Saddam is dead.

[soundman]

According to Fox News: Saddam is dead now.

[justsoaking]

Good!

[bulldawg]

it's about time they did him in for his crimes.

[l2ltlarry]

I used to tell my kids, people deserve to get what they've earned. Saddam earned getting his necked stretched as they used to say in the cowboy movies.

But...as columnist George Will said at the start of the Iraq war in 2003, "The first task of government is to establish a monopoly on violence." Saddam had done that. Unfortunately, the U.S. has not.

[Sanslines]

Does this mean the the 'mission' is complete and that the troops can all come home?

[usmc1]

One ought not confuse retribution with justice. Eventually, to really tangle the metaphore, the chickens always do come home to roost.

[Rick30ni]

I personally do not think he should have been executed, ad this seems to be the general opinion in the UK. Milosovic was being tried for war crimes and genocide in the Hague but died of natural causes while in custody. I wonder if he would have been executed?

Saddam has become a martyr for those fighting and as such retaliatory violence will increase. His death will not solve anything, and the troops will not be coming home just yet!

Of course this is all just my own thoughts, and I truely wish that all those fighting valiantly in the cause of social freedom and democracy could come home soon.

Rick

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

I wonder if his last meal was a PORK sandwich!

[LamontCranston]

I am impressed that they tried him for one event, found him guilty and exacted punishment.

They didn't try to sort out and prove every possible evil deed he may have done during his decades long rule -- dragging on for years -- like they would have at The Hague.

Why is it called "The" Hague? And what is a Hague anyway?

And I agree.... there's no further reason for troops to be in Iraq. It is no longer a threat to foreign national security. No more so than Sudan.

Propping up the government and training for self-security is a U.N. job. If the Iraqi Parliament needs help from the international community, they can ask for it.

Time's up. Mission over.

[Rick30ni]

Mike, this is taken from Wikipedia:

"The Hague (with capital T; Dutch: originally 's-Gravenhage, officially Den Haag) is the third-largest city in the Netherlands after Amsterdam and Rotterdam, with a population of 475,580 (as of January 1, 2006) (population of agglomeration: 600,000) and an area of approximately 100 km². It is located in the west of the country, in the province South Holland, of which it is also the provincial capital.

The Hague is the actual seat of government, but, somewhat anomalously, not the official capital of the Netherlands, a role set aside by the Dutch constitution for Amsterdam. The Hague is the home of the Eerste Kamer (first chamber) or Senaat and the Tweede Kamer (second chamber), respectively the upper and lower houses forming the "Staten Generaal" (literally the "Estates-General"). Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands lives and works in The Hague. All foreign embassies and government ministries are located in the city, as well as the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Supreme Court), the Raad van State (Council of State) and many lobbying organisations."

As to why it is called "The" Hague, there are many towns and cities in Europe with the prefix "The" such as La Rochelle in France. Perhaps it may also have been historically to distinguish it from the region also called Hague in France.

I always like to find out new things about the world!

Rick

[LamontCranston]

Well, Rick, thanks for the research. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif I knew vaguely what it was, but not the detail or history.

As for finding out new things about the world, I notice that you're the only one (so far) who opposed Hussein's execution, and you're the only one (so far) who's not an American.

Probably not a coincidence. We Americans are a violent people. And we have an obsession about declaring winners and losers.

Anyway... nice to meet you. Welcome to our nude and sometimes raucous corner of the Internet.

[Naturist Mark]

It is a very good thing that Saddam was executed quickly for one of his first and least serious crimes against humanity. If he had been kept alive to stand trial for his later crimes - such as gassing his own Kurdish citizens awkward evidence about WHO sold him the material and know-how to produce WMD's would be introduced. Awkward evidence about who green lighted and supported his unprovoked attacks against Iran. Awkward evidence about who provided intelligence to him about his enemies.

Talk about inconvenient truths! Whew!


-Mark

[NudeAl]

I'm also glad he is dead. I think a lot more of his minions need to be hanged publicly. I think the US should get the Hell out of there before that happens though because the country is going to implode!

In the vacuum following the exodus of US forces the rival factions will begin such a wholesale slaughter it will make all the preceding violence look tame by comparison.

In the Arab world compassion is taken for a sign of weakness. The only successful rule in that part of the world is by the sword. Any government that shows a sign of weakness will be toppled by those desiring power. The US doesn't have the will nor the mind set to do this. Because of this debatable character flaw they will never be in a position to impose their collective will on that part of the world, we don't have the stomach for it. Once you accept that basic premise you can see we have no alternative but to get out of there as expeditiously as possible because we are in a no win situation. The vacuum will likely be filled by forces from neighboring countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The UN will make rumblings but do nothing as is the norm.

[P.J.]

Saddam Hussein certainly deserved to die. There is, no doubt many who think that the method of execution was too quick and merciful.

It was said that the fabric wrapped around Saddam's neck before the noose was put in place, was to minimize the bruising. I wonder if any of the countless victim's of his brutal reign were given any such considerartions?

I definitely approve judicial process, which includes capital punishment for certain heinous crimes, but never if there is any doubt of the guilt or any question of the innocence of the accused.

There was no doubt that Saddam Hussein was guilty of countless crimes against humanity. To question his innocence would be as absurd as to demand that we reopen the cases of such infamous characters as Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Mao tse Tung.

This might surprise some of those who know my views of some of the controversial issues, but I think that despite Saddam Hussein's long trial (a judicial process that he denied to his countless victims) and obvious guilt, his execution was carried out far too swiftly. I'm afraid that this might turn out to be bad business for both those who are occupying Iraq, the governments who are current providing peace-keeping forces and the newly elected Iraqi government.

Although I do not have a high regard for Islam, Iraq is predominently Muslim. Will dealing with a dead Saddam Hussein open up new questions and problems? Unlike the Nazi war criminals executed following the Nuremburg trials, it's not as simple as cutting down the bodies, incinerating them and then scatter the ashes to prevent them from beconing enshrined. Many of the Iraqis, both pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam will demand that Islamic rules, concerning the dead be followed in regards to Saddam's remains.

I'm afraid that the hangman has not closed this chapter of the story.

Neither will the gravediggers...

[nudeM]

Posted by NaturistMark: It is a very good thing that Saddam was executed quickly for one of his first and least serious crimes against humanity. If he had been kept alive to stand trial for his later crimes - such as gassing his own Kurdish citizens awkward evidence about WHO sold him the material and know-how to produce WMD's would be introduced. Awkward evidence about who green lighted and supported his unprovoked attacks against Iran. Awkward evidence about who provided intelligence to him about his enemies.

Talk about inconvenient truths! Whew! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, too, hoped they could have held off until the other charges could have been played out and eventually led to further guilty verdicts.

But after reading your assessment, I now see why they executed him so rapidly. Future trials would only have dragged this on and on and would have brought out more 'unjustices' that could have included other countries such as Syria, Iran, Jordan, etc.

Now that he has been extinguished, we must now begin proceedings to ready his 'players' to meet their fates as well. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[LamontCranston]

If he had been kept alive to stand trial for his later crimes - such as gassing his own Kurdish citizens awkward evidence about WHO sold him the material and know-how to produce WMD's would be introduced. Awkward evidence about who green lighted and supported his unprovoked attacks against Iran. Awkward evidence about who provided intelligence to him about his enemies. The U.S. and other countries of the West did. Likely Russia and/or China too. I thought everyone knew that.

The United States has the highest amount of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry of any country. That's why it's a superpower. It sells them to other governments. That too is why it's a superpower. I thought everyone knew that as well.

Arms dealing is big business. Allegiances change with time. No surprise there...

And BTW Mark -- you're sounding like "No WMD's = No Iraq Invasion" but now you're fishing for blame over them having WMD's. Hmmmm...

[Naturist Mark]

And BTW Mark -- you're sounding like "No WMD's = No Iraq Invasion" but now you're fishing for blame over them having WMD's. Hmmmm...


Yep, they had WMD's in the 80s. Those that weren't used were destroyed by the UN in the 90s - according to Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Condoleeza Rice, the DIA (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5170011252?r=1370011252#1370011252) , the AEC, Colin Powell, David Kay and Charles Duelfer (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html).

-Mark

[Boreas]

I find the idea of executing anyone disturbing, even a man like Saddam Hussein. I am against capital punishment and wonder why killing someone like that (execution) is any better than the crimnals. It is barbaric to kill someone.

Okay, having said that, I can't offer a suggestion about alternatives. Certainly we have people in Canadian jails who will never see light of day and who would likely be executed in an other country/state.

I also worry that this will elevate Saddam Hussein to the status of martyr......certainly not something he deserves.

It is not a simplistic black and white, right or wrong issue.

[S.M.A.]

Originally posted by soundman:
According to Fox News: Saddam is dead now.
"But our top story tonight... look at these precious kitties!"

I kinda have mixed feelings towards this; on one hand, the man was a monster, but on the other hand, maybe he should've spent the rest of his life rotting in some third-world prison. Given that his connections to Al Qaida were merely assumed and never proven, I don't think we'll really be satisfied until we nab Bin Laden. Besides, any schmuck that still believes this war is justified automatically plays the Saddam card.

