesn't break, capital punishment will have been done.  I said that I think that is why the people are more againgst the hanging than anything else.  I never said that it made sense.     I happen to agree with you.
> 
> It is ludicrous to have an examination of what is right and wrong about capital punishment, and try to simultaneously argue the aesthetics, cosmetics, mechanisms and other procedural matters of how a killing is done. All of that assumes that (1)the death penalty is used, (2)the result will be the killing of the convicted.
> If a person is on the gallows, and does or doesn't have a mask put over his head (I always wondered why they put the bag on the head...), is he any more or less dead after the hanging?


 
With that last paragraph or so I assume you are refering to my question that was posted.  I understand what you are saying.  I only asked those questions was to somewhat try to demonstrate the senselessness I feel is in capital punishment.  The "two wrongs don't make a right" example was the best way that I could think of getting my thoughts across.

You are right, though.  Analyzing the death penalty and chatting about which way to "do 'em in" is ghastly and pointless.


----------



## Victoria32

Poetic Device said:


> I think that people oppose the gallows so much because of two reasons:
> 1.  It is a very primitive way of exterminating someone.
> 2.  If the hanging is not performed correctly their neck will not break, and that is why they're strangled.


This http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6263787.stm?Is
 is an example of what can happen if a hanging goes "wrong" ... how strong is your stomach? It makes me feel sicker than usual about CP.. 
This is the discussion where I got the link, literal gallows humour. 
"This one caused some discussion at work along the lines of the laws of acceleration and the mechanics involved in the rather gory detail.
I hasten to add I work in a community mental health team where we do actually care about the welfare of other people.

The discussion veered rapidly away from the gory stuff and onto the actual formula and the speed a body might be moving at after about 6 feet. Good old google."


----------



## Porteño

Apart from the fact that I have been against capital punishment for many, many years, I feel that the various methods generally employed in carrying out the death penalty are ludicrously primitive, hanging especially. From a humane point of view, I believe the Chinese method of a bullet in the back of the head has to be the most effective method - it is quick and cannot fail. However, I fervently hope that one day people will come to their senses and stop this barbarity.


----------



## mbrlr

Speaking as an American and as an attorney, the death penalty is a travesty and a horror.  We know that occasionally innocent people are convicted, even with all the safeguards we in the West have in place and those of us in common law nations expect.  People convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" have turned out to be innocent, and if this is found out after execution, it's a mite late to open the jail door and say "oops".  

Our first Republican governor after Reconstruction, one who took over from a truly loathsome man (Orval Faubus), was Winthrop Rockefeller.  He did a great deal, Republic or no, to lead us away from the worst things about our heritage as a Southern state and to begin to bring African-Americans and whites together rather than strive to keep us apart.  We're not there yet, but we'd be a hell of a lot farther away without his example and efforts.  I'm a Democrat, but he was a great man...and one aspect of his greatness was that the very last thing he did before leaving office was commute the death sentences of all those on death row in Arkansas.  He did that as a matter of conscience and I just wish we had more like him both in Congress and the Courts and, God willing after 8 dreadful years come 2009, the White House.


----------



## emma42

Yes, to my mind, the sure knowledge that innocent people have been executed is an unanswerable argument against capital punishment.


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> Yes, to my mind, the sure knowledge that innocent people have been executed is an unanswerable argument against capital punishment.


Hear here.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

mbrlr said:


> and one aspect of his greatness was that the very last thing he did before leaving office was commute the death sentences of all those on death row in Arkansas.  He did that as a matter of conscience and I just wish we had more like him both in Congress and the Courts and, God willing after 8 dreadful years come 2009, the White House.


Did not a Democrat called (I think) George Ryan, get into a shedload of trouble for doing the same thing recently in Illinois? However, blessings on them both! 

Vicky


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> Did not a Democrat called (I think) George Ryan, get into a shedload of trouble for doing the same thing recently in Illinois? However, blessings on them both!
> 
> Vicky



He's a conservative Republican, and was widely praised by, among others, liberal Democrats.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010108/shapiro


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is a chilling article from a conservative journal, commenting on both Ryan and the Death Penalty.
Highly recommended reading for those with an open mind, whichever side of the fence you may be on at the moment:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...nalty"+"george+ryan"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5


----------



## emma42

Thank you for those links, cuchuflete.  This man deserves the utmost respect for so publicly changing his mind - He recognised the truth, and admitted he had been wrong.  He is obviously now an advocate of the "unanswerable argument".


