Asymmetrical Information

I'm in favor of the death penalty, but wonder if keeping Saddam alive like a zoo animal is a better punishment than turning him into a martyr. Not being able to control your own death would certainly be emasculating....and killing him is probably the "expected" response for an ex-dictator.

On the other hand, some Iraqis probably won't beleive he's truly out of power until he is dead.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in part because I think some murders were too cruel for the murderer to be let off that lightly (I also have some less vicious concerns about executing the innocent). After all we all die anyway, and what is important is the quality of life in intervening years.

It gives me a nice warm feeling inside to think of Martin Bryant (the mass-murderer in Tasmania) spending the rest of his life in a tiny cell. And, at the end of it, he'll die anyway - if the Australian government executed him now they would only be bringing it forward by 40 years, a small drop compared to his crimes.

So don't execute Saddam Hussein. It's too nice. (I am aware that Christians who believe in hell may not at all be convinced by this approach).

Opposed, in this case as in all others.

Those who can't play nice must be removed from the playground - any other solution creates two classes of people, at least, and what's a representative gov with a class structure?

Fine with abortion. Will reconsider this stance if the anti-choice people argue for and provide the technical wherewithall to somehow salvage the four- to ten-percent of all fertilized eggs that fall, unnoticed, into toilet bowls and women's underclothes. Until then, shut up.

Brain dead? People who wanted Terri S. kept alive will not convince me that they really care about that issue until they patrol donor wards of US hospitals to fight for the rights of "people" who are kept "alive" for up to 48 hours so that their organs stay fresh until it's transplanting time. Until then, shut up.

If I were out one dark night, walking in the woods, and Saddam were to rush me with a knife, I might shoot him dead. But self-defence is not a quick death penalty decision. You might call it triage.

Simply do not understand people who try to pretend that imposing the death penalty on an adult in response to that adult's choices is somehow equal to abortion, pulling the plug, or self defense.

Being opposed to the death penalty for moral, legal, and philisophical reasons does not in any way, shape, or form, stop me from discussing, in graphic detail, the ways in which Ashlee Simpson, for instance, might be shuffled off this mortal coil.

I think that Capital punishment is a case where there is no difference in kind. Absolutely. Period.

My position on the death penalty can at best be described as "ambivalent".

I believe that certain crimes deserve a penalty of death, but I also know with almost complete certainty that any system that humans create to judge will be flawed and will inevitably result in the death penalty applied to someone who does not deserve it.

Since I acknowledge the flawed nature of humanity and any institution created by that flawed humanity, I must, to be at the least self-consistent, oppose the death penalty as a routinely imposed sentence.

Is the trial of Saddam Hussein "routine" by any reasonable measure?

I would say not.

Are the crimes of which Saddam Hussein is accused of committing "routine" by any reasonable measure?

Again, I would say not.

So... what do we do in an extraordinary case?

We ensure that all of the forms and procedures of internationally recognized law are followed, even if they are inconvenient.

Many of these forms and procedures were established in the wake of World War II, where crimes occurred that were at least comparable to those alleged to have been committed by Saddam Hussein, and prosecutions were executed.

If those forms and procedures are not followed, including if found merited the imposition of the death penalty, how can we ever claim to have founded some form of "international law" with any grounding other than "the victor makes the rules"???

Briefly, my opposition to the death penalty: I think that it's morally tenable but highly impractical since it cannot be undone. Since there is, in general, a not-insignificant chance of error, I believe that the death penalty should not be generally available as a penalty for crime.

In Saddam's case, there's no question of error. His crimes or so heinous and his guilt so assured that there is nothing practical to worry about — there's only the (typically just a thought experiment) situation of absolute certainty.

Plus, there's the also the question of his continued existence giving hope to those who are murdering innocent people, which places additional moral weight on the value of his termination.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I didn't weep for the Ceaucescus, and I wouldn't for Saddam either. Henry Reardon is right, though: giving the man a chance at a dignified and courageous end would be kinder than leaving him as he is now. The question then is how kind we'd want to be. Personally, I'd let him take his pick between lifetime solitary confinement and a firing squad.

I take what I believe should be the true libertarian position, I oppose the death penalty because I do not want the government to have the power to take my life. I do not see how any liberaterian can claim the government should be limited and turn around and give it the power to take their life.

But since the chances that the government will be excuting an innocent person in the case of Saddam I have no trouble with the death penalty for him.

Does "opposition to the death penalty" mean "opposition to the death penalty as currently practiced in locality X", or "opposition to the death penalty anywhere"?

Because I think there's a lot of room to fit between "opposed to the way the death penalty is prosecuted in Texas" and "opposed to executing Saddam Hussein and other mass murderers".

I’ll put in one vote for an extended post on why Jane is opposed to capital punishment.

As far as the question before us, when we first caught him, I was originally willing to support commuting a death sentence for Saddam Hussein to life in prison provided that he was a source of useful information about the Fedajeen Saddam, the billions he looted, etc. Since he is unlikely to provide us with any such information, let him face whatever penalty is prescribed after his trial under Iraqi law while his supporters at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch wring there hands in protest.