Stuart http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[Sanslines]

Saddam was not the only one guilty of crimes against humanity. During his long reign, there were many other countries and individuals who would be found guilty of support of the Saddam regime (or complicity at the very least). If there was a full international trial, then so much more of the truth about all of the 'players' would have hopefully come out. Now that Saddam is gone, the rest of the skeletons will remain buried and the other guilty individuals will remain unpunished. There is so much more to this story then any of us will ever know about.

[Sanslines]

I kinda have mixed feelings towards this; on one hand, the man was a monster, but on the other hand, maybe he should've spent the rest of his life rotting in some third-world prison. Given that his connections to Al Qaida were merely assumed and never proven, I don't think we'll really be satisfied until we nab Bin Laden. Besides, any schmuck that still believes this war is justified automatically plays the Saddam card.

I don't think anyone really knows what the honest reasons are for the invasion of Iraq. So many justifications and reasons for this war have come and gone and were proven to be outright false over time.

[kphoger]

i wish death on no one. that means i wish saddam had not killed the people he killed, and it means i wish saddam had not been killed. and, yes, i am an american. i think he should have been imprisoned for the rest of his days, which is also a lot less martyr-like than being hanged.

he was quite ready to die, though. he wanted to be shot by a firing squad, and refused to be hooded at the gallows. sounds like he was arrogant and unrepentant right up to the end, doesn't it? chaos will probably ensue for a time, but for how long will people rally behind a martyr? saddam was to them a symbol of iraq, and fighting for him was fighting for iraq. iraqi patriots will still fight for iraq, and therefore fight against foreign power in their country. what the foreign power needs to do is show an earnest desire to withdraw, not just with a timetable, but even by consistently saying publicly, "we want to leave your country." then the opposition may see that they just have to wait, and they'll have their country back.

[Bob S.]

No one should ever take pride or enjoyment when someone dies. That is way too morbid and dysfunctional. That said, I am sure most people will not shed a tear for Saddam's death.

For some, it was just punishment for all of the killings he ordered.

Now, it is a chapter in Iraq that can be closed forever. The question is whether there will be an Iraq existing in the future? Or will it be split into separate countries?

Bob S.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I find the idea of executing anyone disturbing, even a man like Saddam Hussein. I am against capital punishment and wonder why killing someone like that (execution) is any better than the crimnals. It is barbaric to kill someone.

Okay, having said that, I can't offer a suggestion about alternatives. Certainly we have people in Canadian jails who will never see light of day and who would likely be executed in an other country/state.

I also worry that this will elevate Saddam Hussein to the status of martyr......certainly not something he deserves.

It is not a simplistic black and white, right or wrong issue.

Still_Boreas, I'm not sure that I understand your second line. Why isn't imprisonment until natural death an alternative?

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Originally posted by hm0504:

Still_Boreas, I'm not sure that I understand your second line. Why isn't imprisonment until natural death an alternative?

It costs taxpayer money to keep him fed!

[P.J.]

I agree with this comment made by kphoger:

"I wish death on no one. That means I wish Saddam had not killed the people he killed, and it means I wish Saddam had not been killed..."

Saddam was sentenced under Iraqi law to be hanged. As far as the process of judicial hanging is prescribed, the hood should go along with the noose, the drop to the end of the rope and whatever procedures which would follow. The death should be quick and as "merciful" as possible.

Saddam didn't cheat the Iraqi court, but he might've scored some twisted minor victory. There are some who will regard his final moments as a last act of defiance and a sort of maryrdom.

Let's hope not!

[nacktman]

I am just waiting for the massive explosion of violence to occur now that he his dead ... it will and it will be huge.

It is not so far fetched to see a million Iranian boots walking across the border in the near future followed closely by a million Saudi boots walking across the border, or visa-versa ... and leave us not forget the Syrians ...

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by nacktman:
I am just waiting for the massive explosion of violence to occur now that he his dead ... it will and it will be huge.

It is not so far fetched to see a million Iranian boots walking across the border in the near future followed closely by a million Saudi boots walking across the border, or visa-versa ... and leave us not forget the Syrians ...


First of all, I don't expect the insurgents to do anything worse than they're doing now.

Second -- that part of the world is like Europe was 120-130 years ago or so. In late 1800's Europe, you had a hodge-podge of city-states, fiefdoms, dutchies, protectorates, etc. etc. Some of those tiny states still exist rather peacefully in western Europe - Andorra, Gibraltar, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino ... etc. But there were a lot of wars until the treaty of Versailles sought to, among other things (like punish the Germans) put each ethno-lingual group in their own country, or state within a country. This was reinforced after WW2. The Soviet bloc insisted on "ethnically cleansing" eastern Europe of all German influences, and there were mass deportations of ethnic Germans to what eventually became the DDR (East Germany).

Yugoslavia was a country that "survived" the second world war intact- but they had a skillful leader in Josef Broz Tito who played the Soviets off against the West. When he died, Yugoslavia broke up, but not without some bloodshed.

By comparison - when the Ottoman Empire broke up - the entire middle east was split up among colonial powers. Iraq is actually an artificial "country". Oil rich Kuwait was created by drawing a line in 1899 -- and the British drew that line. Since that time - until 1991 -- Iraq insisted that Kuwait was part of its territory.

The colonial powers had exerted great influence throughout the former Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century -- but split it up amongst themselves.

Ironically, when Saddam Hussein came to power, he was the first Iraqi leader to unite the country, but he had to do so by wielding a reign of terror and exercising sheer brutality, even using poison gas on his own citizens. And the Shia majority gave him a headache in terms of retaining control -- Iran is right next door... and who gets the oil money and control?

Oh yeah - Lebanon ? That was part of Syria until 1920, when the French lopped it off as a separate state, and declared it a "republic" six years later.

And on and on.

What scares me is the instability of the entire region. It's very difficult, if not impossible for North Americans to comprehend ethnic and religious differences - because we respect those differences.

Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, black man and white man, and we can add others to Dr. King's dream -- there are some that don't buy into the idea, but most Americans do.

In other places on this planet, for some reason, they don't.

[LamontCranston]

Excellent post, usuallylurk. With this kind of insight, I wish it was 'sometimeslurk' instead.

I'd like to read a book or series of articles about the development of the oil industry and OPEC against this background.

Given this --
Ironically, when Saddam Hussein came to power, he was the first Iraqi leader to unite the country, but he had to do so by wielding a reign of terror and exercising sheer brutality, Maybe the violence we've been witness to these past two years (civil war violence distinct from targeting US/UK troops) is due to Saddam's capture adn the absence of leadership.

If that's true, there shouldn't really be an increase in violence. He's already been gone.

[nacktman]

Lurk, I was not talking about insurgents ratcheting up the violence, I was speaking of the region and some of the very points you mentioned.

For my part I have no difficulty comprehending the ethnic and religious differences in the region but they really are a small part of why the area will go up in flames. Greed, blood-feud, economics, political and a host of other factors will tear the region apart.

With some of those factors being in dispute for 2500 years (the main religious dispute is only about 1200 years old), or longer the only total solution would be to wipe the slate clean (i.e., destroy everyone and everything in the region) and start again ... which I don't think the rest of the world will let happen, so as another has pointed out in a few posts I think very soon we will have another in his stead controlling the region as he did, lest the aforementioned slate cleaning does take place.

[Naturist Mark]

Oh yeah - Lebanon ? That was part of Syria until 1920, when the French lopped it off as a separate state, and declared it a "republic" six years later.

Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) was never part of the modern state of Syria. It was briefly administered as part of the Greater Syrian Mandate by the French after WWI. It has a long long history as a nation since its days as Phoenecia. It has existed as part of the Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and Ottoman Empires.

-Mark

[Boreas]

Originally posted by hm0504:

Still_Boreas, I'm not sure that I understand your second line. Why isn't imprisonment until natural death an alternative?

Hi Albinus, I think that is an alternative. My only purpose to saying that is we have people like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernado who would have been killed (executed) if they had committed their crimes in a place like Texas. I do not think execution is appropriate even for them. I do have a vindictive streak though too, and the idea of those folks being placed in the general population to survive as they might, is not a bad idea. I don't think giving people like Bernardo luxurious comforts of home in prison is appropriate. They had to build a high tech, expensive cell for him in Kingston when they placed him there in order to protect him. I am not sure that was the most appropriate.

I am against capital punishment and I believe my discomfort at Saddam's execution confirms it (my own personal stand, not necessarily a view I would impose on others) in my mind. I am also concerned about the repercussions his execution might have. Perhaps if they had put him in a jail and let people forget about him, he would not have had the glory he is getting now in his death. There are videos out circulating and he was clearly arrogant and I suspect "Axis II" (personality disorder). Those images will no doubt help some martyr him. He does not deserve that!

[Boreas]

Originally posted by OZJames:
STILL_BOREASA - QUOTE - "I

Did you get interrupted OZJames? Now I am curious! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Sanslines]

I still think that the decision to rush Saddam to the gallows without a proper international trial was a mistake that will come back to bite us all in the arse.

