Saddam recieves Death Sentence

[VtecMini]

but they can't experience what its like having no life. if they are kept alive but given nothing or meaningless things to do, cannot talk to other people and have no external stimuli then you have taken away their 'life' but they know it has happened

I understand what you're saying, but I think that subjecting someone to endless boredom and whatnot is somewhat tantamount to torture.

I suppose it's about setting an example too. I know what you mean though.

[go.pawel]

I don't understand how killing someone is an effective punishment for a crime? Anyone care to explain?

Try to think about it not as a punishment, but as an efficient way of getting rid of people who are a threat to others without having to spend any money on them in the future (prisoners need to be fed, guarded, cured etc., which takes money).

As for the Saddam trial - better late than never However, imho he should've been executed like 15 years ago or even earlier.

[junaman]

Sorry, never been a fan of killing people, for their atrocious crime of killing people.
Also economics should not be a reason to justify taking one's life...

Oh and during a firing squad execution, you only get shot once. The others are there to prevent an executioner going on trial if it turns out the convict was innocent. They pick guns at random, and only one is loaded.

[Kooper]

quick get Indiana Jones

My opinion is that anyone shouldn't be executed for any crime. It makes you as bad as they are. A lifetime (whats left of it) of manual labour or solitary confinement would be far more effective.

I don't understand how killing someone is an effective punishment for a crime? Anyone care to explain?

You wouldn't find it so hard to understand when murderers get set free because there's no more space in the prisons.

Also, what kind of incentive would a potential murderer have not to commit a murder when he knows the worst he'll get (maybe) is life-time imprisonment?

Additionally, what claim can a murderer make to be treated humanely when he/ she himself hasn't given the same right to their victim(s)?

[derekthetree]

You wouldn't find it so hard to understand when murderers get set free because there's no more space in the prisons.

Also, what kind of incentive would a potential murderer have not to commit a murder when he knows the worst he'll get (maybe) is life-time imprisonment?

Additionally, what claim can a murderer make to be treated humanely when he/ she himself hasn't given the same right to their victim(s)?

i'm sure that inmates who have committed 'lesser' crimes get set free before murderers.

maybe the incentive would be being stuck in a 6ft square box with nothing to do not seeing anybody for the rest of your life.

using the spectre of execution doesn't work as they probably think they are getting off. they don't have to face the consequences of what they have done from their point of view.

[Kooper]

i'm sure that inmates who have committed 'lesser' crimes get set free before murderers.

maybe the incentive would be being stuck in a 6ft square box with nothing to do not seeing anybody for the rest of your life.

using the spectre of execution doesn't work as they probably think they are getting off. they don't have to face the consequences of what they have done from their point of view.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I've heard of countries where prisoners get set free simply because it's the president's birthday (I shit you not), murderers or no.


True, but then again, why have that when you can just make the scum walk the plank and have it done with?


I don't agree. I think the possibility of death is incentive enough for the majority. No death-penalty, no problem! Possible death = "maybe I'd better think twice..."


And again, I don't think a murderer can lay claim to be treated humanely when he/ she him/ herself hasn't given that right to their victim(s). Might be tooth-for-a-tooth, eye-for-an-eye mentality, but it sure is effective.

[:Exige:]

Yes, lets kill him. Because that isn't at all hypocritical (sarc)

[Kooper]

Yes, lets kill him. Because that isn't at all hypocritical (sarc)

If hypocrisy leads to justice, then a hypocrite am I.

[derekthetree]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I've heard of countries where prisoners get set free simply because it's the president's birthday (I shit you not), murderers or no.


True, but then again, why have that when you can just make the scum walk the plank and have it done with?


I don't agree. I think the possibility of death is incentive enough for the majority. No death-penalty, no problem! Possible death = "maybe I'd better think twice..."

I think we are both talking about normal countries here, not 'banana' republics!

the question comes in; what if they weren't guilty? not a lot you can do about it after you've killed them.

its obvious we have differing opinions that conflict, but variety is the spice of life

[go.pawel]

Yes, lets kill him. Because that isn't at all hypocritical (sarc)

Yes, lets kill him. Because that isn't at all hypocritical (not sarc)

[Esperante]

If hypocrisy leads to justice, then a hypocrite am I.