I too vote for Jane to say why she opposes the death penalty. I oppose it, in all forms/instances, including Saddam Hussein. The state should not be in the business of taking life, period. Since his guilt and execution seem to be a foregone conclusion, why bother with a trial at all? I guess it's to provide some sort of catharthis for Iraq, and to acknowledge the suffering he caused, to the relatives of his victims. Or is it just vengeance?

My problem with applying the death penalty to Saddam is that, like it or not, the vast majority of countries in this world consider the death penalty a barbaric act unworthy of a civilized country. Even Muslim countries are expected to give it up if they're to be respected as nations by the rest of the world, partly because of how they apply it in their unreformed state.

Everyone's watching what happens in Iraq. Fairly or not, they perceive us to be pulling the strings. It's certainly true that we can make the Iraqi government changes its approach on issues if we feel it is necessary and won't undermine the government.

The countries that feel differently about the death penalty from the United States generally do so because they had bad experiences with dictatorship and military occupation that made free use of the death penalty. I am NOT comparing the U.S. occupation to any of those, but explaining why the people of Iraq, after decades of Saddamist rule, might be closer to the European countries liberated from the Nazis than they would be to we happy Americans, surrounded by oceans and weak neighbors.

Without getting into the debate over whether that's right in the U.S., the U.S. is necessarily linked with the trial of Saddam Hussein in the world's eyes, and by acceding to the death penalty for him, will be seen as applying a less-civilized form of justice that diminishes our moral credibility in the eyes of many other countries. And I'm not even talking about France.

The death penalty is counter-productive, in my opinion. At least in this case. I would rather encase Saddam in a cell made of solid concrete with a small viewing window which can be used to pass food and whatnot. This way, he can be pointed to as an example. Please notice, this would not be only an example of a really bad man, but also a testimony to the legitimacy and principles of the Iraqi government. I.E, the fact that he's not dead shows that the govenment respects all life, and also that the government is strong enough to contain a monster.
Another argument against killing him is that we will create a martyr, and then people will just forget about him. If they keep him alive, people will be continually be reminded of how much of a monster he was.

I don't think the state has the right to kill you, even after you've clearly stepped outside the bounds of the contract. In the US it is also expensive, and irreversible.

That said, I'd be okay with Saddam taking a long drop from a short rope, if only because we're all sure that he isn't exactly innocent. It isn't just that his guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, it's beyond any doubt. At all. I also think that the case can be made that the citizens of the state you've spent the last 30 years oppressing the hell out of have a moral right to end you if they so choose in accordance with due process and law. A lynching would've been bad, a trial and hanging at least goes through the proper procedure.

That said, I still don't think they should execute him. Mainly because there are fates far worse than a swift death: slow death by starvation, mental torture through sensory isolation for a period of years, a life time of solitary confinement where one is beaten if one speaks, being kept awake by a siren for a few years...there are truly hellish things an evil man can be put through, and many of them inflict much more suffering. Yes these are extreme, inhuman punishments, and I wouldn't argue that a normal state under normal circumstances has any more moral right to impose them than it does death, but in this case I think that'd be all right.

Here's a vote for Jane to NOT share her opinions on the death penalty. She won't change my mind, and it's likely I've heard the arguments before. She could only diminish herself in my eyes (though why she should care, I don't know).

In any event, Jane, I'm sorry, but I'm breaking your rule and saying why Saddam should be executed. I subscribe to a notion that where much is given, much is expected. Saddam had a lot of power, and he abused it. He used it to kill, torture, maim, suppress, etc. If anyone should be executed, it should be those in power and use it to commit the types of crimes I just listed.

In medival times, the execution of a leader (be it a king, duke, whatnot) was something wrestled with because they served as powerful symbols. Kings could gather followers to them, and allowing a king, or his heirs, to live often resulted in further warfare. But killing a king also exposed his replacement removed the awe carried with the office.

Punishment should not be administered for cruelty's sake (as some have advocated in keeping him alive). It should be done to preserve/strengthen\maintain order. While it may not deter budding dictators, Saddam's death would help preserve order by removing any notion that he be returned to power (an unlikely thought, given that if the insurgency did defeat the U.S., Saddam would be disposed of by whoever was the leader of the largest insurgent movement) and by creating a finality to this chapter in Iraq's history (a psychological advantage, and a good moral tale for parents to pass on to their children).

In any case, thanks for indulging me.

I also vote for a death penalty opinion post.

I'm opposed to it even in this situation because, as in all other cases, it's not a deterrent. No one is going to put aside their dreams of being a psychotic dictator because the US caught and killed one.

Also, there's little to no proof that putting someone to death makes victims' families feel vindicated, happy, or generally better. In fact, in many cases people have said it is worse.

I still have my other reasons to be opposed to it, but I think those two are the most applicable to this situation.

My opposition to the death penalty is not based on whether I would shed tears for the person being executed.

My opposition to the death penalty is a result of a basic premise: that all human life is valuable, and that value is not based on what a person does, but based on the fact that a person *is*.

Saddam should forever lose the privilege of being free, but killing someone who no longer poses a danger is wrong. Period.

That said, I still don't think they should execute him. Mainly because there are fates far worse than a swift death...

I don't mean to impose on Jane's guidelines for these comments, but this begs the question: is it possible for the death penalty to be seen as a more civilized and ultimately more merciful way of punishing someone based on the severity of their crimes?