From Newsweek:

"........Bush and his national-security team no longer talk about transforming the Middle East, merely about strengthening the current Iraqi government so it can sustain itself without the backing of 140,000 U.S. troops. According to a senior Bush aide who declined to be named while discussing internal deliberations, the administration's new strategy for doing so, likely to be announced next week, will involve three pillars: a temporary surge of more troops, more money for jobs and reconstruction, and an attempt to broaden political support for plodding Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

But the confusion that surrounded Saddam's execution suggests just how complicated the task will be, and how little care Maliki takes to disguise the sectarian leanings of his Shiite-dominated government. After Saddam's last appeal was rejected, Maliki reportedly told the families of some of his victims that any hesitation about hanging him would be insulting. "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him," Maliki said, "and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence." As one of Maliki's top aides told NEWSWEEK privately, the prime minister's "vision for reconciliation doesn't include those who would support Saddam Hussein in any way."

Instead of working for the broad sense of healing other societies emerging from repression and war have sought, the Maliki government took a proprietary view of the suffering Saddam inflicted—as if only its supporters had felt his cruelty. During a deeply flawed trial, judges deemed too lenient were fired or pressured to resign, and three of Saddam's defense lawyers were murdered. He was finally hanged for ordering the killing of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail in 1982 after members of Maliki's Dawa Party, which was then a clandestine terrorist organization, tried to assassinate him. The Kurds still want their day in court: Saddam massacred tens of thousands of them in a genocidal campaign that included an infamous poison-gas attack on the town of Halabjah in 1988. His fellow Sunnis and Baath Party rivals, slaughtered on his orders and even by his own hand, are not even the subject of a court case.

Washington has never had a very deep understanding of Iraq's leaders. The Bush administration was so focused on the threat that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction might pose that it brushed aside the idea he might be bluffing. (Saddam's motivation? The threat of poison gas and biological agents could deter rebels and keep Iran at bay.) The Americans vastly overestimated the support exiled politicians would receive after returning to Iraq. They also underestimated the influence of religious leaders like Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and failed to understand how sectarian Iraq's politics would become once elections were held.

After Saddam's brutally effective tyranny, any democracy might look feckless. But there has been such chaos since the dictator's fall that it's now common to hear Iraqis yearn for the order imposed by his strong-arm rule. Even some Americans share that sentiment. "I feel like we should let Saddam out of jail and say, 'Sorry, we didn't realize you were so brutal because you had to be'," a member of a U.S. Special Operations unit told NEWSWEEK after a hard day's fighting in Fallujah in 2004. (The soldier said he was under orders not to give his name.) "It's going to take someone either exceptionally cruel or exceptionally intelligent to rule this country."........"

".......In 1983, President Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to Baghdad to forge a working alliance with Saddam. By the mid-1980s, U.S. satellite intelligence was helping the Iraqis focus chemical-weapon attacks on Iranian troops. So strong was Washington's "tilt" toward Saddam that in 1987, when one of his jet fighters launched a missile strike on a U.S. frigate in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 sailors, the United States accepted his excuses and responded by stepping up pressure on his enemies in Iran.

Though the Iran-Iraq War ended in stalemate in 1988, the West's support emboldened Saddam. He asserted his power and influence all over the region, convinced that the United States would back his play. He hunted down enemies in neighboring states. He stepped up support for Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, who was often resident in Baghdad. As Saddam pressed his secret program to develop atomic weapons, he publicly threatened to incinerate Israel. Still, by 1990, high-level U.S. delegations coveting lucrative commercial agreements were regular visitors to Baghdad

His mistake was to invade the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait, which he claimed should have been part of Iraq all along. His envoys said he'd gotten the nod from Washington. But his new conquest put Saddam in a position to threaten Saudi Arabia and dominate the world oil market. When he refused to pull back, the ad-ministration of President George H.W. Bush forged an international coalition of Western powers and Arab countries to demolish his forces in 1991's Desert Storm.

Inside Iraq, however, neither the hundreds of thousands killed fighting Iran nor the crushing defeat in Kuwait fazed Saddam. When the Kurds rose up against him in the late 1980s, he used chemical weapons against them. When they tried to revolt again in 1991, just the threat that such horrors would be unleashed sent them fleeing from their homes by the hundreds of thousands. In southern Iraq, Shiites encouraged by the Bush 41 administration and helped by Iran attacked the remnants of Saddam's armed forces after Desert Storm. Saddam's response: mass murder. The U.S.-led coalition stood back. Saddam hung on.

But the foundations of the modern nation he had tried to build began to crumble under the pressure of sanctions and international isolation. By the time the United States invaded in 2003, Iraq's economy and institutions, including its armed forces, were fragile shells of what they'd been 15 years before. Shia and Kurdish leaders, many of them already in exile, started cultivating policymakers in Washington, even as they lost touch with Iraqis on the ground. In Baghdad, Saddam adopted a new religiosity, playing to Sunni fundamentalists. The already poor Shia grew poorer and more disenfranchised; the political culture grew more corrupt.

When George W. Bush decided to eliminate Saddam once and for all in 2003, Bush personalized the war, and for understandable reasons. Saddam was a useful symbol—a seeming madman. Hadn't he tried to kill Bush's retired father on a visit to Kuwait in 1993? And Saddam so dominated Iraq that it was much easier to sell the threat when you could put his sinister face on it. But that also led to the misconception that removing him would solve all problems—the notion that all Iraqis wanted was "freedom," even though for generations under totalitarian rule they had no clear idea what that meant. Because so many Iraqis hated Saddam, Washington wrongly figured they would welcome invading Americans. Instead, the U.S.-led occupation opened the way for multiple insurgencies.

The moment when Saddam Hussein's capture could be hailed as a turning point in the conflict is long past. Having focused the world's attention on the evil of this one man, the Bush administration treated him as a kind of totem, declaring new victories when his statue was pulled down by U.S. Marines in Baghdad, when he was dragged out of the hole where he was hiding several months later, when he was put on trial and when he was convicted. But the execution? A "milestone" on a long and dangerous road.

Here, then, is the tragedy of America's involvement in Iraq, now and in the future: what Saddam achieved for his country came at a terrible cost, and of the countless problems he created and perpetuated, his death solves none."

Finally:

".............So as Bush searches for ways to extricate the United States from the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, which has now cost almost 3,000 American lives and drains more than $2 billion a week from U.S. coffers, little is gained from Saddam's demise. The challenge was not how to eliminate him: he ceased to be a factor when he was dragged out of a "spider hole" three years ago. The problem remains how to replace him.........."

[hm0504]

Thanks Sanslines for the Newsweek article. Here is Eric Margolis' commentary on Saddam's execution:

"U.S. buries truth:":
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric...6/12/31/3097415.html (http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/12/31/3097415.html)

Excellent article by Eric Margolis. How sad, so many forget history.

Allie

[Sanslines]

Great article by Eric Margolis that supports the Newsweek article. Thanks hm for posting.

[Jason Lee]

1. assassination attempt against Saddam Hussein (Iraqi president) 8th July 1982

2. Saddam ordered his military forces to carry out a reprisal attack against Dujail (a town 40 miles north of Baghdad) resulting in a total of 150 of the town's men being killed in the attack or executed later a number of which were boys 13 years of age. 1,500 people were also incarcerated and tortured while other residents many of them women and children were sent to desert camps. Saddam's regime destroyed the town and then rebuilt it shortly after. In addition to these punishments 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres) of farmland was destroyed.

Saddam deserves execution

[P.J.]

Saddam Hussein deserved to die at the end of hangman's rope but perhaps his death was too soon.

Publishing photographs of Saddam's corpse served to prove that Iraqi justice was handed out, but showing film footage of his execution was a bit brutal. It is, no doubt the subject of entertainment for some.

The death of any human being, especially when that human is paying the earthly judicial system's highest price is not some spectator sport. Isn't that among the reasons that most western nations have baaned public executions?

[LamontCranston]

Still_Boreas says -- and the idea of those folks being placed in the general population to survive as they might, is not a bad idea. I don't think giving people like Bernardo luxurious comforts of home in prison is appropriate. I agree. Life in prison does not have to mean a long period of time. It means "the rest of your life."

Jeffrey Dahmer lasted about 3 years in a Midwest prison.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
Still_Boreas says -- <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the idea of those folks being placed in the general population to survive as they might, is not a bad idea. I don't think giving people like Bernardo luxurious comforts of home in prison is appropriate. I agree. Life in prison does not have to mean a long period of time. It means "the rest of your life."

Jeffrey Dahmer lasted about 3 years in a Midwest prison. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeffrey Dahmer is an excellent example of letting the chips fall where they may. Peer pressure is used and works in many settings.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by P.J.:
Saddam Hussein deserved to die at the end of hangman's rope but perhaps his death was too soon.....

.....The death of any human being, especially when that human is paying the earthly judicial system's highest price is not some spectator sport. Isn't that among the reasons that most western nations have baaned public executions?

What right do we have to play god? How is killing by the judicial system better than what Saddam did?

