Colosseum Lit Over Death Penalty - Italiano should be very proud

[Franz Ferdinand]

I say they should have done to Saddam as he did to others: through brutal torture! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...ouch, he would have had a rough time. :p

[OscarGuy]

There's really nothing original in this debate...it's been had for years. There are no "new" ways of thinking, so piping in with suh comments, Sonic, was unnecessary.

And Criddic, you are just as naive...court by the Iraqi people...hahaha...

Do you really think that any one of us, no matter whether we knew we were guilty or not, wouldn't put up a defense in court and protest that they were innocent? That argument is so ludicrous that it almost sounds talking point-ish. A man can contemplate his fate in prison knowing what he has done and repent even if he puts a face to the public saying he didn't do anything. To suggest otherwise would suggest that no one is capable of multi-lateral thought.

[Akash]

Ouch, Sonic Youth.

Your thoughts then? Hey if you're gonna accuse us of repetitive thinking, you better be prepared to offer something original :p

[Sonic Youth]

Is there anything more pointless than a death penalty debate?

Justice, closure, murder, martyr. Not moral, could escape, revenge killing, ends the cycle, religious right, the Vatican. Yup, all the key words and phrases have been covered. Could someone think outside the box even a little, please?

[criddic3]

Akash: No I'm not clairvoyant. I just don't think that these tyrants think they've done anything wrong. Remember Hussien during his trial? He kept saying the new government was illegitimate and he was still the real ruler. He wasn't gonna do what Oscarguy suggested and ruminate on the consequences of his actions. He felt sorry for himself, sure, but he didn't feel sorry for what he'd done.

I understand what martyrdom is Oscarguy. I can't be that dumb. But I also know that he'd be thought of that way moreso if he'd been killed outright when he was found hiding in his hole. What his execution does is end his era. He can't come back. It's not that I think he would have escaped, but that his existence kept the hope alive for his followers. Now they have to choose an actual path. Join in their country's progress or destroy it by joining Iran and others in fighting against that progress. It makes the change starker for them in my opinion. They can't say "let's fight for Saddam" anymore. He's gone. It's not the same as letting some serial child rapist rot in jail for 25 years (which doesn't happen all that often either), although I think the result would have been much the same if we'd done that for him. Neither criminal would have a change of heart. So what is the point?

It is better to end Hussein's inlfuence over the sectarian issues. I could be wrong, but I think this is healthier than leaving him to wait out the war. The other point is that I really think his execution by Iraqis after a trial which declared him guilty is different from "snuffing him out."

[OscarGuy]

And, Criddic, I've cited Idi Amin before as an example of how to do it. He was exiled from his country despite being a far more brutal and murderous dictator than Saddam Hussein. You also fail to notice how emboldened "radicals" become when one of their own is snuffed out. They call it martyrdom. It makes them believe that "they've gotten to the enemy" and thus understand that when you anger someone and they act irrationally, they tend to make more mistakes and thus are more rife for exploitation. You apparently don't understand what martyrdom is.

In this case, I think he should have been left in misery to think about his crimes. If he's freed later by a coup, it's because "we" didn't do the job "Bush" sent us in to do. You've been so confident that Bush can't do wrong and we will reform the entire country with our presence, so for you to suggest that he COULD be freed means that you don't have as much confidence in your president and you claim to have.

And let me just state again: execution IS a revenge killing. In the US, when someone murders someone's family and then a loved one goes and takes that supposed murderer's life, they don't get away with it. They are tried for murder as well. They MIGHT get a lesser sentence, but they are punished nonetheless. So other than an idiotic "government sanctioned" defense, how is the government executing someone and a regular citizen taking revenge and executing someone so different? There is no difference. To argue anything but would show an heretofore unrecognized ignorance.

[Damien]

The death penalty is murder. And murder is ALWAYS a moral wrong and a grave sin.

That's the end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. (And this is the only subject about which the Vatican makes me proud to be a Catholic),

[Akash]

This is another of those topics that goes in a circle with people. There are legitimate points for both sides, but neither will see eye-to-eye on them.

And yet you're here arguing it Nah, it's cool. I still think you're aggravating but I welcome at least the chance to discuss the topic.

No one is arguing that people like Hussein have committed atrocious acts Criddic. The question becomes murkier when you ask whether any human being - even a society laying down the law - has the "right" to kill another person. Liberals in America (who usually moderates masquerading as leftists) often take the logical approach of arguing against it because sometimes juries can be wrong and DNA evidence has overturned many cases....blah blah blah. It's a moral issue plain and simple and liberals in this country are too often too timorous to just take that stand. Liberals who are against the death penalty need to grow a pair and just call it what it is - MURDER.