I mean, one of the opinions stated above is that the death penalty is too barbaric a practice for a country like ours to be engaging in -- but in the same breath, we can advocate putting the guy in solitary confinement for the rest of his natural life or subjecting him to other forms of mild, ongoing torture as an alternative to killing him (and I assume we're all in agreement that merely locking him up like a normal prisoner is not sufficient punishment for what this guy has done, right? I mean, we're not talking about your average crimes here).

So, what's worse? Keeping him (or anyone else convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of truly heinous acts) alive so we can take satisfaction in knowing that we're subjecting a man to perpetual, low-level torture, or efficiently and relatively mercifully putting him out of his (and our) misery?

In the US it is also expensive, and irreversible.

Damn those French and their cheap, reversible death penalty...friggin' undercutters... :)

I oppose the death penalty for all, including Saddam. Its not that I think he deserves to live, because he doesn't. But death penatly opponents should be consistent. If you oppose it, you should oppose it for all. Practially speaking, I think executing Saddam could make him a martyr.

My opposition to the death penalty stems from the near impossibility in 100% accuracy in findings of guilt. Saddam's case is a bit different, I think that there is no doubt of his guilt, yet the death penalty still doesn't seem like the right answer.
The 'it's too good for him' argument is cute - and I generally agree that life in prison would be harsher than death - that line of reasoning shouldn't be used as justification for or against the death penalty.
If one is going to take a stand against the death penalty, you should stand in that position regardless of what the accused has done. What is the difference between saying that the death penalty is wrong 99% of the time and saying that the right to trial by jury is right 99% of the time? Or habeus corpus? Or any of other other rights that we hold dear? The measure of a principle is how well you hold it when it contradicts your desired outcome.

I'm a death penalty opponent on the grounds suggested by Scott Turow in his 2003 NYT op-ed; it was http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17TURO.html and is now available in various web places, e.g.
http://www.lairdcarlson.com/celldoor/00501/SWILTurow00501ClemencyWithoutClarity.htm
"At the end of the day, perhaps the best argument against capital punishment may be that it is an issue beyond the limited capacity of government to get things right." I like that.

Like most people in the US and abroad (including Europe, see e.g. http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2003/Art/0605/opin1.php ) I'm comfortable with death as a penalty in itself -- I just believe that government gets too much wrong.

But I don't see how there's any such issue in Saddam's trial, so I don't worry about it.

I generally support the death penalty, but in this case I would prefer that Saddam have his arms, legs, hands and feet broken in multiple places, and then be left to "heal" at jagged, odd angles while he was force-fed large quantities of calcium-rich milk. Then, after several months, when the fractures had solidified, Saddam could be returned to society to freakishly crawl around as a public reminder of the punishment that a just society can impose on a bad man.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, for the simple reason that I don't want to cede to government the power to kill citizens. The potential abuse seems to outweigh the benefits. That being said, it applies to MY country, the US- Iraq is another ball game. I think the Iraqis need to decide how they deal with him, and based on my understanding of their culture, and their scriptures, it seems that is the only thing they can do (executing him). Anything else would look like a slap on the wrist, I fear- and in an honor/shame culture, that might provide a reason to support his return to power. Of course, given his crimes against his own folks, it seems unlikely- but the Baathists are good at aquiring power.

Brittain33,

My problem with applying the death penalty to Saddam is that, like it or not, the vast majority of countries in this world consider the death penalty a barbaric act unworthy of a civilized country. Even Muslim countries are expected to give it up if they're to be respected as nations by the rest of the world, partly because of how they apply it in their unreformed state.

The vast majority? I went to the Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org), and they sort out the countries as follows:

84 have no death penalty
12 reserve it for "extraordinary crimes"
24 have none "in practice" (meaning, so far as I can tell, that they have capital crimes, but haven't actually executed anyone in more than a decade)
76 have a death penalty and use it.

They treat the first three categories as one lump, which allows them to say that "more than half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice," but what I see is 112 countries with capital crimes on the books and 84 without.

Interesting tables at that site, btw. Evidently the Vietnamese managed to execute more people than the US did in 2004, despite having less than a third as many people to select them from. Iran beat us by even more, with a yet smaller population and about twice as many executions. China "won," of course, as usual, but that's only among countries that make such numbers public. When Egypt, Singapore, and Yemen are tied for ninth place with six apiece, and there's no sign of, oh, North Korea or Sudan or the Palestinian Authority or any place in sub-Saharan Africa, you have to wonder whether the US's relatively high ranking in the stats has rather more to do with our actually releasing the stats than with what's actually happening.

re: Chris - "If one is going to take a stand against the death penalty, you should stand in that position regardless of what the accused has done."

This really needs to be qualified to those who take a stand against the death penalty on moral grounds compared to those who oppose the death penalty as practiced or because of "question of guilt" issues. If those concerns were addressed, I don't think it would be logically inconsistant to support it in a given case.

I apologize again for the intrution, but this deserves a comment:

"I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, for the simple reason that I don't want to cede to government the power to kill citizens."

