Sadam to be hanged o/

[Almighty_Gir]

Not only that but it costs millions sometimes billions more to sentence someone to death then to keep them in prison for life.

uhh... what now?

 

[Jakut]

uhh... what now?

How about starting a fund raising campaign XD I can see it now. Everyone running around with posters and t-shirts saying "Give money, to hang Saddam"

 

[Grega]

Meh the conclusion of this thread is that there is no conclusion >.<

People say dogs bark like the wind blows. (dunno maby its just round out parts)

When people get somethig into their head thats the one and only trouth and everything else is a lie.

Heck im like that to. But i can say one thing about me. I dont believe everything the media throws at me

 

[Almighty_Gir]

the problem is, most people here are of a particular belief, one way or the other. people die for their beliefs, beliefs are a hard thing to change. if everyone just had an idea, or an opinion, it would be different, since they are much more open to suggestion.

like i said, i don't believe in the death penalty. but i would make the exception in this case.

 

[madgik]

Just to add my 2 cents to this debate.

Firstly I am in agreement with Davidskiwan in that the Death Penalty is not the right course of action. I am firm in my belief that taking a persons life, as a course of punishment, is not something a modern society can justify as a course of action. 'Two wrongs don't make a right' was one of the basic lessons I learned from when I was young, after getting into school yard fights, and I can't see how this does not apply to this situation, or any situation for that matter where the Death Penalty is enforced.

Secondly, back to the actual trial and conviction of Sadam Hussain. I have no doubt that the man is a monster, there are a number of atrocities that he has committed. But like any criminal, he is still entitled to a proper trial. Holding this trial in Iraq, instead of a third party country, I thought was a mistake. Take for example Slobodan Milosevic trial, which was held at The Hague. His trial was not held in his own country, where he had committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Holding the trial in Iraq, meant that the man was already found guilty even before the trial has begun.

People say, Sadam should have the death penalty as a course of closure for the families of the people he had killed. If you want to look at that way, please look at it properly. Put yourself in their shoes. I know for a fact that if harm was to come to anybody in my family (God forbid) I would automatically be prejudiced against the culprit. You wouldn't see the courts putting me on the jury to decide that persons fate. I am not saying here that the jury was made of such people who were directly related to the people that died, but I am using Iraqi citizens as a whole society who felt the dictators wrath.

Back to the actual trial, holding the trial in Iraq meant, the jury _had_ to find the man guilty. Think of a juror in a position, where if he had found the man innocent, going back to his family. The backlash by other citizens would be grave. I am not saying that Sadam was innocent, but I don't like the idea of a Court system where the verdict is set, even before the trial begins. I would like to add here that Sadam would probably have been found guilty anyway, even if the trial was held at say, The Hague.

Thirdly, for people that say, giving Sadam life in prison could mean he could escape. To be frank, this isn't a movie. The level of security that could be established if needed would ensure that man could never be broken out (but then again, there is always a way round). If people were going to break him out they would either have done it already, or have the chance to do it before his execution. Again this would be dependant on the location of his incarceration. If held in Iraq, where there really isn't that much security, then yes, people that sympathise with him could break him out. But hold him in a 'Western' prison, and the the difficulty in planning and executing a plan to free the man would be near impossible. Look again at the Slobodan Milosevic case. That trial went on for over 2 years and he did not escape, no one tried to 'break him out'. He died in prison in the end.

Lastly, to say the man is dangerous I think is wrong. I believe that no 'one' man is dangerous. What's dangerous is the idea associated with that individual. And from what I have seen/read/heard, you cannot stop an idea by killing that man. I think that killing Sadam man, and making him a martyr for some, is just going to incite more violence. Maybe not in your area/country, but somewhere in the world (at present Iraq is the best candidate for that place to be). Think then of the innocent people being killed there, that's more unnecessary death.

Guess that concludes what I have to say on the subject. Basically, the Death Penalty is wrong in any situation. Sorry for the long-winded post, and please correct me if some of the fact I have said are wrong. Also I would like to add, these are my views on the subject, and as ever, everybody is entitled to his/her own view.

To the Moderators: I tried to stay away from political discussion but if you feel I may have over stepped please edit away the material that is infringing on the forums AUP.

 

[Killface]

Just to add my 2 cents to this debate.

Firstly I am in agreement with Davidskiwan in that the Death Penalty is not the right course of action. I am firm in my belief that taking a persons life, as a course of punishment, is not something a modern society can justify as a course of action. 'Two wrongs don't make a right' was one of the basic lessons I learned from when I was young, after getting into school yard fights, and I can't see how this does not apply to this situation, or any situation for that matter where the Death Penalty is enforced.