Canada started looking at Capital punishment in the late fifties and early sixties. One case that was apparently a pivotal point was that of Stephen Truscott. He was a 14 year old boy who was arrested, charged and convicted in the death of 13 year old Lynn Harper. They both lived on an Air Force base in Ontario and he was the last person seen with her. She was killed in June of 59 and he was convicted by December 59. He spent ten years in federal prison and was released in 1969. He has lived a quiet life since then and has only recently come out of anonymity. He unfortunately has still to be able to clear his name in spite of the fact that there is no way he could have committed that crime and there was at least one suspect who had followed or preyed on young girls. This suspect also sold his brand new car shortly after the murder. Stephen was sentenced to hang and would have been dead six months following the murder if the execution had not been stayed/delayed or whatever. Canada completely removed capital punishment as an option in the 70's (I believe).

If you want to read an excellent book about Stephen Truscott read "Until You Are Dead" by Julian Sher.

I believe that Canada at least removed the capital punishment because unfortunately there is a high risk of killing innocent people. It also became an unacceptable way of punishing people according to average Canadian values. It had long ceased to be a "spectator sport" since hangings we held behind closed doors, not in public as in the past.

[hm0504]

Along the lines of Truscott mentioned by Still_Boreas, there is the recent, that is, last week, case of Roy Brown who after 16 years in jail for a murder he did not commit,


... proved his innocence by investigating his own case from behind bars at a maximum-security prison and identifying the real killer. Roy Brown appeared before a judge last night to ask for a pardon after 16 years in jail for a crime he had proved conclusively that he did not commit.

Brown had always protested his innocence, denying that he stabbed and strangled a female social worker to death at a farmhouse in upstate New York in 1991, and he managed to investigate and solve the crime from his prison cell. Five days after he wrote a letter to the local fireman he had

...


Read the rest of this amazing story here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2515387,00.html

[NudeAl]

Capital punishment has a very low recidivism rate, hardly any repeat offenders after the sentence is carried out. Sometimes society is forced to protect itself from certain predators. Cemeteries are full of those who were killed by repeat offenders those who were convicted and were paroled or had their sentences reduced due to over crowding and were free to kill again.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Capital punishment has a very low recidivism rate, hardly any repeat offenders after the sentence is carried out. Sometimes society is forced to protect itself from certain predators. Cemeteries are full of those who were killed by repeat offenders those who were convicted and were paroled or had their sentences reduced due to over crowding and were free to kill again.

From your post, I infer most people in the U.S. die at the hands of a murderer. In Canada, it is only a tiny, tiny percentage. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Indeed, if one really wants to decrease the homicide rate, eliminate capital punishment. Jurisdictions, international and within the U.S., that have no capital punishment have significantly lower homicide rates. Those with capital punishment have higher homicide rates.

As far as jail overcrowding goes, sorry to pick on the U.S., but there's something really wrong when a nation that is overall pretty fine, but has the world's highest incarceration rate. From the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

[Boreas]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Capital punishment has a very low recidivism rate, hardly any repeat offenders after the sentence is carried out. Sometimes society is forced to protect itself from certain predators. Cemeteries are full of those who were killed by repeat offenders those who were convicted and were paroled or had their sentences reduced due to over crowding and were free to kill again.

That is hardly a good reason for carrying out death sentences.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and thought about the prevention aspect of all this. I realize I digress with this but here goes. Many of our incarcerated people in Canada are basically illiterate. They were kids who struggled through school for a variety of reasons. They often came from poverty or violent homes and lives.

What if we figured out a way to teach the children who are difficult to teach? What if we figured out how to help people get off the treadmills of poverty, family violence, and dependence on social assistance? What if we look at the bigger picture and tried to figure out solutions instead of just continuing to hide our "problem folks" behind jail doors? Why is there a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in jail in Canada? Etc.

Like I said before, we cannot continue to look at capital punishment in black and white terms. It hasn't worked in the past, and will not work in the future.

Before you say that we are each responsible for our own actions etc, let me ask you a question. Have you gotten to where you are without ANY help from others, from the community or "the State"? I haven't.

[hm0504]

Very well said Still_Boreas. I think Canada and the U.S. can learn a lot from countries which have both low homicide rates, no capital punishment, and low incarceration rates.

Unfortunately, eagerness for (so-called) solutions that on the surface appear quick and simple, and are ultimately trite, lead to results that are tragic individually and nationally.

[Caipora]

Here in Brazil, one of the pivotal cases was many years ago when two brothers were convicted of killing a man. They were free a few years later when the victim turned up alive and well.

Despite the tremendous cost of the justice system, it doesn't seem to be a very good way of determining the truth. DNA testing has shown that a lot of people have gone through the mill, though several layers of appeals, and still been unjustly convicted. Software has errors, doctors make errors, accountants make errors - how is it that judges and juries are somehow infallible?

Why is there a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in jail in Canada? Etc.

Like I said before, we cannot continue to look at capital punishment in black and white terms.
Wouldn't that be black and white and red terms, if Aboriginal is considered?

Government changes on Jan 1 here. Newspaper has interview without outgoing Governor (a Lt. Gov. who took over for 9 mos when Gov resigned) and security is a major concern here - some horrific crimes over last few days. But even so Gov. was condescending and dismissive of U.S. incarceration rates - locking up all those people wouldn't solve the problem, and would be a crime in itself.

The man also indicated that when there was a minor wave of terror arranged by organized crime six months ago, a lot of rich white people called him to urge him to have the police shoot poor brown people. He told them to take a hike.

It may seem to people in the U.S. that in some ways we're uncivilized in this part of the world. I mean, asking to have the police shoot the "usual suspects"? But in the U.S., capital punishment is the same thing, just coming after a longer process with a lot of people in suits involved. It is is difference of style, not of substance, of a system designed not to provide justice, but to castigate the poor to assuage the fears of the rich.

Yes, sometimes the police here shoot the poor; they did it down the block a couple of years back. But good people are making attempts to stop it. The Governor, here, said "no". And in the U.S., the government, and the people, sometimes say "yes" on capital punishment, and have long said "yes" on locking far too many people up for far too long.

- Caipora

[Boreas]

Wouldn't that be black and white and red terms, if Aboriginal is considered?


Very true!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif (of course I meant black and white in terms of simplistic reasoning.)

The man also indicated that when there was a minor wave of terror arranged by organized crime six months ago, a lot of rich white people called him to urge him to have the police shoot poor brown people. He told them to take a hike.

It may seem to people in the U.S. that in some ways we're uncivilized in this part of the world. I mean, asking to have the police shoot the "usual suspects"? But in the U.S., capital punishment is the same thing, just coming after a longer process with a lot of people in suits involved. It is is difference of style, not of substance, of a system designed not to provide justice, but to castigate the poor to assuage the fears of the rich.

Yes, sometimes the police here shoot the poor; they did it down the block a couple of years back. But good people are making attempts to stop it. The Governor, here, said "no". And in the U.S., the government, and the people, sometimes say "yes" on capital punishment, and have long said "yes" on locking far too many people up for far too long

The same happens here and I believe in the US. They have a different word for shooting poor people.....it is "oops it was an accident". A disproportionate number of young black men were being shot in Toronto.....many in the back. The police claimed self defense.

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Capital punishment has a very low recidivism rate, hardly any repeat offenders after the sentence is carried out. Sometimes society is forced to protect itself from certain predators. Cemeteries are full of those who were killed by repeat offenders those who were convicted and were paroled or had their sentences reduced due to over crowding and were free to kill again.

That is hardly a good reason for carrying out death sentences.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and thought about the prevention aspect of all this. I realize I digress with this but here goes. Many of our incarcerated people in Canada are basically illiterate. They were kids who struggled through school for a variety of reasons. They often came from poverty or violent homes and lives.

What if we figured out a way to teach the children who are difficult to teach? What if we figured out how to help people get off the treadmills of poverty, family violence, and dependence on social assistance? What if we look at the bigger picture and tried to figure out solutions instead of just continuing to hide our "problem folks" behind jail doors? Why is there a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in jail in Canada? Etc.

Like I said before, we cannot continue to look at capital punishment in black and white terms. It hasn't worked in the past, and will not work in the future.

Before you say that we are each responsible for our own actions etc, let me ask you a question. Have you gotten to where you are without ANY help from others, from the community or "the State"? I haven't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

was Ted Bundy illiterate?

what about John Wayne Gacy?

what are you suggesting when you suggest help from others?

is Singapore a safe country?

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Saddam Hussein deserved to die at the end of hangman's rope but perhaps his death was too soon.....

.....The death of any human being, especially when that human is paying the earthly judicial system's highest price is not some spectator sport. Isn't that among the reasons that most western nations have baaned public executions?

What right do we have to play god? How is killing by the judicial system better than what Saddam did?