I would argue this one, and I could go into a whole rant on the death penalty, but I'll save it for now.


Aside the fundamental and economic flaws of the death penalty, hanging Saddam ain't gunna do much to help Iraq's stabililty, and with a full blown civil war at hand, Saddam's haning will be an incubator for martyrs blowing up their cars in his name.

[go.pawel]

Aside the fundamental and economic flaws of the death penalty, hanging Saddam ain't gunna do much to help Iraq's stabililty, and with a full blown civil war at hand, Saddam's haning will be an incubator for martyrs blowing up their cars in his name.

Since when are trials and sentences supposed to help maintain stability You sentence people simply for what they did in the past, not to help maintain anything. Period.
As for martyrs blowing up their cars in his name - we already have there lots of martyrs doing it in the name of Allah. Might as well have some more with a different object of worship. However, I don't think it's gonna happen. Saddam's followers were simple opportunists (like in every dictatorship), that are neither ready nor willing to die in his name. If they commit further atrocities it's only because they seek revenge for losing all the priviliges and luxuries that went with being a follower of the dictator. Plus, they hope that the spreading chaos (which actually isn't spreading anymore, it's now what you might call a "stable chaos" ) would cause people to change their minds and reinstate them as rulers. To benefit from such (improbable) change of situation, they certainly have to be alive.

[henk4]

Saddam's followers were simple opportunists (like in every dictatorship), that are neither ready nor willing to die in his name. If they commit further atrocities it's only because they seek revenge for losing all the priviliges and luxuries that went with being a follower of the dictator.

I think you are underestimating the fact that Saddam, belongs to the Sunni minority, that will consider executing Saddam as a revenge of the Sji-ites. Not all Sunnis had the privileges you describe, but they still consider Saddam as being one of them.

[Esperante]

Since when are trials and sentences supposed to help maintain stability You sentence people simply for what they did in the past, not to help maintain anything. Period.

And I said already I think the death penalty period is a huge mistake. No matter the crime. And the United States is going to see some external costs for seeing Saddam hanged.

As for martyrs blowing up their cars in his name - we already have there lots of martyrs doing it in the name of Allah. Might as well have some more with a different object of worship.

What a great diplomatic you are! Instead of coming to the table offering making economic and social changes, you say, 'ah! ****' em! Bomb the c**ts!' Yeah, there's going to be fighting necessary, but NOBODY can afford stupid choices who clearly result in solely more martyrs.

However, I don't think it's gonna happen. Saddam's followers were simple opportunists (like in every dictatorship), that are neither ready nor willing to die in his name.

Because we haven't seen that before, right? I mean, killing themselves for Allah and Saddam has never happened before, right?

If they commit further atrocities it's only because they seek revenge for losing all the priviliges and luxuries that went with being a follower of the dictator. Plus, they hope that the spreading chaos (which actually isn't spreading anymore, it's now what you might call a "stable chaos" )

A stable chaos? What the **** does that mean? You must have taken strategery lessons from Bush. The definition of chaos itself is 'a disordered mass or jumble,' to say it's stable or contained is entirely contradictory.

As to the choas 'not spreading,' go read thet newspaper. What of the recent, violent, bloody takeovers of Baghdad and Amarrah...

would cause people to change their minds and reinstate them as rulers. To benefit from such (improbable) change of situation, they certainly have to be alive.

OK, so former leaders still on the run might still want to be in charge...but there are still thousands of insurgents loyal to Saddam and the Shi-ites and are ready to blow themselves up and get no physical return. To ignore that group of people and say the whole situation is only about former position holders of Saddam's regime is a pretty stupid, violent path.

[Coventrysucks]

Also, what kind of incentive would a potential murderer have not to commit a murder when he knows the worst he'll get (maybe) is life-time imprisonment?

Yes, the death sentence for serious crimes such as murder, and allowing citizens to carry guns to deter criminals from acting in the first place will always result in a lower crime rate.

That explains why the crime rates in the USA vs UK per capita are actually pretty similar... Oh... hang on, that's no good.

Or maybe it isn't quite that simple.