Secondly, back to the actual trial and conviction of Sadam Hussain. I have no doubt that the man is a monster, there are a number of atrocities that he has committed. But like any criminal, he is still entitled to a proper trial. Holding this trial in Iraq, instead of a third party country, I thought was a mistake. Take for example Slobodan Milosevic trial, which was held at The Hague. His trial was not held in his own country, where he had committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Holding the trial in Iraq, meant that the man was already found guilty even before the trial has begun.

People say, Sadam should have the death penalty as a course of closure for the families of the people he had killed. If you want to look at that way, please look at it properly. Put yourself in their shoes. I know for a fact that if harm was to come to anybody in my family (God forbid) I would automatically be prejudiced against the culprit. You wouldn't see the courts putting me on the jury to decide that persons fate. I am not saying here that the jury was made of such people who were directly related to the people that died, but I am using Iraqi citizens as a whole society who felt the dictators wrath.

Back to the actual trial, holding the trial in Iraq meant, the jury _had_ to find the man guilty. Think of a juror in a position, where if he had found the man innocent, going back to his family. The backlash by other citizens would be grave. I am not saying that Sadam was innocent, but I don't like the idea of a Court system where the verdict is set, even before the trial begins. I would like to add here that Sadam would probably have been found guilty anyway, even if the trial was held at say, The Hague.

Thirdly, for people that say, giving Sadam life in prison could mean he could escape. To be frank, this isn't a movie. The level of security that could be established if needed would ensure that man could never be broken out (but then again, there is always a way round). If people were going to break him out they would either have done it already, or have the chance to do it before his execution. Again this would be dependant on the location of his incarceration. If held in Iraq, where there really isn't that much security, then yes, people that sympathise with him could break him out. But hold him in a 'Western' prison, and the the difficulty in planning and executing a plan to free the man would be near impossible. Look again at the Slobodan Milosevic case. That trial went on for over 2 years and he did not escape, no one tried to 'break him out'. He died in prison in the end.

Lastly, to say the man is dangerous I think is wrong. I believe that no 'one' man is dangerous. What's dangerous is the idea associated with that individual. And from what I have seen/read/heard, you cannot stop an idea by killing that man. I think that killing Sadam man, and making him a martyr for some, is just going to incite more violence. Maybe not in your area/country, but somewhere in the world (at present Iraq is the best candidate for that place to be). Think then of the innocent people being killed there, that's more unnecessary death.

Guess that concludes what I have to say on the subject. Basically, the Death Penalty is wrong in any situation. Sorry for the long-winded post, and please correct me if some of the fact I have said are wrong. Also I would like to add, these are my views on the subject, and as ever, everybody is entitled to his/her own view.

To the Moderators: I tried to stay away from political discussion but if you feel I may have over stepped please edit away the material that is infringing on the forums AUP.

WOW, i've been flip-flopping about my opinion on this issue for a while, but you just swayed my whole opinion on this matter. I agree with you 100% now. Great way to say it Madgik.

 

[Grega]

I have to agree there.

I agree with madgik 100% about everything he said.

 

[Chakra-X]

Haha, nice, Madgik has his **** down. Very insightful.

Out of pure curiosity. Not to prove that "I am right" or to point out loop holes, but to the people that think the death penalty should never be used and that prison for life is a suitable punishment...Isn't that worst than death? To be killed and just end it right there, or to suffer in isolation in a specialized prison? Wouldn't the latter seem more intense? So how can killing a man be worst than taking away all aspirations, pleasures, and essences of life through solitary confinement? I mean yeah the idea of an official group of people deciding to kill is a bit farfetched to me, and he deserves the worst, but still?

And I agree with Madgik that I highly doubt he would escape. For someone of Saddam's calibur, the only time I can see that happening is on 24 or Prison Break.

 

[Grega]

Haha, nice, Madgik has his **** down. Very insightful.

Out of pure curiosity. Not to prove that "I am right" or to point out loop holes, but to the people that think the death penalty should never be used and that prison for life is a suitable punishment...Isn't that worst than death? To be killed and just end it right there, or to suffer in isolation in a specialized prison? Wouldn't the latter seem more intense? So how can killing a man be worst than taking away all aspirations, pleasures, and essences of life through solitary confinement? I mean yeah the idea of an official group of people deciding to kill is a bit farfetched to me, and he deserves the worst, but still?

And I agree with Madgik that I highly doubt he would escape. For someone of Saddam's calibur, the only time I can see that happening is on 24 or Prison Break.

Just looking at a religious sight of view. Redemption is possible in prison. Whilst in death it is not.

 

[madgik]

Haha, nice, Madgik has his **** down. Very insightful.

