November 05, 2006

• Wow. I totally did not expect that.
• It's comforting to know that the current US puppet government in Iraq is less barbaric than the former US puppet government.
• Murder by hanging is still murder. Not that I have a lot of pity for them. Iraq's shitte v sunni strife could intensify on this verdict.
• Not that I have a lot of pity for them. Yeah, this is the most severe challenge to my anti-death penalty belief ever. But I still don't think it's the way to go. At least not unless we're also willing to put Henry Kissinger on trial.
• The Dutch Prime Minister said it was a just scentence. Adding that the Dutch gouvernment is of course against the death penalty. Suckers. (O, and thanks for putting that Klaus Nomi song in my brains. Can't get it out anymore...)
• I'm reminded of this
• Thanks for the memories, Saddam.
• Thanks for the memories, Rummy.
• >>Cosmetic "too-little-too-late" closure maneuver or first step by democratically elected judiciary towards a peaceful Iraq? Are these the only two options? I'm looking for something more in a 'parody of justice', or maybe a 'weak October surprise'.
• Yeah, this is the most severe challenge to my anti-death penalty belief ever. I know what you mean, but, obsessively anti-death penalty as I am, only Nurenberg challenges my belief, and I can't help but believe that it had to end that way. I no longer believe in universals. Hussein should rot in prison (as should the people in the U.S. government who put him in power), but he doesn't deserve to die.
• I think he probably does "deserve" to die, but I don't think that gives "us" the right to kill him, which is the basis of my prob with the death penalty, which is barbaric anyway...
• Let us see how many of the right wingers note that the offenses that he has been found guilty which led to the death penalty sentence occurred in 1982. 1982 would be not only before the Gulf War in 1991, but it is also during and before open US support for Saddam.
• Lovely convenient timing there, eh wot?
• TUM, are you smoking rope?
• Medusa, I agree with all of your statement, except the first bit. I honestly (honestly) don't understand the concept of 'deserve' to die. I'm really not picking a fight, and as I say, I'm a bit obsessive about the death penalty and so perhaps (perhaps!) I'm a bit weird about it, but I really really really don't get deserving to die as a concept.
• I'm also drunk and depressed and should probably be ignored
• I used to smoke sausages, but it was hard to inhale.
• At least not unless we're also willing to put Henry Kissinger on trial. Ahhh, those two, as cellmates... that would be nice. Goddamn bastards.
• I wonder who's Kissinger now?
• bobboggis, I highly recommend you go read Tom Robbins' Jitterbug Perfume right away. It's a wonderful cure for existential despair :)
• I honestly (honestly) don't understand the concept of 'deserve' to die. Every living thing deserves to die. Eternal life would be the most torturously lonely thing. Could you imagine being the last of existence? Am I smoking rope? Would you cry if you were Hitler's mother? FTG!
• As an interested bystander, I am interested in hearing why most people here are anti-death penalty.
• Systemic error and the phenomena of lifers being freed by the appearance of acquitting evidences.
• 1. I am not in favor of killing unless it is done to stop someone from killing. Once someone is locked up, keeping them behind bars stops that person from killing. 2. I am opposed to the death penalty as it is applied in the US because it is handed out unevenly based on economic background and -- to a lesser degree -- race. 3. I also oppose it for the reason InsolentChimp mentions. The idea of executing innocent people is not something I am comfortable with at all. 1 is very personal. I can't really argue it and I don't believe I can persuade anyone who thinks the opposite. 3 is a reason that I think people should think about a bit more because it is rather obvious that innocent people have been executed. But 2 is the reason that I think should compel any person to oppose the death penalty as it is applied in the US.
• f8x: I believe there is something of God in everyone (a belief which comes partly from internalizing Quaker beliefs after attending worship with those folks, partly from reading similar stuff in Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You, which was very influential in shaping my current spiritual views). I think that to do violence to a person is to do violence against that of God which is within them. So yeah, you don't get to kill people. Even murdering assholes. I do think that in order to function in a society we need laws, and that there should be laws against murder. I also think it's sufficient to lock up people who deliberately murder others without parole (and I think it should be done humanely). As a culture we seem all too willing to stare into the abyss. Murder (any murder, and I'm including murder by the state here as well) perpetuate that.
