Saddam's verdict good or bad?

[mr_thebrain]

So he's to die. Personally I don't care that much. I'm against the death penalty and all... but it's Saddam. Then again, yeah he's a bad dude, but do I really even care about that? I'm just glad it's not the U.S. doing the killing or the verdicting. (Yes, I just made up a word.)

What do you all think do the crimes fit the punishment? Is the death penalty inherently wrong? Does taking a human life make up for other people’s deaths?

[eriador]

'm just glad it's not the U.S. doing the killing or the verdicting.

*snorts*

I propose the addition of a "manipulating the election" choice.

[mr_thebrain]

dude, such a given, what's the point of adding it? not to mention it's not the point of the thread.

[eriador]

then ask about the death penalty in general. Saddam's case is soooo tied up in politics I don't know what to think except for the political motives involved.

[mr_thebrain]

you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. do you want the dude to die, or do you not want the dude to die? do you care? do you smell toast and want to hug trees? f*** the politics. is the death penalty a good thing or bad thing in this instance?

[Jebus]

It's good to see execution methods getting back to their roots.

Now if only they would bring back being drawn and quartered.

[jotabe]

Let me say i am against death penalty.
But Saddam's execution won't be justice as much as it is a political necessity. And it is plenty of justice. I mean, most of the people who are justly sentenced to death did way less than he did.
But it is a political necessity in order to avoid that he could be freed and lead, or used as head of, a revolution or a pustch.

Death penalty is wrong. But still, i consider that there are some situations were it cannot really be avoided. Serial killers would be one such case. Militars who can perform coup-de-etats. Death penalty not as a deterrent, but as the only way to put an end to the threat a person represents.

Furthermore, Saddam was also a politician. So, what could you expect of him? As soon as a person steps into politics, becomes inherently evil. And he was into politics since his youth.

Edit: Jebus, i agree with you... but i find amiss a good old-fashioned stoning. Or what about the "die-by-fire"? Still i think there is nothing better than a guy with a black hood wielding an axe.

[eriador]

I refuse to vote, the choices are not sufficent to sum up my feelings. I don't agree with any of those choices.

[mr_thebrain]

as is your choice.

[Jebus]

Let me say i am against death penalty.
But Saddam's execution won't be justice as much as it is a political necessity. And it is plenty of justice. I mean, most of the people who are justly sentenced to death did way less than he did.
But it is a political necessity in order to avoid that he could be freed and lead, or used as head of, a revolution or a pustch.

Death penalty is wrong. But still, i consider that there are some situations were it cannot really be avoided. Serial killers would be one such case. Militars who can perform coup-de-etats. Death penalty not as a deterrent, but as the only way to put an end to the threat a person represents.

Furthermore, Saddam was also a politician. So, what could you expect of him? As soon as a person steps into politics, becomes inherently evil. And he was into politics since his youth.

It's good to have Jota back to sum up my feelings for me. But I still don't entirely agree. For all the reasons you've stated I think he needs to be killed, but I don't think he should be killed.

That's my little self-contradictory opinion.

[Hegemon]

Personally, I am all for the death penalty and I am all for taking out Saddam. That being said, I would prefer it not to actually happen because I think that the very idea of having these lawsuits is a farce and a total waste of money which make the legal system and everyone connected to it look more asinine than they already do. So to properly punish the fools for this farce, he should be found innocent on a technicality and then be taken out by a friendly, neighborhood Mossad hit-team.

[Ithilien]

Just imagine what message that would send to the global community.

Personally, I am undecided about the death penalty but it was kind of expected for Saddam. But a hanging? World's greatest known dictator (well maybe not really) get's hung? Couldn't they come up with something a little more sensational?

But that is hugely besides the point.

[Oliver Dale]

"Crimes against humanity" seem to be the one instance in which the death penalty is warranted, in my opinion. I mean, they are crimes against humanity, people. Humanity. Goodness....

[mr_thebrain]

so the death penalty is wrong and crimes against humanity are wrong.

so in this case two wrongs make a right?

[Hegemon]

Ollie did not say that the death penalty is wrong. As a matter of fact, he said it is right, but only in the instance where it is applied to a person who has committed crimes against humanity.

[VelvetElvis]

I'm for it, but then again, I'm just vengeful like that.


If it ever happens. Has it made it through appeals court/commitee yet?

I think that the very idea of having these lawsuits is a farce and a total waste of money which make the legal system and everyone connected to it look more asinine than they already do.

There speaks the law student.

[hive_king]

Isn't almost every crime, when you get to the nub of it, against humanity?

[AnthonyByakko]

Isn't almost every crime, when you get to the nub of it, against humanity?

Except drug use. Any other crime is a violation of a person(s) rights.

[jotabe]

humanity is overrated

[AnthonyByakko]

humanity is overrated

I can't see how that can be construed as humorous.

[VelvetElvis]

Way to have a sense of humor.

[bean head]

maybe it's not supposed to be humorous. humanity, as applied to the individual, can be very virtuous, indeed. some people are very righteous, very giving, kind and caring and all that stuff. step back and take a look at the larger picture, and humanity, as it can be viewed today by example, is quite degrading to the individual, generally twisted and malformed into almost sub-human proportions. we're not very nice to each other, or ourselves, as a species.....


EDIT: oh, and, if they're gonna kill saddam anyway, i think it should be something entertaining like being chased off a cliff by 50 topless women (to use monty python as example), or possibly skydiving from the edge of space without a parachute or something with a bit more bang...3 pieces of wood and a rope is boring.

[eriador]

good idea...

[liquifiedrainbows]

So he's to die. Personally I don't care that much. I'm against the death penalty and all... but it's Saddam. Then again, yeah he's a bad dude, but do I really even care about that? I'm just glad it's not the U.S. doing the killing or the verdicting. (Yes, I just made up a word.)

What do you all think do the crimes fit the punishment? Is the death penalty inherently wrong? Does taking a human life make up for other people’s deaths?

So if the government is allowed to take a life to make up for other people's deaths... then why can they tell their people that they can't?

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

[Hegemon]

Murder is not illegal.

Murder that is not government sanctioned is.

That is the difference.

Things are against the law because the government states that they are. The government has a monopoly on the use of force.

From a justice-based standpoint, I would imagine that there is a difference made by the the fact that executions take place after a proper trial and what seems like hundreds of appeals.

Besides, your argument can just as easily be used as a reason for why the government should not be able to imprison people. People that are imprisoned are forcibly confined in a place that theydo not choose to be in. But the government has laws against doing the same.

What about fines? When you break certain laws the government can extort money from you. If you do not pay you are forced to pay a larger amount, and eventually something unpleasant happens, such as imprisonment or garnished wages. So basically someone is forced to give up their money and if they don't do it, something bad happens to them... The government doesn't allow people to do it, but they do it themselves.

Don't try to equate what an individual can do to what the government can.

[AnthonyByakko]

The government has a monopoly on the use of force.

That's my line.

[Hegemon]

The government has a monopoly on the use of force.

That's my line.

But the first time I heard it was from a professor of mine 2 yrs ago. He uses it a lot

[AnthonyByakko]

The government has a monopoly on the use of force.

That's my line.

But the first time I heard it was from a professor of mine 2 yrs ago. He uses it a lot

Is he a Randian Capitalist?

[jotabe]

*thanks bean head*
It wasn't a completely serious remark, but not a completely humorous either. More like ironic.

btw... government can do many things. But even if power steams from the people... even then, such power should be limited too.