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> Here is a chilling article from a conservative journal, commenting on both Ryan and the Death Penalty.
> Highly recommended reading for those with an open mind, whichever side of the fence you may be on at the moment:
> 
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...nalty"+"george+ryan"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5


Equally important, I think:

TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL

This certainly gave me a lot to think about.

Gaer


----------



## winklepicker

emma42 said:


> Yes, to my mind, the sure knowledge that innocent people have been executed is an unanswerable argument against capital punishment.


 
Hooray!

Would I be howled down, however, for suggesting that lifers should be allowed to suicide if they want to? Myra Hindley wanted this, and it would have saved the prison service a fortune.


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> Hooray!
> 
> Would I howled down, however, for suggesting that lifers should be allowed to suicide if they want to? Myra Hindley wanted this, and it would have saved the prison service a fortune.



The right of lifers to suicide may deserve a thread of its own.  It is off-topic in this thread.
Moderator.  

In case that statement wasn't clear enough, posts about the rights of anyone to suicide will be deleted from this thread.


----------



## eduarodi

luis masci said:


> I know Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; also I believe he is responsible for many atrocities.
> However seeing this trial condemning him to death, and even worse by hanging, I cannot avoid to see it as a fact of medieval brutality. As if it were a thing from the past and it has nothing to do with nowadays.
> Anyone else has this kind of feeling or am I the only one?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6117910.stm
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Corrections will always be welcome (Sorry, I'm a teacher, and you asked)


 
I think the death penalty is sheer revenge. It's always wrong. Societies disapprove of murderers because we cherish human life. We think a life is the most important thing we have. Therefore, murderers are attacking the highest value we have. So, how come we punish them by killing them? I mean, we are saying you're wrong for killing people, so I'm going to kill *you*? Well, that's at least ridiculous, and anyway unacceptable.

See you.
Eduardo.


----------



## Kajjo

@Eduarodi:
I am not in favor of death penealty. However, let me play the devil's advocate  by indicating some logical mistakes you made in your last statement. It is of no help at all if reasoning against capital punishment is carried out so illogically.



eduarodi said:


> I think the death penalty is sheer revenge.


Yes, that is your personal intuition. You might be right, but there are many other who think it might protect society. In context of this particular thread, the death penalty set a definitive end to Saddam Hussein's reign, there will be no hope of freeing him, of letting him continue his realm of atrocities. No change of government, no overturn of democracy could lead to him becoming dictator again. So, it is much more than revenge in this case. 



> Societies disapprove of murderers because we cherish human life. We think a life is the most important thing we have.


Life might be the most important thing a person has (I agree!). But we hang onto _our own life_ and not everyone automatically cherishes _every_ human life. Many societies obviously do _not_ cherish every life. Your sentence is no argument, it is just a statement. Imagine victims or family of victims, would they cherish the life of the perpetrator? 



> Therefore, murderers are attacking the highest value we have.


Yes. But murderers also take away something that cannot be given back. The irreversibility of murdering is a very important aspect, as is the influence on others, because in many cases, murdering a person also inflicts harm to family and society.



> So, how come we punish them by killing them? I mean, we are saying you're wrong for killing people, so I'm going to kill *you*?


Yes, maybe because we are afraid of that happening again; because the deed was so wrong some feel there is no other solution; because some believe in "eye-for-eye" justice. 



> Well, that's at least ridiculous, and anyway unacceptable


Accusing others of being ridiculous is no successful way of arguing for a valid issue. There are many reasons against death penalty, but you mentioned not a single one and attacked others with a reasonable opinion. Actually, I agree that "ridiculous arguments" might exist in many discussions, but none was addressed here.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Yes, that is your personal intuition. You might be right, but there are many other who think it might protect society.


It can be revenge, be wrong, and still protect society.

Just because it protects society doesn't make it a "good" thing or a "morally right" thing.

The 'insane" used to be locked away in many societies, for the good of society, not for the well-being of the afflicted.