• It would seem to me far easier to justify the death penalty in the case of individual sociopaths than politcal tyrants. The former could well kill again if released; Saddam and his ilk, whilst no doubt individually culpable, operated within a political apparatus that he at least is never going to have around him again.
• He should just be sent to Monster Island.
• thanks, Medusa
• > I am interested in hearing why most people here are anti-death penalty. I think the death penalty is logically inconsistent with democratic social contracts. If we say murder by individual will is wrong, how can we say that murder by collective will is okay? It doesn't make sense to me.
• I think he's still capable of doing a great deal of harm. Merely by still being alive he provides a significant destabilising influence. His own people cannot move on and make an accomodation with the new regime while he's still around, and I imagine some people must still be influenced by fear of what might happen if he were to escape and somehow reinstate himself. The sooner he's dead the better.
• To attempt to answer your point, roryk: religious principles aside, I don't think we do say that killing people is always and inherently wrong - it actually depends on the person killed and the circumstances. However, in a state where there is no law against killing, the desire for revenge leads to vendettas and general chaos. The state therefore reserves to itself the right to deal out penalties, especially death. You could argue that the state therefore has a duty to provide satisfactory vengeance, and that if it neglects that duty it risks the return of vendettas and other killings. Or you might be more inclined to say the state has a duty to lead people gradually away from vengeance altogether. But I think something along the above lines would be the justification.
• While I'm on a roll, let me also have a small go at Insolent Chimp's argument. If the system is flawed and produces many wrong verdicts, that's an argument for reforming the system, not, in principle, against the punishment. Why is jailing people on the basis of unreliable judgements OK? You may say that the death penalty is a special case because it's irrevocable: but you can't give people back the years they spent in jail, either.
• I am against the death penalty for the same reason that I am against abortion & war: killing is wrong. There is no justification for it, except to save another or other lives. That said, As Plegmund says, even alive, Hussein is a potential threat. It is possible, however unlikely, that some crazed group may hijack a cruise ship or some-such & demand his release, for instance. On the other hand, by executing him, he becomes a martyr; he still has supporters in Iraq's Sunni community. When he was in power, he gave them social dominance. Without question the Tikriti Sunnis will go on a rampage when they string the guy up. It is an unclear situation. Nevertheless, execution solves nothing. Doesn't bring back the dead.
• I'm not at all convinced that Saddam poses a threat alive, though I could be wildly wrong about this as my knowledge is scant. My sense of his rise to power is was as a strong man on the coat-tails of al-Bakr, and I doubt he commands the personal loyalty to engineer some Ba'ath revival. The historical pricess that put him in power, and the interests of outside powers that helped keep him there, have moved on, and other figure strike me as more likely succesors. He just doesn't seem special enough to warrant killing for safety's sake. Were the networks of power and privilege under the ba'ath regime really so tied to him as a person, rather than to the office of any old tyrant (and there's plenty better placed now to capture the post if it becomes available again)?
• Re: Smoking Rope - Now you have the basic workings of a Tony Snow script. Instead of answering an undeniable, obvious question, act like it’s the most ridiculous thing that you’ve ever heard. Who would believe that the president’s middle name starts with W? Ridiculous. Somebody must be huffing glue. In other news, Yes! Death! Woooo! Built Ford Tough! Smashmouth Football! Grrrr! Hell yeah! Damn straight! Bitches! DEATH TO NOT-ME! HA hAA!!
• If the system is flawed and produces many wrong verdicts, that's an argument for reforming the system, not, in principle, against the punishment. Why is jailing people on the basis of unreliable judgements OK? You may say that the death penalty is a special case because it's irrevocable: but you can't give people back the years they spent in jail, either. You can't conflate losing a few years of your life to losing your life entirely. The fact is that we can never reform the system. Their is always a margin for error, and as long as that margin exists, you can't kill someone. Hussein was a patsy anyway. This country is guilty of all his crimes. Just because this population is unaware of our involvement in the Middle East doesn't make it less guilty. Ignorant masses need to learn to be aware of what their country does in their name. I would see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Jr/Sr, Kissinger, Rice, Ashcroft, Falwell, Powell, most of congress, etc. hanging from the gallows before Hussein. He wouldn't have committed any of those crimes without us putting him in office and supplying him with the means. Not to mention the fact that, that trial was a fucking farce anyway. Not that Hussein isn't an asshole, but he would have been an impotent asshole without us. Hell he would probably given up his political ambitions eventually if we hadn't bank rolled him. He would have become a rug importer in Seattle, selling rich people knock-off Persian rugs.