And maybe when they're done with that, they can start calling themselves "liberal" and work on defending that word from all of the negative associations they have allowed conservatives to heap upon it.

You say that these people don't respond to such kindness, Criddic - which I assume means you're clairvoyant because um, how the f*ck would you know what someone will or will not respond to when death becomes a real possibility? I think you've been watching too many reruns of Joan of Arcadia - anyway, such a response is hardly the point.

Mercy is not about the response of the beneficiary but rather the superior moral fortitude of the benefactor. Funny how religious conservatives seem to ignore this little teaching of their very own Jesus Christ who didn't require his enemies to respond kindly in order for him to forgive them.

[criddic3]

I disapprove of the death penality not only because it's inhumane (and responding to inhumanity with further inhumanity degrades all of us), but also because it's essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card--to me, there's really no justice in it at all.

It's not justice for the criminal, but it is a sort of justice for society. It rids the world of the menace.

No, it makes the world complicit in another crime.

This is another of those topics that goes in a circle with people. There are legitimate points for both sides, but neither will see eye-to-eye on them.

I don't think the death penalty is something to be used frivolously, but I do think it has its practical ends. There is evil in this world that cannot be extinguished by mere imprisonment. Because of this I support the death penalty in a limited fashion.

[Penelope]

I disapprove of the death penality not only because it's inhumane (and responding to inhumanity with further inhumanity degrades all of us), but also because it's essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card--to me, there's really no justice in it at all.

It's not justice for the criminal, but it is a sort of justice for society. It rids the world of the menace.

No, it makes the world complicit in another crime.

[criddic3]

I disapprove of the death penality not only because it's inhumane (and responding to inhumanity with further inhumanity degrades all of us), but also because it's essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card--to me, there's really no justice in it at all.

It's not justice for the criminal, but it is a sort of justice for society. It rids the world of the menace.

[Penelope]

I disapprove of the death penality not only because it's inhumane (and responding to inhumanity with further inhumanity degrades all of us), but also because it's essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card--to me, there's really no justice in it at all.

[criddic3]

sorry, but I disagree entirely. The death penalty is designed for people like Saddam Hussein. A mass murderer and torturer, who would have kept hopes alive for his comeback to power for the Sunnis. Keeping him alive would have given him more time to escape or for us to leave and the new government overthrown. This would have likely led to his retaliation by a massacre of the Shias and the Kurds, which he had done before. I do not feel any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Sure, there may have been mistakes in the way the Iraqis sped up the execution, but I've heard only that they wanted to do it before their national religious holidays officially started only a short time from when the hanging was done. This stupid wrangling over his execution is utterly unwarranted. Sure, be against the death penalty for a reason like the small possibility of an innocent being sent to death. But Saddam was not innocent, and alive he could only pose a threat to his people.

I believe in the death penalty in the strongest of cases for the most heinous crimes. We're not talking about killing somebody for stealing a car, folks. These are murderers, usually multiple, and serial rapists. People who would not stop doing what they do. People whose lawyers will find ways to reduce their time in jail or get them off on technicalities, so they can resume their acts of destruction.

You may say, "have a heart," "have mercy," but these people do not respond to these kindnesses. I know, "turn the other cheek," and normally I would agree. I am not a violent man, and I do not condone violence, but the death penalty is there to stop future deaths from occuring should a way be found to release these multiple offenders. If you could guarantee life in prison with no parole, no contact with the outside world other than someone bringing food, than maybe i'd change my mind. But we all know that realistically this does not happen. Too many overly zealous protesters would say that it is inhumane, and these people would once again be on the streets, escaping the "hospital" to do it all over again. And the cycle would continue. Crime, court, jail, protest, release, crime... All the time, effort, money and justice dispensed would eventually ruin society, bankrupt us financially and morally. This is why there is a death penalty, not simply for revenge. It is for closure.

[Franz Ferdinand]

There are currently:

88 nations who abolished it for all offenses (including Canada and Europe).
11 who abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (most of South America).
30 who retained it, but has not used it in 10 years or more (Russia and Northwest Africa).
68 who retained it (including the US, with varying laws between states).

[OscarGuy]

All the Death Penalty is is Revenge killing. There aren't two sides to the issue. It is as much murder as anything. It's just sanctioned murder.

I also think the prison system is too polite to its prisoners. I think billionaires should get the same treatment as regular criminals and I think they should have no access to the outside world. They should have no access to the internet, television or books. They should be forced to sit in their cells and contemplate for the length of their stay the heinousness of their stay.

And I don't care if they want to kill themselves. Let them rot away in prison away from society.