Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death

the notion was that criminals are a product of society, and the cure lies in constant correction and reformation of us as a whole rather than just killing criminals as they spring up, like so many cockroaches.

blame is not the issue, and certainly not the basis of our prison system (the ideal, not the quagmire its become and continues to grow as).
as i said, society breeds its own filth. the root of the problem is not so simple as "kill it or let it live" but rather "dont allow more to be created". in the meantime, while we face this problem, we focus on rehabilitating criminals rather than allowing the fringe ends (gasey, dhamer, manson etc) to justify us crumpling the theory up into a ball, calling it all "liberal crap", throwing it in the trash, and turning our prison system into a system of revenge and gratification for those cheering on the 50 yard line.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah. Probably. But there is a difference between killing someone and doing the most humane thing while still protecting society.

No, the being killed is involuntarily. Like. The Gladiator would at any point have the right to step back from the contract. The person you want to execute is going to be executed regardless of his/her will.

Well, okay, you can really not see why it is hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone? I mean..that's probably the Example I'd read when looking up hypocrisy in the dictionary, you know?

Sorry, but I will not feel guilty for wanting a criminal to be punished. To a degree I agree that life in prison would be the more "humane" thing to do instead of execution, but not wholeheartedly.

Because one is murder and one is killing as a punishment for committing the crime of murder. I do see a difference between a person killing another out of pleasure, monetary gain, sexual arousal etc. and killing that person in turn as a punishment for said crimes. Is it barbaric? Yea, probably it is. But there is a difference in the two.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, but I will not feel guilty for wanting a criminal to be punished. To a degree I agree that life in prison would be the more "humane" thing to do instead of execution, but not wholeheartedly.

Because one is murder and one is killing as a punishment for committing the crime of murder. I do see a difference between a person killing another out of pleasure, monetary gain, sexual arousal etc. and killing that person in turn as a punishment for said crimes. Is it barbaric? Yea, probably it is. But there is a difference in the two.

Well, if you think that executing might be the more humane thing I have a proposition. Let the criminal decide if it/she/he wants life in prison or the death penalty..he/she/it'll know which one is more humane.

There is one by law. But it is kind of the same looking at it objectively.

i was watching this documentary on National geogrphic last week that detailed saddam's reign of terror, and in it they showed actual footage of some of the horrors he committed. also when he soldiers failed to complete a task he would have thier best friends break thier arms on camera. even some of the memebers of his own police force, he had bound, and blind folded, and thrown off 8 story roof tops, if they complained about anything, and you see these poor bastards flailing all the way to the ground, so i dont see why ppl are posting essays and exploring the moral ambiguties of captial punishment, so i say f **** saddam...hanging is too good for him, and im a proponent of captial punishment providing that it fit the crime.

I find it interesting, from an Australian point of view at least, how little a splash this seems to have made in media sources (outside the US) in terms of the extent of coverage.

I remember how big it was when he was originally caught - victory for democracy and that everywhere over and over, pictures of him all messy and so forth. The image given that this was a killing blow to the weak factions who refused to lay down arms.

How big it was when the trial first started - once again speech's how this was a sign it was success, free courts, democracy etc. Once again the image was given this was something that would mark a turning point (of course media coverage dropped way back when it became farcical - "Guard tells how Saddam gives love advice" "Saddam leaves courtroom - again"

The the sentence comes and sure, it rates the front page... but it seems to lack a lot of the energy the above two had, and wasn't backed up by lots and lots of coverage. No wall to wall speeches being aired, no page after page of analysis over how this is a victory for democracy.

One reason suggested is that people realise Saddam isn't really that relevant anymore, and that whether he lived or died it isn't going to change the situation in Iraq, since the causes behind the violence are bigger then the ousted dictator. Or, actually, if he died it will likely he will be used as a figure head, if he lived nothing much.

The reason is there are much bigger issues in Iraq than Saddam. Its like finding a 5 USD bill in the middle of a forest fire. The word has bigger issues in Iraq.

However, its still immensely disturbing. Why the hell don't we just stone him to death. I could have sworn hanging was "cruel and unusual."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I find it interesting, from an Australian point of view at least, how little a splash this seems to have made in media sources (outside the US) in terms of the extent of coverage.

I remember how big it was when he was originally caught - victory for democracy and that everywhere over and over, pictures of him all messy and so forth. The image given that this was a killing blow to the weak factions who refused to lay down arms.

How big it was when the trial first started - once again speech's how this was a sign it was success, free courts, democracy etc. Once again the image was given this was something that would mark a turning point (of course media coverage dropped way back when it became farcical - "Guard tells how Saddam gives love advice" "Saddam leaves courtroom - again"

The the sentence comes and sure, it rates the front page... but it seems to lack a lot of the energy the above two had, and wasn't backed up by lots and lots of coverage. No wall to wall speeches being aired, no page after page of analysis over how this is a victory for democracy.

One reason suggested is that people realise Saddam isn't really that relevant anymore, and that whether he lived or died it isn't going to change the situation in Iraq, since the causes behind the violence are bigger then the ousted dictator. Or, actually, if he died it will likely he will be used as a figure head, if he lived nothing much.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I find it interesting, from an Australian point of view at least, how little a splash this seems to have made in media sources (outside the US) in terms of the extent of coverage.

I remember how big it was when he was originally caught - victory for democracy and that everywhere over and over, pictures of him all messy and so forth. The image given that this was a killing blow to the weak factions who refused to lay down arms.

How big it was when the trial first started - once again speech's how this was a sign it was success, free courts, democracy etc. Once again the image was given this was something that would mark a turning point (of course media coverage dropped way back when it became farcical - "Guard tells how Saddam gives love advice" "Saddam leaves courtroom - again"

The the sentence comes and sure, it rates the front page... but it seems to lack a lot of the energy the above two had, and wasn't backed up by lots and lots of coverage. No wall to wall speeches being aired, no page after page of analysis over how this is a victory for democracy.

One reason suggested is that people realise Saddam isn't really that relevant anymore, and that whether he lived or died it isn't going to change the situation in Iraq, since the causes behind the violence are bigger then the ousted dictator. Or, actually, if he died it will likely he will be used as a figure head, if he lived nothing much.

😂 Hopefully Cheny will shoot him in the face.

Cheney is definitely a man to be feared. He shoots his friends in the face. Imagine what he does to people who make him an enemy? I'm thinking something Deliverance-ish, or Kathy Bates in Misery.

Originally posted by Alliance
The reason is there are much bigger issues in Iraq than Saddam. Its like finding a 5 USD bill in the middle of a forest fire. The word has bigger issues in Iraq.

However, its still immensely disturbing. Why the hell don't we just stone him to death. I could have sworn hanging was "cruel and unusual."

Iraq's statutes were drafted by the U.S.

I wasn't aware that America was responsible for making sure the government of Iraq was a mirror of what we are. I thought that was even something people were scared of.

The statutes establishing the special tribune for trial of Saddam Hussein actually emulate the ICC.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the conversation.

I don't see how describing hanging as "cruel and unusual" is invalid unless one is under U.S. jurisdiction.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The statutes establishing the special tribune for trial of Saddam Hussein actually emulate the ICC.

Last time I heard, America wants little or no part of the ICC.

Originally posted by Robtard
Last time I heard, America wants little or no part of the ICC.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't see how describing hanging as "cruel and unusual" is invalid unless one is under U.S. jurisdiction.

Point being, America is not hanging Saddam, Iraq is.

Originally posted by Robtard
Point being, America is not hanging Saddam, Iraq is.