• You may say that the death penalty is a special case because it's irrevocable: but you can't give people back the years they spent in jail, either. Pleg, did you think before you posted that sentence? Furthermore, the system will always have the problems of human error or abuse. No matter the impenetrability of a system, someone will probably find a way to breach it. Let alone the cyclopean (and likely futile) task of trying to reform the current forensic process. Another oversight: punishment is part of the system. If you look at the criminal code, you will see the maximum punishments permittable for crimes. Judges and juries are not allowed to exceed these. If you reform the system you reform the punishments. For me, in Canada, death sentences are not a part of our system. Finally. verdicts are handed out if "reasonable and probable" grounds are found for guilt. The court system is quite commendable that it does not claim the ability for human omniscience. The obvious flaws in human subjectivity further support the implausibility of an omniscient system. Absolute truth belongs in religion, not a courtroom.
• Saddam's trial and sentencing seems to me to be tainted by the political expediencies of the United States. The venue of the trial is wrong. The United States and its Coalition (never forget Poland) justified its invasion of Iraq with United Nations mandates, so why is the trial held in anything other than an international court? I believe that Hussein is guilty of murder, but I don't think that justice has been done.
• Well in an international court, lots of damning evidence against the US would come to light, and Bush doesn't want that. Especially since a great deal of it involves his father.

• The state therefore reserves to itself the right to deal out penalties, especially death.

  But the state is an expression of the people's will. I guess I don't get the logic in the jump from: 1. A person shall not kill another person. This is universally agreed as a very bad thing. to 2. If it happens that a person kills a person, it's okay for all of us collectively to kill the killer, assuming certain criteria (premeditation, etc.) are met. We treat killing as a particularly special type of crime or misadventure, and I don't understand why we volunteer this power to the state.
• It's certainly not my normal practice to think before posting, IC, but on mature reflection I'm almost inclined to agree with myself. The fact that we might possibly have made a mistake is just a general purpose argument for inaction, isn't it?
• 1. A person shall not kill another person. This is universally agreed as a very bad thing. to Except in self-defense. State sanctioned murder is pre-emptive self-defense of the state like invading Poland, I mean, Iraq. Ok, that's enough Godwins for me for a while.
• the state is an expression of the people's will I absolutely deny it, with triple underlining. My suggestion is that the state takes over to prevent disorder and disproportionate violence, not to stop killing altogether. I don't agree it's universally accepted that all killing is wrong: most people have always believed that it's good to kill certain people in certain circumstances. I'm shutting up now, I promise.
• The fact that we might possibly have made a mistake is just a general purpose argument for inaction, isn't it? I would rather be inactive and keep a guilty man in prison for the rest of his life, then be proactive and kill an innocent man.
• The fact that we might possibly have made a mistake is just a general purpose argument for inaction, isn't it? Not inaction; diligence - and the possibility to contain and minimize the damage caused by our possible errors. When human life and the unwaveringly gray zone of morality are the issue it's tediously hard and dangerous to create precedents for every single outcome. Life imprisonment is hardly a slap on the wrist. Even though it's costly, I'd rather subsidize the lives of one thousand guilty men than pay a pittance to kill one. I'm not sure how you mean the use of that argument tho'. Inaction through ignorance? If public sanctioned execution is the action, then yes, I'll argue for inaction by way of our own ignorance to the objective events we are limited to see through our rose-colored glasses.
• ... And you can add me to the list of people who do not agree with the death penalty.
• I always thought he'd get sentenced to death. People need a sacrifice and a martyr. (I may have stolen that line from the remake of 'The Manchurian Candidate')I just don't understand why the 'trial' took so long. I also thought if he'd been sentenced to life in prison he'd be found hanged in his cell, a 'suicide.' Or beaten to death by person or persons unknown. I just watched the re-release of 'The Battle of Algiers.' It made me sick. We never learn, and maybe we never will. It's one of the things I hate about humans.