Canada started looking at Capital punishment in the late fifties and early sixties. One case that was apparently a pivotal point was that of Stephen Truscott. He was a 14 year old boy who was arrested, charged and convicted in the death of 13 year old Lynn Harper. They both lived on an Air Force base in Ontario and he was the last person seen with her. She was killed in June of 59 and he was convicted by December 59. He spent ten years in federal prison and was released in 1969. He has lived a quiet life since then and has only recently come out of anonymity. He unfortunately has still to be able to clear his name in spite of the fact that there is no way he could have committed that crime and there was at least one suspect who had followed or preyed on young girls. This suspect also sold his brand new car shortly after the murder. Stephen was sentenced to hang and would have been dead six months following the murder if the execution had not been stayed/delayed or whatever. Canada completely removed capital punishment as an option in the 70's (I believe).

If you want to read an excellent book about Stephen Truscott read "Until You Are Dead" by Julian Sher.

I believe that Canada at least removed the capital punishment because unfortunately there is a high risk of killing innocent people. It also became an unacceptable way of punishing people according to average Canadian values. It had long ceased to be a "spectator sport" since hangings we held behind closed doors, not in public as in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Although I'm convinced that some crimes warrant the penalty of death, I'm equally convinced that there are circumstances when even some criminals deserve a second chance, while others deserve death. I'm glad that the decision of the life or death of a defendant isn't mine to make.
In a previous post, I've mentioned that I was once arrested and spent the afternoon locked up in jail for a crime of which I'm innocent. Some who have been arrested are not so fortunate.
I have the strongest belief that one innocent person who is locked up on suspicion alone is one too many.
In my neighborhood, a very pretty white teenaged girl (with an allegedly bad reputation) was murdered by a black teenaged boy. From what I've been told, the girl was savagely beaten and left dead. My guess is that it was a crime of passion and rage. The boy was @18 years old at the time and didn't have any history of violence. Now he faces spending the rest of his life in prison. His life is ruined. I'm afraid that some of the facts have been concealed. When the life of an invidiual is on trial, whether the penalty is death or incarceration without the hope of ever being free, justice is more important than allowing the prosecutors to prove their skills or worse yet...achieving revenge.

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Saddam Hussein deserved to die at the end of hangman's rope but perhaps his death was too soon.....

.....The death of any human being, especially when that human is paying the earthly judicial system's highest price is not some spectator sport. Isn't that among the reasons that most western nations have baaned public executions?

What right do we have to play god? How is killing by the judicial system better than what Saddam did?

Canada started looking at Capital punishment in the late fifties and early sixties. One case that was apparently a pivotal point was that of Stephen Truscott. He was a 14 year old boy who was arrested, charged and convicted in the death of 13 year old Lynn Harper. They both lived on an Air Force base in Ontario and he was the last person seen with her. She was killed in June of 59 and he was convicted by December 59. He spent ten years in federal prison and was released in 1969. He has lived a quiet life since then and has only recently come out of anonymity. He unfortunately has still to be able to clear his name in spite of the fact that there is no way he could have committed that crime and there was at least one suspect who had followed or preyed on young girls. This suspect also sold his brand new car shortly after the murder. Stephen was sentenced to hang and would have been dead six months following the murder if the execution had not been stayed/delayed or whatever. Canada completely removed capital punishment as an option in the 70's (I believe).

If you want to read an excellent book about Stephen Truscott read "Until You Are Dead" by Julian Sher.

I believe that Canada at least removed the capital punishment because unfortunately there is a high risk of killing innocent people. It also became an unacceptable way of punishing people according to average Canadian values. It had long ceased to be a "spectator sport" since hangings we held behind closed doors, not in public as in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Although I'm convinced that some crimes warrant the penalty of death, I'm equally convinced that there are circumstances when even some criminals deserve a second chance, while others deserve death. I'm glad that the decision of the life or death of a defendant isn't mine to make.
In a previous post, I've mentioned that I was once arrested and spent the afternoon locked up in jail for a crime of which I'm innocent. Some who have been arrested are not so fortunate.
I have the strongest belief that one innocent person who is locked up on suspicion alone is one too many.
In my neighborhood, a very pretty white teenaged girl (with an allegedly bad reputation) was murdered by a black teenaged boy. From what I've been told, the girl was savagely beaten and left dead. My guess is that it was a crime of passion and rage. The boy was @18 years old at the time and didn't have any history of violence. Now he faces spending the rest of his life in prison. His life is ruined. I'm afraid that some of the facts have been concealed. When the life of an invidiual is on trial, whether the penalty is death or incarceration without the hope of ever being free, justice is more important than allowing the prosecutors to prove their skills or worse yet...achieving revenge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I notice Still Boreas dwells on the criminal. It seems to be actually society's fault that a criminal commits a murder.

Why does she not talk about the victim or the victim's family?

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/klaas/1.html

I find it difficult to feel sorry for a Child Murderer.

here's a guy convicted of murder, sentanced to be executed, sentance then commuted to life imprisonment, then released, then murders again, then finally executed.

http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html

[Sanslines]

Before you say that we are each responsible for our own actions etc, let me ask you a question. Have you gotten to where you are without ANY help from others, from the community or "the State"? I haven't.

Help should always be availible for those who need and ask for it. However, offering help, in and of itself, will not entirely solve the problem. The key is that a person has to admit that he or she has a problem and will then take the necesary steps to accept help (ie any 12 step program such as in AA). As an aside, I have a friend who is an alcoholic. Throughout his drinking episodes, I tried everything to get him to see that he was killing himself. Help was availible but he denied that he had a problem. The turning point came when he wound up in the hospital and almost died from severe liver disease. Yes, he had destroyed most of his liver. At that point in time he finally 'woke up' and admitted to himself that he had a problem. He then accepted the help that he needed and dealt with this aweful problem.

All the help in the world will not help someone who will not accept help. All the education in the world will not help those who refuse to accept education. You can not force people to learn, admit to personal problems, etc. Of course it is an entirely different situation when someone actively seeks help but no help is availible. However in the end, do not people have a right to live their lives as they so chose and not be told what to do and what not to by government? Educating people and helping those who seek it is one thing. Excessively controlling people by forcing them to do or not do certain things in their lives is another.

As a related topic. Suppose you come across a smoker. In today's world, everyone knows of the harmful effects of smoking. What does society do about this problem? Does society create laws that ban smoking entirely? Does society create smoking education and treatement programs to help those who decide to quit? Does society respect the rights of adult smokers and accept that those who chose to smoke know what they are doing and accept the price that they might have to pay for their smoking habits?

[usmc1]

I just love these drifting threads.

Death penalty. Mostly a bunch of B.S. on both sides of the debate..usually.

Very simple. Do you really want to cede to the state the power of life and death, of deciding who lives and who dies for whatever reason while knowing that mistakes and errors are made and that the ultimate decision is applied differently in separate jursidictions?

Addiction and crime. Very simple. Dope and alcohol and rage addicts are resposnible for their actions. Under the influence does not mitigate a damned thing. Those who use and abuse have adequate information and know what they're doing is wrong and make a decision to proceed. They are resposnible.

But, so are we and so is that precious thing called society. Until we go after and eradicate the causes of addiciton, crime family break-up, poverty and all the rest, we will continue to have these debates and people will continue to suffer.

Of course victims and their loved ones are deserving of our compassion, care, and support. But giving that does not rule out policies and programs which provide education, intervention, treatment and aftercare for drug and alcohol users.

Nor does it rule out applying justice rather than retribution punishing offenders.

[Caipora]

Do you really want to cede to the state the power of life and death, of deciding who lives and who dies for whatever reason while knowing that mistakes and errors are made and that the ultimate decision is applied differently in separate jursidictions?
It's not quite that. Often the decision is not made for purposes of justice, but of "How will this affect my chance of winning the next election?"

Some fifteen years back there was a paroled felon - Willie something? - in Massachusetts who committed a murder. Governor lost election. Suddenly no Governor, anywhere, paroled felons. All public policy decisions carry risks. If we were to bring speed limits down to 40mph and require drivers over 70 to renew licenses every six months, traffic deaths will fall. But we don't do that, as the cost in liberty is too high. But thousands of men spent years in jail because if released, a few would commit horrible crimes. Political opponents would yell about those few (and the media would take up the cry) and so men who were sentenced to long terms by judges who knew they'd be paroled, suddenly weren't.

Not to mention prosecutors like Nifong. Should the Duke accuser be prosecuted for making a false accusation, and should a false charge of rape be considered a sex offense requiring her to register? (Yes, the crime has already occurred, and the Constitution explicitly prohibits post facto laws, but the courts have decided that somehow doesn't apply to registering people as sex criminals.)

Of course victims and their loved ones are deserving of our compassion, care, and support. But giving that does not rule out policies and programs which provide education, intervention, treatment and aftercare for drug and alcohol users.

Victims deserve concern. So do creditors. So do property owners. But that concern has limits. Just as there is bankruptcy to deliver debtors from creditors, and zoning to preserve people from their neighbors, so should the courts supposedly act with justice and mercy, rather than merely vengeance.

As to Saddam, down here dictators who flee are granted asylum. Stroessner of Paraguay died in Brasilia only a few months back. Aside from anything else it encourages them to flee rather than to resist. If allowing a dictator unjustly to live, lets several or dozens or hundreds to live who would have unjustly died to depose him, it is a small price to pay. And if all dictators have to be allowed asylum, so that future ones know they can believe promises, so be it.