That's the basis of government power. Police, for instance, are authorized to kill the citizens of this country under specific circumstances, such endangering other people. Even if a review indicates that deadly force wasn't warranted, the police officer isn't subjected to the same penalties that a normal citizen is (typically, there are some exceptions, but they are exceptions).

Basically put, peace comes from the barrell of a gun. While voluntary restraint is preferable (and in prosperous socities, this is the norm), ultimately we rely on collective action, via the government, to enforce laws (thus establishing peace).

So yes, I want my government to have the power to kill citizens (and other residents). I just want a say in how they use it.

One small comment to Eamon who states that you should be consistent for the sake of consistency. This argument often seems to be used when two situations have some tenuous aspect in common. We often see it from liberals who assail conservatives for having a "culture of life" when it comes to fetuses, but not for murderers.
You could use this argument to criticise my taste for sun-dried tomatoes but not for raisins.

I'll give you one reason why this situation is different: murderers can be allowed to rot in prison under the control of society, but leaders don't always fade away. Think Napoleon - exiled by the English, then escapes and is responsible for further death before finally being beaten at Waterloo.

Michelle, thank you for the cite; clearly "vast majority" was wrong. It's a vast majority of developed countries, but many poorer countries still have it, whether or not they use it as freely as the U.S. does.

I am generally against the death penalty, but I would execute Saddam. First, it needs to be known that he can never return to power. Second, there is no doubt he is guilty of many heinous crimes.

This isn't your typical court case, where you have possibly unreliable eyewitnesses and conflicting evidence. I'm against the death penalty in most murder trials only because trials sometimes convict the wrong person, but there is no doubt Saddam is guilty of war crimes. I have no problem with the death penalty in this instance.

This is a very interesting issue. I'm ambivalent about the death penalty. I recognize that the evidence that the death penalty deters crime is spotty, at best, but I don't have any sympathy for many of the criminals who now face it. I am particularly partial to the arguments above that we shouldn't give the government the power to kill its citizens.

But in this case- that of a war criminal, I wonder if these arguments are pertinent. Has the threat of death changed the behavior of military commanders? Certainly, or commanders wouldn't surrender! Has the threat of death deterred war crimes? Maybe, I don't know my history well enough to say for certain. But a reason a soldier surrenders, though ordered to "take that hill", is that the threat of death is real, and matches or exceeds the threat from disobeying orders. It's entirely conceivable to me, that a soldier ordered to commit a crime will disobey orders if he believes he can also lose his life by obeying them. In this case, I have no qualms about saying "commit a war crime, and you die". It is no different than saying "surrender, or die" during wartime. It is a deterrent to save civilian lives. And, to be a deterrent, it must be credible.

In summary, I put executing war criminals in a different paradigm than civilians.

I oppose the death penalty in this country because it is not needed to maximize public safety, what with technological advances in prison design, and because it's practice will inevitably result in innocent people being killed.

If the Iraqis want give Hussein The Full Mussolini, including pelting the corpse with stones and rotten fruit, I'm fine with it, especially if he gets something resembling a rational trial, because societies that have suffered tyranny can benefit from publicly killing the tyrant, as a means of firmly sending the message that the old regime is gone. A once- powerful tyrant locked up in a cell can maintain a cult of personality with a non-trivial portion of the population, to the detriment of the society.

Will Allen pretty much nails this issue for me.

James

Some animals are so evil they have no business remaining alive. To let them continue to live is a danger to everyone.

Now having said that, I am so tired of being reiminded how innocent people have been put into jail for crimes they did not commit. There they would remain except for DNA exoneration. How many innocent men and women has the state killed? I wonder... and I probably don't want to ever know the true answer to that question.

That is why I generally oppose the death penalty in circumstantial cases. Otherwise, let me be the first to offer to pull the switch.

That's the basis of government power. Police, for instance, are authorized to kill the citizens of this country under specific circumstances, such endangering other people. Even if a review indicates that deadly force wasn't warranted, the police officer isn't subjected to the same penalties that a normal citizen is (typically, there are some exceptions, but they are exceptions).

My opposition to the death penalty is based on my lack of faith in the criminal justice system. I just don't feel confident that all of the people on death row actually committed the crimes that led to them being there.

There is, however, no doubt that Hussein is guilty of an incredible array of horrific crimes, any one of which is bad enough for his life to be forfeit. Just having been a fascist dictator is enough in itself, actually. So I have no problem seeing him put in front of a firing squad, because there's no chance he's an innocent man.

I do think it is a mistake to go through the charade of having a trial, though. Trials are for people whose guilt is in doubt. The whole world witnessed Hussein's reign; a trial adds nothing.

Jane,

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty. In fact, my official position is "I'm opposed to all use of capital punishment by the criminal justice system".

But, I too, would be tempted to make an exception for Saddam. And I admittedly leave myself an "out" in the above statement. Because I've always felt that genocide is the one crime that may warrant the death penalty, and as such, I don't consider this to be a part of the "criminal justice system" per se in the ordinary sense, but rather a matter for world or international justice, or indeed national (or global) defense. It's almost, in other words, a war and peace issue.

I think the only possible justification for ordinary old capital punishment is self-defense: society's need, or right, to defend itself from the most dangerous criminals. But I also think, like my good friends in the Vatican, that the conditions for this justification are absent in our modern age.