• I don't believe we have the right to kill someone. If you want to teach your kid not to hit people, you don't do it by belting them. If we want to claim we have justice, we shouldn't do the same things we deplore. Let alone the current system, which kills poor and non-white people disproportionately. To be honest, I don't think jail is a good punishment at all. The only justification for jail is as a safety measure, to keep truely violent and dangerous people off the street. I think every other crime should be dealt with by different punishments (restitution, community service, etc).
• Alright, last go - really. glama - how dare you keep someone in jail for life on the basis of an uncertain verdict, huh? IC - so after due diligence, death is OK? Or are you really against the death penalty for other reasons altogether? PatB - you mean the Iraqi court condemned him in order to make him a sacrifice and a martyr? What? jb - you think all participants in every war are equally murderers? Don't you teach your child that just authorities exercise some powers that citizens don't? You know, everybody dies: editing some vile examples out of the human race a bit early isn't as big a deal as you think. I suspect most of you are Christians in your hearts, unable to get beyond the Ten Commandments - you just don't know it. I really am shutting up now.
• Saddam’s Verdict Announced Four Days Early, Court Won’t Finish Writing Decision Until Thursday These guys must be smoking rope too.
• Plegmund: no. I DO believe the death sentence was a foregone conclusion.
• how dare you keep someone in jail for life on the basis of an uncertain verdict, huh? Life with the possibility he may be innocent and may be released someday. I think there are around 40 people that have been released recently from death row because of DNA evidence. This is just DNA evidence, how many other people may be innocent, that can't be vindicated by DNA evidence? That's enough people for me to consider the Death Penalty too risky.
• Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death, Legal Experts Question Court Proceedings The lawyer being interviewed also talks about Mohammad Munaf, an American citizen who has been sentenced to death in Iraq without a fair trial at the insistence of the American military, and Bilal Hussei, an AP reporter who has been held by the American military for 7 months without charges. Meet the new boss...
• IC - so after due diligence, death is OK? Or are you really against the death penalty for other reasons altogether? Well, Plegs, that's not what I'm saying; diligence is not objectivity. I think what you mean to ask me is: if omniscience was a factor in dealing a verdict would the death penalty be appropriate for certain crimes? Well, now that depends on too many things, as hypotheticals often do. But, if we, having omniscience, could know that the offender would be better off (in all things considered) dead, then yes: of course, I'd be for that particular execution, because omnisciently I'd know it was the best decision. But that is a tautology. If we knew that we shouldn't kill him we wouldn't. Hypotheticals are pointless most of the time. I suspect most of you are Christians in your hearts, unable to get beyond the Ten Commandments - you just don't know it. Facetiousness or rash conclusion? The respect of life is hardly bound by the sphere of Christianity. Parallel lines never meet, even though they might touch the same perpendiculars. Following your whims, my question to you, Plegster, is: should we eat the dead man? It's more efficient to use his body than waste it. Or are you too shackled to taboo to get your fill?
• Christopher Hitchens: Don't Hang Saddam.
• Can we hang Hitchens instead?
• I must admit I didn't find myself very convincing that last time. I think I may have been experiencing reduced levels of cogency as a result of the alcoholic conditions prevailing yesterday evening. If you mean we all have our deeply-held proscriptions and aversions, IC, I agree, and I'm happy to respect yours.
• You know, everybody dies: editing some vile examples out of the human race a bit early isn't as big a deal as you think. Re the possibility of innocence, two examples that spring to mind are the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Given the political climate at the time of the trials, it's quite possible that several if not all of both groups would have been sentenced to death had the death penalty been available in Britain at the time. I suspect most of you are Christians in your hearts, unable to get beyond the Ten Commandments - you just don't know it. Or the treatment of murder in Christianity and Judaism is generalizable and based upon a shared moral instinct?
• jb - you think all participants in every war are equally murderers? Don't you teach your child that just authorities exercise some powers that citizens don't? I wouldn't condone soldiers killing captured enemies in cold blood either - that's called a war crime. Once you have someone captured, you aren't allowed to kill them. Or torture them. Or hold them indefinitely without trial, at least not since 1215. But this is maybe for another thread.
• My first knowledge of the law was being told the story of Donald Marshall. I was only six when he was aquitted of murder. I don't remember if my mum said then or I thought later about how he could have been killed if the death penalty had been applied.
• Good point well made, jb (and thanks for the links: didn't know that story)