Out of pure curiosity. Not to prove that "I am right" or to point out loop holes, but to the people that think the death penalty should never be used and that prison for life is a suitable punishment...Isn't that worst than death? To be killed and just end it right there, or to suffer in isolation in a specialized prison? Wouldn't the latter seem more intense? So how can killing a man be worst than taking away all aspirations, pleasures, and essences of life through solitary confinement? I mean yeah the idea of an official group of people deciding to kill is a bit farfetched to me, and he deserves the worst, but still?

And I agree with Madgik that I highly doubt he would escape. For someone of Saddam's calibur, the only time I can see that happening is on 24 or Prison Break.

Chakra-X, you raise a good point in the fact that putting Saddam in isolation for life can be a form of torture, a very inhumane punishment in itself. And it could lead to what you said about 'taking away all aspirations, pleasures, and essences of life through solitary confinement', as most humans do need interaction with people so stay reasonably sane. My response would be, a life imprisonment in a highly secure cell does not imply total isolation. High secure facilities that would house inmates of Saddam's class (of a lack of a better word), would not need too much security once inside, more of just a control on the people that have access to him. (I was just thinking out load there.)

Just looking at a religious sight of view. Redemption is possible in prison. Whilst in death it is not.

I would have to agree with Grega on that 'Redemption is possible in prison. Whilst in death it is not'. Not to say the prison system is perfect, far from it, but it gives a man time. Time to think on his life, on his situation, on what has lead up to his present 'predicament'. What a person chooses to do with this time is up to them.

For me, time has a way of putting things into a better perspective, what some people might call hindsight. Looking back on any situation in my life, I can judge, for myself, on my conduct. Every time I think about things I have done wrong, and I know I should have done different I have that uneasy feeling I call guilt. And me feeling guilty does prompt me to change, hopefully for the better. However, I do understand that what I have done and what Saddam has done can't be compared directly, but I like to think that everyone can feel guilt on some level, and therefore everyone can try to change for the better.

Who knows what Saddam might do if given this time, change for the better or for the worse, is any ones guess. But if he does believe in a Heaven or a Hell, doesn't he deserve the chance to think about what he has done, and try to change. There does not need to be a religious revelation, it could be a humane revelation.

Footnote: I just realised I spelt Saddam Hussein wrong all the way through my last post, sorry about that.

 

[Kasey]

I personally think that, if he's left alive, he may find people to join his cause, maybe break him free.

Or, at the very least, he'll try to feed his ideas into other people.

As I said before, I fear that he's just too dangerous to be left alive.

QFT Exactly what I was thinking. Which is why he should be hanged. Here in the U.S. we're still in a war with Iraq and we're fighting sadams followers, who for some reason, are still supporting him even though he's been captured. This way after he is dead maybe some of his supporters will just fall out of order.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

uhh... what now?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7]

Uhh... what now?

My question is, why kill people who kill to show killing is wrong? Um...hypocritical much?

Sorry but I agree with Grega, Dave, and Madgik, to name a few. The death penalty is not the answer. Life in prison is.

And if you think it doesn't cost a lot to sentence someone to death, here's what happened to a few police officers because of near bankruptcy

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm

Please understand that although killing is bad, there are some pro's as well as cons:

Considering the small percentage of executions that result, these expenses are a burden on the justice system. Yet, doing away with them without also getting rid of capital punishment would be unwise. Since 1976, over 100 people have been released from death row based on newly discovered evidence of their innocence - almost 13% of the number executed!

Imagine what would have happened had they not found that evidence before they were killed.

 

[[S]]

r u suggesting by spare that old mastach guy alive ? he sure is a bad ass but i afraid they wont do that(especially in 21st centary..the murderer must die by paying their crime) but in this rate i vote u for once... after we deal with iranian...

by the way the iraqi civilean wasnt been so threat for us(we could squash them when ever we want!!)

America has already spent more then enough tax dollars on this **** perfectly good tax dollars that could have gone to the American education system which it seems they are in dire need of.

I'm with Optimus solitary+24 hour surveillance and no outside contact for him to live out the rest of his days. What makes you better then him if you kill him?

 

[Tassadar]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7]

Uhh... what now?

My question is, why kill people who kill to show killing is wrong? Um...hypocritical much?

Sorry but I agree with Grega, Dave, and Madgik, to name a few. The death penalty is not the answer. Life in prison is.

And if you think it doesn't cost a lot to sentence someone to death, here's what happened to a few police officers because of near bankruptcy

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm

Please understand that although killing is bad, there are some pro's as well as cons:

Imagine what would have happened had they not found that evidence before they were killed.