But when you add state power to the act of murder, and you focus that murderous power on vast numbers of human beings, you have something different from ordinary murder: you have genocide. Genocide backed by state power is so different in scope, and so much more extreme in the danger it poses, that I think quite literally the species itself is threatened, and so a self-defense justification may kick in for punishing the perpetrators by death. Even then I would confine only it to the bigwigs in charge, those who directed the state power aparatus to genocidal ends, in other words.

The fact is, a war or revolution could conceivably unleash forces that could free a Saddam or Hitler from prison (I mean, it's not impossible), so, I think the danger-on-an-unimagineable-scale to humanity allows the species, if it deems necessary, to kill one of its own in this one, rare instance.

As an ardent opponent of the death penalty, I say: "Hang him high!"

Explanation: Although there are good policy-based reasons to ban the death penalty, I have never been persuaded by the purist arguments against all state-sanctioned executions. There are about a dozen 20th century figures who I think deserve(d) execution, starting with Hitler. I have yet to see a cogent argument to the effect that it would have been morally wrong to execute Hitler.

Jane Galt -

If your objections to the death penalty are solely pragmatic (it's a deterrent that doesn't deter, it gives ultimate power to a state you don't think should have, it's the penalty for which we feel most horrified if we dole it out in error) then there's probably no reason to feel bad about wanting to see Saddam get injected or gassed (or, if you want to be nice, hung).

If your objections also have moral content (as mine do), it's no one's place but yours to decide how flexible your morals are on this issue. I don't believe we should ever under any circumstances condone a killing (with two objections: to save or defend a life, and in war). I don't think Saddam should be executed because I try to hold this principle of mine to as strict consistency as I can. Emotionally, I wouldn't mind seeing Saddam tossed onto the streets of Baghdad and subjected to some mob justice (or maybe gassed? or is that too glib), but intellectually I don't allow myself to condone it.

I probably fit into the opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds category (costly if you allow multiple appeals, uncivilized, arbitrary, not obviously effective and obviously irreversible [only one known case of capital punishment being reversed]).

But I’m not totally opposed to it on moral grounds. As a former soldier I trained to kill people who were presumably morally on average no worse than me and in ways (from ambush) that were simply cold blooded murder with legal sanction. If I grant government the right to authorise me to do these I can’t see how I can say it is wrong to kill criminals.

It goes without saying that Saadam is a bad man and in any list of those who might be better underground he must stand pretty high. In addition to the general practical objections above there is a specific issue which has only been hinted at above: martyrdom. I suspect the chaos of Iraq today is such that at least a few people have unrealistically rose coloured memories of the pre war regime – tough but fair, at least there were no muggings etc. Not sure how many of these people are but if they do hold such views they are likely to aggrieved by Saadam’s premature exit from this world in a way that they would not with life in prison. This could result in even more unreast.

By way of historical analogy (and I need to make it clear for the benefit of IRA friendly seppos that I’m not claiming any moral resembalance between the Easter Rising executed and Saadam and co) refer to the Easter Rising of 1916. It’s generally forgotten that British troops had to protect those captured after the Easter Rising from the Dublin crowd. Had they been put in prison and left to rot it’s arguable that Ireland would today be a member of the Commonwealth and would have been content with home rule under the British monarchy. But the decision to execute them (even though they were guilty beyond doubt of treason at a time when Ireland was at war and thus due for the death penalty under most standards) turned public opinion overnight. I do worry that topping Saadam could have the same effect.

I think it is a bad example for the State to kill someone, but since non-death penalty compadres don't believe in the life-long sentence, it is better to execute killers. Regretfully, the more killers that get out of jail the more the death penalty gets expanded. Expanded even to young minors someday.

The State needs to protect the innocent. If Sadam isn't dead, he can get out someday and kill again.

I would be undecided. I am generally against the death penalty, because I'm not quite where I stand on it religiously, but also, because, I don't think it does much good.

In this case, it might do a whole lot of good though. For Iraqi's to see Justice, to see how the process works. To see that you can go through a court process, instead of having to murder people on the streets.

I think you could make a strong case for it.

I do not know the right answer to this. But if it were in the interest of Iraq, I would be for it. By taking Iraq through the legal process, for such extreme crimes, and still show a certain civility about it. Well I think it might be a great thing for the entire Middle East. Hopefully smarter people about the region will make this decision than me though.

I am opposed to the death penalty. Governments cannot, by and large, be trusted with it. I make an exception specifically for unrepentant, caught-in-the-act mass murderers and those who use their power to orchestrate mass murders.

I think it's naive in the extreme to claim to "respect life" and then turn around and defend a murderous dictator. Respect for life would demand that the ongoing danger to life represented by the mass murderer be removed.

Such a determination is grave. Every effort should be made to determine the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of the charge. We should show our respect for life and humanity by taking a person's life only with a heavy heart, a clear understanding of the case, and a severe conscience.

