uhh... what now?Chris` said: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?Chris` said:Not only that but it costs millions sometimes billions more to sentence someone to death then to keep them in prison for life.
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"Mad_AxMan said:uhh... what now?
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.madgik said: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.
Just looking at a religious sight of view. Redemption is possible in prison. Whilst in death it is not.Chakra-X said: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.)Chakra-X said: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.
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.Grega said:Just looking at a religious sight of view. Redemption is possible in prison. Whilst in death it is not.
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.Shiyojin Rommyu said: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.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7]Mad_AxMan said:uhh... what now?
Imagine what would have happened had they not found that evidence before they were killed.www.fguide.org said: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!
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.uncover bunker said: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!!)
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.Chris` said: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.
And that sir, is a proper source.Abel Martinez said: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.
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.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
This is sort of why I am conflicted about the whole thing.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.
Kasey said: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.
why dont u just put him to the jigsaw game.....if he win he survive......Zeonix said: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.
Because Zeonix's idea is a little more, um, I don't know....realistic maybe?uncover bunker said:why dont u just put him to the jigsaw game.....if he win he survive......