You're getting your information from a .org site, including what looks to be a highly propagandized anti-capital punishment site. It is therefore discredited to the highest degree.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm
At the end of 1992 State and Federal prisons reached a record high of 883,593 prisoners. This record means that approximately 1,143 prison bed spaces are needed per week due to overcrowding. To put this in an economic prospective, on the average each prisoner cost $22,000 per year, and the cost of new construction averages almost $54,000 per bed (AAE "Prison"). The 883,593 prisoners are costing the American taxpayers approximately $19.4 billion plus another $61.7 million for the construction of the 1,143 spaces needed. Why should we, the tax payers/the victims, support these criminals? It's true that not all the prisoners are hard core, but in 1992, 2,575 prisoners -- all murderers -- were sentenced to death (BJS 5-93). 31 (one female) of the 2,575 (36 female) murderers had been executed during 1992. This is the largest number of people executed for any year since 1976 (BJS 12-92). By executing these murders, the American tax money could be used for something more useful. Thus the economy benefits from the death penalty. Plus, it helps lower the prison population by the number executed.

And that sir, is a proper source.

And I'm out.

 

[Synth]

The fact is, it's not our judicial system that has decided to hang him... it's the new Iraqi governments.

This is no different from wanting to hang Hitler or Stalin for their war crimes.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

You're getting your information from a .org site, including what looks to be a highly propagandized anti-capital punishment site. It is therefore discredited to the highest degreep

Yeah. I guess I didn't deserve that A on that Capital Punishment paper I did 2 weeks ago then. Because I'm taking Criminal Justice for my health.

And that link you posted was also in my works cited page. GG.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/group1.htm

>.>

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

We really need to get a better puppet leader. The thing about Saddam was, as horrible a person as he is, everyone respected him. They hated him, they feared him, but they also respected him. That part of the world respects power, and thats about it. Saddam ruled with an iron fist, and his country was 200 times more stable than it is now because of it.

The guy there has a 55% approval rating and every so often has a disagreement with the U.S.A as an attempt to show the Iraqis that he isn't a puppet. I think the fact that hes backed by us speaks louder than anything he'll ever do there. They keep saying everything will be perfect once we're gone, but civil war is right around the corner unless theres someone there to scare everyone. I'm not for the war, but we're there and we can't just leave everything behind and pretend nothing happened. We have a responsibility there.

This is sort of why I am conflicted about the whole thing.

Perhaps he did kill thousands of people and ruled with a cold, iron hand...but isn't that what they need, in the Middle East? Isn't that the only thing they even understand in the middle of that war-torn ****hole, as far as leadership goes?

Democracy cannot survive in a place where when you dislike a candidate you try to blow them up with your car.

That place doesn't want or deserve democracy, if you ask me. For all those claiming of how dangerous he is, I still don't follow what threat he posed to anyone but the people he lorded over--and even they are the same american-loathing middle easterners who hate us to this day.

If anything he was doing us a favor. That part of the world, though relatively industrialized at this point, is only a few steps above total savagery as far as it's mentality goes. They are still WAY too tied to their religious roots that was scary back when all we had was spears and sticks, nevermind guns and bombs.

Saddam Hussein was not going to attack America. If there is one thing the war in Iraq has proven, it was that he was far too busy containing the ****storm that is the Iraqi populace to have even attempted such a thing.

If anything we have given the supporters of Saddam's regime a REASON to target America. A good reason, at that. And you know what? The Arabic peoples don't forgive and forget--just look at Israel. They've been fighting over that unfarmable piece of crap desert since near the dawn of human history, practically.

So what do you think they think of us after we invade and occupy their country, depose their leader, and force our views on him? Honestly the whole thing makes me sick. What we did to them was no different than what we feared they might one day attempt to do to us.

 

[sub]

Nicely done, madgik. I could not agree with you more, you did a great job putting everything into perspective.

QFT Exactly what I was thinking. Which is why he should be hanged. Here in the U.S. we're still in a war with Iraq and we're fighting sadams followers, who for some reason, are still supporting him even though he's been captured. This way after he is dead maybe some of his supporters will just fall out of order.

Putting him to death may not be beneficial to the war in Iraq. If we sentence Saddam to death, it's highly unlikely that all of his followers will throw up the fight; What's much more likely is that putting Saddam to death will make a martyr out of him, inciting more violence.

 

[uncover bunker]

Which is why I'm against it. I say drop Saddam in the middle of some desolate area, a jungle maybe. If he manages to survive, hes allowed to live (in the jungle). If not, nature killed him. Not us.

why dont u just put him to the jigsaw game.....if he win he survive......

 

[Fire Phoenix]

why dont u just put him to the jigsaw game.....if he win he survive......

Because Zeonix's idea is a little more, um, I don't know....realistic maybe?