I am opposed to the death penalty because I believe it is wrong to kill except as a last resort in self-defense. I don't believe that revenge is a moral concept. It also cannot be undone in the case of conviction in error. Finally, I believe that if the prospect of a life of imprisonment doesn't deter one then nothing will, but that's just icing. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I would personally be gratified by seeing him get the axe but that feeling doesn't come from that part of my being that should be entrusted with policy-making. Obviously my emotional reaction is that he deserves to die, but my opposition to the death penalty is primarily moral (and a bit pragmatic) and often in conflict with my emotions. Ultimately, I have to believe that my moral principles should outweight my personal emotions in this as in all cases, so I guess I would oppose execution of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler in theory (particularly tough for me as a Jew), bin Laden, etc.

"Trials are for people whose guilt is in doubt. The whole world witnessed Hussein's reign; a trial adds nothing"

No they aren't, at least not in a democracy, which is what we like to claim we are building in Iraq. In a civilized society, trials are for ALL defendants, even those who has signed confessions and have been caught on tape performing the bad acts. If we are going to adopt an attitude like the one above, why bother in trying to set up an Iraqi democracy?

I'd say the biggest reason why I'd support the death penalty for Saddam is the same reason why they should have killed Napeoleon - so there's no chance of him coming back. Suppose there's a civil war and some of his buddies break him out of prison, and he becomes a leader in the civil war. That would be a Bad Thing, and one that is not normally in play in ordinary questions of the death penalty.

As with others on this thread, my only problem with capital punishment is that it's too easy to implement especially if the defendent can't afford a top notch laywer. However, in philosophical terms, crimes require compensation. You destroy someone's property you repair or replace it. You steall $100. You should repay $200 in time, labor or currency. If you intentionally, with forethought and malice, take a life, there is only one commodity valuable enough to be proffered in place

Damn those French and their cheap, reversible death penalty...friggin' undercutters... :)

Yeah, Frog bastards really got us on that one.

My point was more about the expense. It should be obvious that the death penalty is always irreversible. I should learn to write clearly.

The reason Napoleon wasn't executed was that, aside from rising from commoner to royalty, he did only things that kings of other countries claimed as their right to try to do; executing him for having been temporarily more successful as a monarch would have been both hypocritical and a precedent dangerous for the next king to get into trouble. As for the part where he violently made himself royalty - the English, at least, remembered that their royal line began at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and had violently passed between different branches several times since.

Letting him retire to a little island kingdom from which he could return did turn out to be a mistake. (How many of you know that Nappy had to be defeated and removed from power twice?) However, that was part of a negotiated deal that probably saved the quite a few lives in the English and other invading armies, and by turning over control of the French government while much of it was still functioning probably saved them much trouble in establishing control. So I think it was worth the risk, although the English government was negligent in not watching him closer.

After Napoleon returned and was defeated at Waterloo, his treatment was much harsher; he was imprisoned in a fortress on a remote and isolated island, where escape was impossible and rescue pretty unlikely.

So, if Hussein found a way to make himself really useful to us - if he could reveal terrorist networks with the details needed to capture the terrorists and break the networks, or if he could tell the diehard Baathists to stand down and turn in their weapons, I could see keeping him alive on pragmatic grounds. But I think we're much better of with him dead. A live leader with followers who will conspire and murder to break him out of prison is generally more dangerous than a dead martyr.

Also, I thought worshipping dead martyrs was a Christian thing. How likely are Arab Muslims to get themselves killed following a man who failed and got himself killed?

I am opposed to the death penalty on the ground that error in application, the government killing an innocent person, undermines the core of what a government is for, protecting citizens from the depradations of others. I acknowledge that in a case in which harm befell my loved ones, I would wish vengeance in medieval terms, but think that society is better for understanding that impulse while not enacting it.

Saddam turned the purpose of government inside out, wreaking horrors upon his own citizens. To the extent that the trial process brings those facts before his society in an straightforward, unassailable way, it will have done a great service both as a catharsis and prophylactic against martyrdom.

Then what? As others have pointed out, his guilt is clear, and should be made more so in the trial. His crimes were against both the individuals and the society and are indefensible on any basis of "keeping order" or "defense". He used the government as his weapon for the commission of his crimes, which puts him in a different order than individual criminal defendants.

Nonetheless, my preference is that he is boxed away, discredited, disgraced and forgotten. My concern is that in a place in which factionalism is so pervasive and violent, his continued existence would just stoke the embers, anchoring the society in the hatreds of the past.

I think he will be executed and while I might prefer a different outcome, I will not be sorry. If it is going to happen, imho, it should be after trial, with execution in a mundane fashion (injection, gas), no show. It should not be about vengeance, which just continues the cycle, but about Iraq ridding itself of a pernicious evil. Irrefutable evidence of his death followed by burial in an unmarked grave, and let the country move on.

Getting back on topic, I see nothing wrong with the death penalty in principle, but am opposed to it as it is administered in this country. Surely someone who has deprived other people of their lives for no good reason, and with exceptional cruelty, has forfeited his own right to life. Unlike some of those residing on Death Row after the jury was hand-picked for favoring the death penalty, their lawyer snoozed through the trial, and police tampered with the evidence or rewarded known criminals for unverifiable testimony, I believe that Saddam Hussein can be proven to have done this beyond any doubt, thousands of times.

Also, various people have presented good aruments above that genocide and war crimes are different.

But it does need to be proven in court. "Everyone knows he's guilty, so just kill him" isn't good enough. A few centuries ago, everyone knew there were witches and they had to be executed - but the witchhunters manual Malleus Maleficarum admitted that no witch could be convicted under the ordinary rules of evidence, so they'd change the rules for witch-trials.