The rules are different for war and peace, and for mass murderers and common criminals. But whether Saddam lived or died is a decision that should have been made on whether whatever was done would bring peace and stability to Iraq.

When Saddam was captured, it struck a note of hope, that a difficult war was being won, that the supreme symbol of a brutal regime had been removed from the board. His execution, though, seemed not to bring hope but to acknowledge despair. A brutal regime has been replaced by a clumsy and bloody occupation. A man who spent decades as the face of a regime occupied an important place in the Iraqui psyche. It was wrong that he should have been so casually spent, that a unique opportunity should have been wasted.

Mussolini was strung up by a mob; Allende and Vargas each chose suicide in the Presidential palace. The end of a head of state is important. Saddam seems to have been hanged as casually as an Iraqui family out for a Sunday drive is gunned down at an American checkpoint. He - and they - deserved another end.

- Caipora

[fred950]

Originally posted by Dana Jackson:
convicted and were paroled or had their sentences reduced due to over crowding and were free to kill again.



was Ted Bundy illiterate?

what about John Wayne Gacy?

what are you suggesting when you suggest help from others?

is Singapore a safe country?[/QUOTE]

Odd you should mention those two. Bundy was from New York and Gacy was from Illinois. Both States that HAVE capitol punishment.

[LamontCranston]

I find this a fascinating point. There is something unsettling about how quickly he met his end and I think this names that feeling. Thanks for the post.. When Saddam was captured, it struck a note of hope, that a difficult war was being won, that the supreme symbol of a brutal regime had been removed from the board. His execution, though, seemed not to bring hope but to acknowledge despair. A brutal regime has been replaced by a clumsy and bloody occupation. A man who spent decades as the face of a regime occupied an important place in the Iraqui psyche. It was wrong that he should have been so casually spent, that a unique opportunity should have been wasted.
...
The end of a head of state is important. Saddam seems to have been hanged as casually as an Iraqui family out for a Sunday drive ... He - and they - deserved another end. Someone, on some side, could have gained or compelled a loss, by carrying out this sentence, but they didn't. How odd...

In chess, one would mark this move with !?

[LamontCranston]

Fred, not sure if I follow the thread but .. Odd you should mention those two. Bundy was from New York and Gacy was from Illinois. Both States that HAVE capitol punishment. Both were in fact executed. Bundy in Florida where he was apprehended, tried and convicted. And Gacy in Illinois or Indiana. I can't recall which.

Hard to imagine anyone anywhere with any sympathy for either of those psychopaths.

[Naturist Mark]

Hard to imagine anyone anywhere with any sympathy for either of those psychopaths.


One would need to be quite deluded to think opposition to the death penalty has anything to do with sympathy for monsters.

Despite what some rightwingnuts (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/if-ever-you-needed-proof-of-insanity-of.html) are saying, I don't know anyone who has shed a tear for Saddam.

What is really ironic is President Bush lauded Saddam's trial and execution as a triumph for the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law. Too bad Bush doesn't want that here. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>
The President is certainly right that it is is a good thing that Saddam Hussein was given a trial, represented by lawyers, with an opportunity to contest his guilt, before being deemed to be guilty. That is how civilized countries function, by definition. In fact, allowing people fair trials before treating them as Guilty is one of the handful of defining attributes -- one could even say (as the American Founders did) a prerequisite -- for countries to avoid tyranny.

That is why it is so reprehensible and inexpressibly tragic that the Bush administration continues to claim -- and aggressively exercise -- the power to imprison and punish people without even a pretense or fraction of the due process that Saddam Hussein enjoyed. The Bush administration believes that it has the power to imprison whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, without even giving them access to the outside world, let alone "a fair trial." The power which it claims -- which it has seized -- extends not only to foreign nationals but legal residents and even its own citizens.
article (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/presidents-praise-of-fair-trials-and.html) [/list]

-Mark

[Sanslines]

The President is certainly right that it is is a good thing that Saddam Hussein was given a trial, represented by lawyers, with an opportunity to contest his guilt, before being deemed to be guilty. That is how civilized countries function, by definition. In fact, allowing people fair trials before treating them as Guilty is one of the handful of defining attributes -- one could even say (as the American Founders did) a prerequisite -- for countries to avoid tyranny.

Saddam was not given a fair trial in an international court by an impartial countries and held accountable for all of his crimes. This is very important as now with the cell phone video, many will firmly believe that the Saddam trial and hanging was a show trial by vengeful people hell bent on killing him out of retribution. Saddam was convicted of only one crime and all of his other crimes and victims seem to have been forgotten. These victims certainly did not have their day in court. Saddam's trial is another example of just how deep the sectarian divisions are in Iraq.

[usmc1]

Remember the old B/W version of Frankenstein with Boris Karlof as the "monster".

When I saw the picteres of Saddam's hanging and then the U.S.'s last minute appeals to delay the execution, I thought of that movie.

Film as metaphor!

Monster is created. Monster turns on creator and wrecks havoc. Outraged rabble, little more than ignorant, superstitous peasants, kills monster with creator pleading for its life.

Dang man, life is a hoot!

[Boreas]

was Ted Bundy illiterate?

what about John Wayne Gacy?

what are you suggesting when you suggest help from others?

is Singapore a safe country?

If you will read my previous post, you will see that I did not say that all offenders were illiterate. Many are indeed brilliant, articulate cunning psychopaths. I have met some in person through my work. I know what some are about. I believe that our most notorious criminals such as Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka fit under this category. That does not mean they should be executed. I am not advocating sympathy for them. Prison is the place for them.

I agree. I notice Still Boreas dwells on the criminal. It seems to be actually society's fault that a criminal commits a murder.

No, I do not believe that it is society's fault that a criminal commits a murder. I am also more concerned with the victim than the offender. I frankly am not necessarily concerned about the people who are in prison now, though suitable rehab is more appropriate than mere warehousing in most cases. Of course there are the "incurable" psychopaths who will no doubt die in prison.

Think about it. If we provide adequate education for ALL our children, not just the privileged, and if we provide adequate social supports for some families, we may actually prevent criminals from being created in the first place. If we manage to prevent criminals we actually avoid creating more victims. Is that not a good thing?

I believe that our children are our future and that it does take a community to raise a child. In some cases we are not doing very well at all.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Capital punishment has a very low recidivism rate, hardly any repeat offenders after the sentence is carried out...

Oh man, you never saw Chuckie did you?

[Boreas]

Help should always be availible for those who need and ask for it. However, offering help, in and of itself, will not entirely solve the problem. The key is that a person has to admit that he or she has a problem and will then take the necesary steps to accept help (ie any 12 step program such as in AA). As an aside, I have a friend who is an alcoholic. Throughout his drinking episodes, I tried everything to get him to see that he was killing himself. Help was availible but he denied that he had a problem. The turning point came when he wound up in the hospital and almost died from severe liver disease. Yes, he had destroyed most of his liver. At that point in time he finally 'woke up' and admitted to himself that he had a problem. He then accepted the help that he needed and dealt with this aweful problem.


Very definitely! There are also some mandated programs such as education for drivers who have been convicted of impaired driving. These programs have been shown to be helpful for some folks who did not think they needed them. Unfortunately there are no programs available to those who need and ask for them. In my area it is very difficult for example to get good addictions treatment nearby.

[fred950]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
Fred, not sure if I follow the thread but .. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Odd you should mention those two. Bundy was from New York and Gacy was from Illinois. Both States that HAVE capitol punishment. Both were in fact executed. Bundy in Florida where he was apprehended, tried and convicted. And Gacy in Illinois or Indiana. I can't recall which.

Hard to imagine anyone anywhere with any sympathy for either of those psychopaths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While my sympathies for either one is zilch, nada nuzzzing, my pointis supporters of capital punishment keep implying that the threat of being put to death will somehow deter people from committing murder. This most certainly was the case in the last (Wisconsin) state-wide refferendum. Obviously Bundy and Gacy were NOT detered in the least.

BTW Gacy was from Norridge, IL (a N W suburb of Chicago)

[Sanslines]

In the days leading up to the hanging of Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials "questioned the political wisdom" of the Iraqi government's apparent desire to kill the former dictator at the first legally sanctioned opportunity, according to a report in Tuesday's New York Times.

And it’s now evident that concerns that a quick hanging could offend Sunnis are proving prescient.

Arab commentators and Iraqi politicians alike are taking aim at what history may judge to be a too quick execution of justice.

Kurdish suspicions
Good luck selling the idea of cautious, responsible American counsel to Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish politician, who, in Tuesday’s Al Hayat accused the U.S. of not only encouraging, but rather engineering a swift conclusion to Saddam's life story.

Othman argued that the U.S. pushed to hasten the Iraqi leader's execution in an effort to avoid more details of past American collaboration with the dictator being revealed in subsequent investigations.