> In context of this particular thread, the death penalty set a definitive end to Saddam Hussein's reign, there will be no hope of freeing him, of letting him continue his realm of atrocities. No change of government, no overturn of democracy could lead to him becoming dictator again. So, it is much more than revenge in this case.


Rudolf Hess was locked away and never released after the Nuremburg Trials. He had no way to do anything to anyone ever again.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> It can be revenge, be wrong, and still protect society. Just because it protects society doesn't make it a "good" thing or a "morally right" thing.


Right.



> Rudolf Hess was locked away and never released after the Nuremburg Trials. He had no way to do anything to anyone ever again.


But the political environment was much more stable and the permanent lock-away much more secure than it would have been in the case discussed.

Kajjo


----------



## Poetic Device

If it's a matter of security, couldn't we have stuck him somewhere like Alkatraz (sp) Island, then?


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> If it's a matter of security, couldn't we have stuck him somewhere like Alkatraz (sp) Island, then?


Alcatraz.

.,,


----------



## mbrlr

I've been out of the loop for a while on this discussion, but I would ask everyone to remember that the actions of this administration don't represent adequately or accurately either the history or the feelings of the American people.  While we've had our bad times and bad wars, we've generally been on the "right" side of things and always tended to believe in the virtues of freedom and civility.  What troubles me most about this is that we've now engaged in something that, even during the Cold War, we generally avoided --- starting a war rather than responding to an attack or aiding an ally.  Saddam Hussein, monster though he may have been, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the American people now know they've been had.  Keep your fingers crossed for 2009 and that this Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, will do their jobs.


----------



## emma42

mbrlr, I, for one, am well aware that the actions of governments ("democratically" elected or otherwise) don't always accurately represent the desires of the people.  There is no anti-American _people _sentiment from this forera.


----------



## Poetic Device

mbrlr said:


> I've been out of the loop for a while on this discussion, but I would ask everyone to remember that the actions of this administration don't represent adequately or accurately either the history or the feelings of the American people. While we've had our bad times and bad wars, we've generally been on the "right" side of things and always tended to believe in the virtues of freedom and civility. What troubles me most about this is that we've now engaged in something that, even during the Cold War, we generally avoided --- starting a war rather than responding to an attack or aiding an ally. Saddam Hussein, monster though he may have been, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the American people now know they've been had. Keep your fingers crossed for 2009 and that this Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, will do their jobs.


 
Even though Hussein had no part on 9/11, he still posed a major threat.  That is why we went after him.  We were not declaring war on a specific country after 9/11 because the problem was more than just a country or two.  That is why it was/is called the *War on Terror*.


----------



## emma42

Please explain to me what threat Hussein posed to the USA (and Britain, for that matter).


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> Please explain to me what threat Hussein posed to the USA (and Britain, for that matter).


What an oily question.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

By consensus of the majority of democratically unelected thread participants, capital pun-ishment shall not be applied to those convicted of going off-topic.   The thread, however, is at risk of long-term incarceration if we don't return to the topic.


----------



## emma42

Sorry about that.


----------



## mbrlr

My apologies.  Even those who differ can discuss things in a civil manner, and my statements were off-topic and helped things veer sideways.  Mea culpa.


----------



## Lombard Beige

This thread is so long that before expressing my opinion, I searched for "certainty of guilt" and "effectiveness", but as nobody seems to have raised these points, here goes.

Regarding capital punishment in general and not Saddam in particular, from a moral standpoint, I think capital punishment cannot in any case be justified in the absence of "certainty of guilt" and, from what I can understand, this does not seem to be guaranteed in all jurisdictions that currently impose the death penalty. I do not consider that the simple fact that a jury has found a person guilty is sufficient to justify the death sentence, and I believe that there have been cases for example in the US where people have been executed on the strength of a jury verdict although new evidence excluded certainty of guilt in terms of justice, albeit not of law (which are not the same thing, although law should strive to be justice).

Secondly, in terms of effectiveness, does the experience of the USA, where some states apply the death penalty demonstrate that the death penalty is a real deterrent or not. If, as I believe, it does not so prove, then the death penalty is merely a form of legal vengeance, which is rather primitive to say the least.

regards


----------



## Porteño

That's great! Lombard Beige. I think you have very succinctly summed it all up extremely well indeed, and I thoroughly endorse your opinion.


----------