Bring Saddam into court, present the evidence, give him a full opportunity to try to disprove it, and get it all on record so no one can argue about the facts later. (This in itself does quite a lot to dispell martyrdom.) I just wish the process had been moved along faster.

I do think it is a mistake to go through the charade of having a trial, though. Trials are for people whose guilt is in doubt. The whole world witnessed Hussein's reign; a trial adds nothing.

Wrong; the trial, or at least the public trial, is the basis of rule-of-law in any civilized society. It holds all accused to the same standard of testing, evidencial discovery and presentation, deliberation, judgement, and sentencing or exoneration. Society accuses, tests, and renders verdict. Of course, like any other human institution it can be corrupted and misused, and even under optimal real-world conditions there will be variance.

But for any test of criminal behavior -- even from a 'known monster' -- the trial is imperative (and especially when the death penalty can be invoked). It separates real civil order from wreckless vigilanteism.

Wrong; the trial, or at least the public trial, is the basis of rule-of-law in any civilized society.

International law allows captured war criminals to be tried by military tribunal by the nation which captured them. Hussein should have had a hearing before a tribunal, then (after inevitably being found guilty) been shot.

Once we decided to hand him over to the Iraqis, yes, a trial was necessary. We shouldn't have done that; it will do more harm to the rule of law in Iraq than it will good, because a violent minority of Sunni Iraqis will be convinced that Hussein was unfairly convicted.

Society accuses, tests, and renders verdict

Yes, but we already did that; we declared war on Iraq. That was the rendering of the verdict.

Death Penalty: I am totally against a government, any government, executing, putting to death anyone for any reason. Period.

Why, you ask? One reason is that is that lowers the state to a level of barbarism. In some, maybe most, cases there is some level of doubt. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

However, in the instant case you are asking whether a person, of whose guilt there is no doubt should be put to death at the conclusion of the legal proceedings. I say, “No” for yet a second reason, beyond the one where the state acts in a barbaric manner.

When these crimes took place, and take note, I do not use the phrase “alleged crimes,” Saddam was a U.S. ally. The United States provided him with weapons of various types and technological assistance. The United States thought it more important to have Iraq on our “side” in the bigger war against the USSR than to lose Iraq by complaining about a few Kurds that happened to be gassed or a few Shi’ites that were put in a slit trench and then executed. The United States knew what Saddam was doing and we still supported him.

It is the height of hypocrisy to not only to ask if we should execute him but to even put him on trial. The United States paid him to do our dirty work in the Mid-East and then overthrew him when we did not need him any more.

Chief-

I also oppose the death penalty (both in general and for Saddam), and I think keeping the history of the U.S.'s involvement with Iraq in mind is valuable, but I don't think your argument scans, for two reasons -

(1) It's not going to be *us* putting Saddam to death.

(2) That we implicitly allowed Saddam to do whatever he wanted as long as he was a convenient ally in the Middle East is reprehensible, and regrettable, but that doesn't mean we can't condemn him for it - for one thing, the "we" has changed (well, to an extent, given Rumsfeld's presence). It turns out important FBI officials let Whitey Bulger murder people as long as he was of value to them; we haven't decided to take him off of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. (On the other hand, we did/are prosecuting the agents who broke the law...)

I am opposed to the Death Penalty mostly based on "reasonable doubt" grounds. Far, far, *FAR* too often, when some horrible crime happens, The State wants to demonstrate to its citizens that it is still in control, it finds two black gentlemen in a dark blue car two blocks from where the crime happened, has a huge trial, they're put to death, Justice Is Served.

Of course, this is *NOT* happening with the whole Saddam thing. Any list provided at the trial detailing his atrocities is probably too short by half.

I suppose I could put my opposition to the Death Penalty like this:

I oppose the Death Penalty being applied to citizens, but I wholeheartedly support it being applied to the Government.

After a fair trial, of course.

I used to support the death penalty. I have changed my mind for several reasons:

- My state now has "life without the possibility of parole". When I was a young man, the only choices were death and let them go eventually. Letting a monster go puts the next victim's blood on your hands. Better to have the monster's. Saying that you didn't personally release him doesn't let you off the hook in my book.

- In the U.S., putting a man to death costs over 10 million, most going to lawyers. This is a particularly vile use of money in my opinion (I mean enriching lawyers, not executing criminals). Keeping a man in prison for 40 years costs about 2 million. As a taxpayer it makes more sense to lock them up.

- As previous commenters have noted, people are capable of mistakes, blind ambition, etc. For every O.J., there's probably several victims of prosecutors building a reputation, cops doing whatever it takes to mark a case closed, reporters finding an "edge" to the story, or even innocent incompetence. The more experience I have with "good, honest folks" and "fine upstanding pillars of the community", the less inclined I am to kill someone on their behalf.

- A "stone killer" is a soulless predator. If you lock him up, he may be the king of the joint for a while, while he is young and strong. As he grows older and weaker, the younger merciless predators in lockup will give him the opportunity to experience what his weaker victims experienced at his hands. - Now that's justice !!!