Othman, a powerful Kurdish member of the Iraqi National Assembly, told the pan-Arab daily that "hastening the execution of Saddam before ... investigating the source of the chemical weapons he used to suppress the Kurdish and Shiite uprising was an American plot ... [due to] the fear that their role would be revealed."


Egypt's pro-government daily Al Ahram also noted those suspicions, though they took a backseat to criticism that Saddam's execution had taken place on the opening day of the Eid holiday marking the feast of sacrifice.

In Tuesday’s edition of the paper, columnist Ahmad Bahjat summarized the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's position by writing that the execution had taken place "without any regard for the feelings of Muslims or the sacredness of the day," which Bahjat noted is an occasion for forgiveness.

"You can say whatever you want about Saddam Hussein," the columnist wrote. "You can say he was a tyrant ... and that no one was spared from his atrocities. ... Despite all that, his trial was a farce and his execution on the first day of the Eid a major mistake."

Such stirrings of implicit sympathy for Saddam in turn troubled the editor-in-chief of the reliably moderate Asharq Al Awsat. "Unfortunately," Tariq Alhomayed wrote, "what was disturbing about the timing of the execution ... was that it made a lot of people seem as if they are apologists [for] Saddam Hussein."

As if seconding the U.S. officials' concerns regarding sectarian unease, Alhomayed reported "a strong smell of sectarianism" wafting about the proceedings.

Still, Alhomayed made sure that no one could confuse his opinion of Saddam with his criticism of the execution. "Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be hung, and to this we say 'yes!'"

Biggest critique reserved for Iraqi government
However, after referencing the gruesome and humiliating video of Saddam's execution that quickly found its way to the Web, Alhomayed saved his sharpest rebuke for the Iraqi government: "Unfortunately, the democratic government of Iraq became equal to al-Qaida by showing the scenes of the one being executed. It ruined the conviction against Saddam Hussein and spoiled their democracy. It even managed to give the former president an ending that portrayed him as a strong and staunch man."

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">was Ted Bundy illiterate?

what about John Wayne Gacy?

what are you suggesting when you suggest help from others?

is Singapore a safe country?

If you will read my previous post, you will see that I did not say that all offenders were illiterate. Many are indeed brilliant, articulate cunning psychopaths. I have met some in person through my work. I know what some are about. I believe that our most notorious criminals such as Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka fit under this category. That does not mean they should be executed. I am not advocating sympathy for them. Prison is the place for them.

I agree. I notice Still Boreas dwells on the criminal. It seems to be actually society's fault that a criminal commits a murder.

No, I do not believe that it is society's fault that a criminal commits a murder. I am also more concerned with the victim than the offender. I frankly am not necessarily concerned about the people who are in prison now, though suitable rehab is more appropriate than mere warehousing in most cases. Of course there are the "incurable" psychopaths who will no doubt die in prison.

Think about it. If we provide adequate education for ALL our children, not just the privileged, and if we provide adequate social supports for some families, we may actually prevent criminals from being created in the first place. If we manage to prevent criminals we actually avoid creating more victims. Is that not a good thing?

I believe that our children are our future and that it does take a community to raise a child. In some cases we are not doing very well at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canada doesn't provide adequate education? I never knew that.

only the privledged? I never knew that.

why should it not be an option to execute someone?

what do you propose?

who's going to pay for this? And then, if it fails what do we do next?

why not follow Singapore's mold?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q94/feat.html

you said we can learn from other countries. It seems that when crime is dealt with severely it has an effect, and as an added plus, is inexpensive to do.

[Boreas]

1. Canada doesn't provide adequate education? I never knew that.

2. only the privledged? I never knew that.

3. why should it not be an option to execute someone?

4. what do you propose?

1. Canada is like any other western nation I am sure. We have areas that have "good" schools and areas that have "not good" schools. Also, if a child happens to have a learning disability or behaviour problems, the school seems to have more difficulty accomodating them and their needs. Unfortunately many children fall through cracks. The same is true in the US.

2. We all know that if you have status and privelege you get better education etc.

3. Killing is wrong period. Is no more right for the state to do it than for a murderer. If we want to promote less violent ways of living, we have to live less violent lives.

4. There are many suitable options available. Canada has some effective alternate justice programs for non-violent offenders. I believe the US has some as well. Do what you can to prevent criminals from occuring.

BTW, there is no need for sarcasm.

who's going to pay for this? And then, if it fails what do we do next?


We pay dearly for the prisons and such. If prisons are so effective why is there so much more crime in areas that warehouse people in prisons?

I will have to look at the Singapore link you gave since I know nothing about it.

Bottom line, I believe capital punishment is wrong. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise. You apparently believe that capital punishment is good. I suspect nothing I say will change your opinion.

[hm0504]

Singapore makes an interesting exception to to capital punishment versus homicide rate statistics because of a large majority of the West, homicide rates are highest in those with capital punishment.

Dan Gardner had an interesting piece on crime rates and utter failure of so-called tough measures to control them. Turns out, the practices adopted by most European countries and in Canada (up to the current Conservative government) are much more effective than neo-con approaches south of the border that are not only killing its citizens but also its economy.

This link, if it works, might take you to Mr. Gardner's article:
http://tinyurl.com/yj2alv

[Dana Jackson]

Singapore does not tolerate crime. The penalties are very severe. It seems stiff penalties actually deters crime.

surprise, huh?

we do have much to learn from other countries. I was impressed how long upon conviction to the actual time of execution in Saddam's case. One of the arguments in the US against capital punishment is the actual cost of putting someone to death, opposed to life imprisonment, is the cost of appeals. If we followed the Iraq example, the cost would be significantly less.

if we did that, not only as taxpayers would we save a lot of money (I have no interest in providing Paul Bernardo free room and board for life especially when this cost compromises my own lifestyle.)

but I think there is a compromise that can make us all happy. How would you feel, as someone who wants to pay for Bernardo for life, and I do not, about paying mine, and others share?

bearing the financial burden?

and we can make prison life extremely tough, so as to act as a deterent.

*no tv

*no smoking

*lousy food

*solitary confinement

*work camps

we make doing time hard time

as for people like those responsible for the Beltway sniper attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

we confine them to an extremely small cell down in the bowels of a prison with no light, no heat, a simple toilet for life.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Dana Jackson:
Singapore does not tolerate crime. The penalties are very severe. It seems stiff penalties actually deters crime.

surprise, huh?

we do have much to learn from other countries. I was impressed how long upon conviction to the actual time of execution in Saddam's case. One of the arguments in the US against capital punishment is the actual cost of putting someone to death, opposed to life imprisonment, is the cost of appeals. If we followed the Iraq example, the cost would be significantly less.

...

Good point, why is that we in the West do not follow the Iraq example!?!

The new Iraq is certainly a great model of what happens when you build a country on a pure neo-con foundation.

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dana Jackson:
Singapore does not tolerate crime. The penalties are very severe. It seems stiff penalties actually deters crime.

surprise, huh?

we do have much to learn from other countries. I was impressed how long upon conviction to the actual time of execution in Saddam's case. One of the arguments in the US against capital punishment is the actual cost of putting someone to death, opposed to life imprisonment, is the cost of appeals. If we followed the Iraq example, the cost would be significantly less.

...

Good point, why is that we in the West do not follow the Iraq example!?!

The new Iraq is certainly a great model of what happens when you build a country on a pure neo-con foundation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq isn't the only country that doesn't wait very long to execute someone. Singapore doesn't waste time either.

It's ratio of murder/crime to that of the Western world is significantly less. The country is much safer, and safer is what we want.

I want to walk the streets without fear of being murdered, or robbed. I want to come to my car, and find it not broken into, and the contents I worked for stolen. I don't want my car vandelized.

their laws work.

You can pay for Clifford Olsen's prison stay because you want to keep this child murderer around at tax payer's expense. But now, it's your expense, and those who think like you. It's totally fair.

I am surprised you have a problem with it.

When Canada abolished the death penalty, is that what the Canadian population as a whole wanted or was it the elected Liberal MPs?

what I have always found is that Liberals don't want democracy, where the population decides as a whole decides, but prefer to implement policies over majority objections.

[hm0504]

Dana. I am against policies that are ineffective or worsen crime -- that is why I am against capital punishment.

Singapore is an exception to the capital punishment stats which generally show a correspondence between capital punishment and high rates of serious crime. You keep mentioning Iraq as another excellent example of a place with capital punishment and swift justice. Yet today, Iraq is possibly the most dangerous country to live and in the world. In the West, by which I mean North America, Europe and Australasia, those districts without capital punishment are generally the safest by a significant margin. It is great for Singapore that it is an exception, but nonetheless it is an exception that probably is more to do with its local culture than its criminal law policies.

[Sanslines]

You keep mentioning Iraq as another excellent example of a place with capital punishment and swift justice.


hm,

Am I the only one who questions what kind of fair and swift justice that Saddam received??? He was only convicted of one crime out of so many. What kind of justice did the other victims of Saddam receive ie the Kurds, etc? Iraq is NO example of fair and swift justice. Iraq is more an example of sectarian revenge killing. As for capital punishment, I am in agreement with you for perhaps another reason. In so many past cases, innocent people have been put on death row or killed. Back in the not so old days when there was much more racial injustice and intolerance, many a black man was convicted and killed for crimes that they didn't even commit. Heck just look at the Emmit Till case. A young boy was brutally beaten and murdered by racists for the crime of 'whistling at a white woman. How many years did it take to bring those racists who killed that young boy to justice?? Did those murderers receive the death penalty?