As for Saddam, as long as it is the Iraquis making the decision, I can live with anything but letting him go. The state, under Saddam and his gang, killed tens of thousands - minimum. If the new state, which represents the people, want to kill them back, that's OK with me.

JW Booth uttered the words, "Sic Semper Tyrannis," after mortally wounding Abrahan Linclon during an entertainment. Contrary to your suggestion, your implied comparison does not suggest a capability for principles.

"My problem with applying the death penalty to Saddam is that, like it or not, the vast majority of countries in this world consider the death penalty a barbaric act unworthy of a civilized country."

Both by number of countries, and by population, you are so obviously wrong I don't know how you typed those words with a straight face. "Most of the world" is barbaric and uncivilized.

I oppose the death penalty, including for Saddam.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases. I have lots of reasons for this that I won't waste bandwidth on here, since it could (and would) take up pages and pages.

I oppose the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. I disagree with the person who posted that people who seek consistency for the sheer sake of consistency have some kind of philosophical malfunction. My personal take on this is, if you oppose having a governmental authority taking a life, you don't get to make up subsets of criminals from which you can pick and choose which lives you want to save and which you're okay with letting go. I agree that keeping him in jail is probably more punishment for him, frankly, than just ending his life. I further concur that killing him just helps set up a sort of cult of personality around him later. But that's all secondary to the main point, for me -- killing a person is wrong. We set up governmental institutions to enforce law and order and while I can understand that making this gesture might speak volumes to a society that really understands the idea of 'blood vendetta,' in the interests of preserving a higher notion of justice, I wouldn't support an execution. Aside from the fact that I think the death penalty is wrong, it DOES give SH a phenomenal amount of power as a symbol and as a rallying-point. Treat him like what he is -- a thug, a common criminal, who can darn well languish in jail eating bad food and watching Jerry Springer. He can shout at the rain all he pleases while being treated as a 'nothing' in jail. Kill him, and suddenly he's a symbol and a hero to a certain segment of the world. -- LLC.

Jane, I'm not in your against-the-death-penalty demographic; I favor using the death penalty in a number of cases. But I wouldn't support the death penalty for Saddam--and I'm surprised that you are feeling that way.

I don't support the death penalty as a punishment for bad behavior or a deterrent. Nor should the death penalty be a gruesome reward for the people affected by the crime. I consider it only as a public safety issue: is a person such a risk to other people that we need to kill him? Aside: I consider someone who will hurt other inmates to be such a risk; it is immoral to allow prison rape.

By the time Saddam has been tried, I don't think he will be a risk to anyone. He can safely be incarcerated so that he won't be able to hurt anyone else for the rest of his natural life.

If the Iraqis were to convict him in several trials and decide that life without parole (until Human Rights Watch and the ACLU got involved), the likelihood that there would be repeated attempts either to break him out or to use violence to make Iraq let him out is probably close to 100%.
On the other hand, if we took him off the Iraqis hands and put him in Leavenworth, the likelihood drops to about 95%.
Many people would die.
Martyrs have power as symbols, but they can't be brought back from the dead. Prisoners have the same power and action can bring them back to their pre-conviction status--see Napoleon as has been mentioned.

I am against the death penalty for the following reasons:

1) Thou shall not kill.

2) It aborts their (executed's) opportunity to reconcile with God.

3) I think it is inhumane to make killers out of functionaries of the state. (Hey, Mom, what'd you do at the office today?)

cj.
Ref. yr #2.

Catholics think a sincere regret for sins, a sincere intent to seek confession at the next opportunity, and a start on the Act of Contrition--all of which can be managed in about two heartbeats--will take care of business.
Residence on death row provides plenty of time.
See, in addition, conditional absolution.

You may have good arguments, but putting number two in there weakens the overall effect, since it's obviously bogus.

Yes, against capital punishment even for Saddam.

There’s two times you can kill people. In immediate self-defense or in the course of a Just War (and the definitions of both of those are of course minefields in and of themselves).

No exceptions. Hitler, Tojo, Saddam or Stalin if we’d caught him. No exceptions.

I'm against the death penalty as a matter of implementation, not morals. It's hard to get right and impossible to fix if wrong. Add in all of America's race- and money-based legal inequities, and it just ain't right.

Luckily, in Hussein's case there's not really any doubt that he's the head bad guy. So, hang him high.

Jane~

Please do give your reasons why you oppose the death penalty. I am an extreme, extreme right wing ultra conservative who also happens to be an independent thinker. (For the record-this is a solitary place. Neither side wants anything to do with me.)

At any rate, while I am in favor of the death penalty, and in favor of a lot more things deserving death then currently do, I have issues with the application of such. The costs involved, the chances of honest mistakes, and the chances of deliberate wrongdoing by anyone involved in the process have given me pause to seriously reconsider my viewpoint.

Alas! I have researched what I would consider to be a large amount of anti-death penalty information and have found nothing close to convincing. (For the record: There are some legitimate, thoughtful arguments. I just don't feel they are convincing.)

I hold you Jane Gault, to the highest levels of reason. If there is a convincing argument, I feel certain that you would be the most capable of expressing it. One poster voted no feeling that his opinion of you might be diminished. I have more faith in you than that.

Show us what you got!

Comments are Closed.