[Boreas]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You keep mentioning Iraq as another excellent example of a place with capital punishment and swift justice.


hm,

Am I the only one who questions what kind of fair and swift justice that Saddam received??? He was only convicted of one crime out of so many. What kind of justice did the other victims of Saddam receive ie the Kurds, etc? Iraq is NO example of fair and swift justice. Iraq is more an example of sectarian revenge killing. As for capital punishment, I am in agreement with you for perhaps another reason. In so many past cases, innocent people have been put on death row or killed. Back in the not so old days when there was much more racial injustice and intolerance, many a black man was convicted and killed for crimes that they didn't even commit. Heck just look at the Emmit Till case. A young boy was brutally beaten and murdered by racists for the crime of 'whistling at a white woman. How many years did it take to bring those racists who killed that young boy to justice?? Did those murderers receive the death penalty? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am with you Sanslines. I have listened to some radio programs that suggested exactly that.

[Boreas]

Dana mentioned Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernado. May I remind you of Stephen Truscott, Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophanow to name a few. You even have one famous man in Manitoba who spent 20+ years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Check this site for more such people: http://www.aidwyc.org/index.cfm/ci_id/1115/la_id/1.htm

I want to walk the streets without fear of being murdered, or robbed. I want to come to my car, and find it not broken into, and the contents I worked for stolen. I don't want my car vandelized.


Dana, you have clearly fallen prey to the fear mongering of the folks whose agenda is stiffer sentencing and "get tough on crime" approaches. In fact our rates of violent crimes are reduced. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

Yes, I did see that homicide rates rose in 2004.

"Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before. Police reported 622 victims of homicide, 73 more than last year. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec accounted for most of this increase. The rate of 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 population was 5% lower than it was 10 years earlier."

[hm0504]

Interesting to read the latest blogs from Riverbend, an Iraqi woman, on the execution of Saddam Hussein and, in the prior post, her belief that America has intentiionally created chaos in Iraq (a theory mentioned earlier on these boards by Naturist Mark). Though I remain hesitant to accept that theory because of my strong belief in the utter incompetence of the Bush administration, neither can I completely disavow it.

The Riverbend blog is here:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[Naturist Mark]

Singapore does not tolerate crime. The penalties are very severe. It seems stiff penalties actually deters crime.

surprise, huh?


Actually it is exceptional.

That means it is the exception. Severity of punishment usually correlates with a high crime rate.

What country has the world's highest incarceration rate? Why doesn't it (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html) also have the lowest crime rate?

We've discussed some of this before. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/3620018493?r=6900098493#6900098493)

-Mark

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Dana. I am against policies that are ineffective or worsen crime -- that is why I am against capital punishment.

Singapore is an exception to the capital punishment stats which generally show a correspondence between capital punishment and high rates of serious crime. You keep mentioning Iraq as another excellent example of a place with capital punishment and swift justice. Yet today, Iraq is possibly the most dangerous country to live and in the world. In the West, by which I mean North America, Europe and Australasia, those districts without capital punishment are generally the safest by a significant margin. It is great for Singapore that it is an exception, but nonetheless it is an exception that probably is more to do with its local culture than its criminal law policies.

I wouldn't go to Iraq if you paid me. Iraq is a dangerous place, but that's not the point. The point is the time from sentance to the time of execution is very short.

When the time of sentance, with all appeals, to it may or may not being carried out, the death penalty loses deterance.

Here's a statement from the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs on the DP for your information

http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=990&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0

in case you choose not to read:

10Singapore weighs the right to life of the convicted against the rights of victims and the right of the community to live in peace and security. Taking into account our national circumstances, we have made a considered decision to retain the death penalty. It has worked for us, making Singapore one of the safest places in the world to live and work in

and I agree totally.

You claim it's an exception, but any examination of the crime rate vs Canada or the USA shows Singapore significantly safer.

it's tough to argue against pesky facts with emotion isn't it?

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Singapore does not tolerate crime. The penalties are very severe. It seems stiff penalties actually deters crime.

surprise, huh?


Actually it is exceptional.

That means it is the exception. Severity of punishment usually correlates with a high crime rate.

What country has the world's highest incarceration rate? Why doesn't it (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html) also have the lowest crime rate?

We've discussed some of this before. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/3620018493?r=6900098493#6900098493)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, the severity of sentances in Singapore compared to the lax sentances in the US and Canada is probably the difference. Actually is the difference.

pesky facts. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

perhaps you should straighten out our Hm0504. He is against policies that are ineffective or worsen crime. I can only assume that he feels putting people behind bars, as you reported in your link, actually increases crime.

[Dana Jackson]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Dana mentioned Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernado. May I remind you of Stephen Truscott, Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophanow to name a few. You even have one famous man in Manitoba who spent 20+ years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Check this site for more such people: http://www.aidwyc.org/index.cfm/ci_id/1115/la_id/1.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I want to walk the streets without fear of being murdered, or robbed. I want to come to my car, and find it not broken into, and the contents I worked for stolen. I don't want my car vandelized.


Dana, you have clearly fallen prey to the fear mongering of the folks whose agenda is stiffer sentencing and "get tough on crime" approaches. In fact our rates of violent crimes are reduced. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

Yes, I did see that homicide rates rose in 2004.

"Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before. Police reported 622 victims of homicide, 73 more than last year. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec accounted for most of this increase. The rate of 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 population was 5% lower than it was 10 years earlier." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still_Boreas, the only thing I am not falling prey to is this contradictory spin of horse pucky yourself, Hm0504, and Mark are trying to get me to believe.

is that your problem with the DP? that we might execute an innocent person? You seem to fall back on that line all the time. Can you provide one solid and bonofide example of this being done?

Following your logic, we should abolish cars, for automobile fatalities are considerable. Yet, you willing accept those risks, and those fatalities for a personal convenience.

I just don't buy the puff of paranoia that you are presenting, while you willingly accept deaths that can be measured in the thousands with absolute impunity as long as we don't harm murderers.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Dana Jackson:


is that your problem with the DP? that we might execute an innocent person? You seem to fall back on that line all the time. Can you provide one solid and bonofide example of this being done?



I can, although I'm not able to point you in the direction of any information at this time, but the now infamous "Craig and Bentley"case is the one attributed with the abolition of capital punishment in the UK.
The case involved two youth's involved in armed robbery, one youth below the age allowed for capital punishment had the gun, the other was hanged, but some doubt was caste over the whole case when it was re-examined after the lad was hanged.

More info HERE (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm)

As a result of one case where hey got it wrong, we now have prisons full of evil people who should never be allowed to walk the streets again, what is the point of that, string 'em up I say.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

The Death Penalty Claims Innocent Lives

Since 1973, more than 120 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 innocent defendants were released from death row.


“I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life… Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.”
-- Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, in declaring a moratorium on executions in his state, after the 13th Illinois death row inmate had been released from prison due to wrongful conviction. In the same time period, 12 others had been executed.

Examples of wrongful convictions

North Carolina: Charles Munsey, died in 1999
Sentenced to death and spent six years in prison for a crime to which another man had confessed. He won a new trial shortly before dying in prison.

Virginia: Earl Washington, pardoned in 2000
Spent 17 years in prison before receiving a full pardon. DNA testing proved his innocence of the rape and murder for which he was convicted. Washington, who suffers from mild mental retardation, came within one week of execution in 1985. He was released from prison in February 2001.

Arizona: Ray Krone, released in 2002
Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence.

Illinois: Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003
Sent to death row on the basis of "confessions" extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment.


Factors leading to wrongful convictions include:

Inadequate legal representation (especially for the poor who can not afford proper legal defense)
Police and prosecutorial misconduct
Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony
Racial prejudice
Jailhouse “snitch” testimony
Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
Community/political pressure to solve a case


The Death Penalty Is Not a Deterrent

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data showed that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average.
The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.

Rather than show evidence of any deterrent effect, research studies reveal that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect:
Researchers did a comparison of murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder in Oklahoma between 1989 and 1991, and found a significant increase in murders (both felony and non-felony) after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium.

Researchers Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides in 293-paired counties. Pairings were based on: geographic location and demographic and economic variables; a shared contiguous border; differing use of capital punishment. The authors found higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.

[Sanslines]

Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been inmates with reasonably credible claims of innocence who were nevertheless executed, some without a full review of those claims. In 1992, for example, Roger Keith Coleman made headlines with his dual plea that he was innocent and that no court would review his evidence.40

Coleman's representation at trial was shoddy. On appeal, his new attorneys misread the state statute governing the time for submitting an appeal and filed their brief a day too late. The Virginia state courts held that this late filing was the same as no filing and refused to review his issues. The federal courts then said that he could not raise a federal claim because he had waived his state review. Finally, the Supreme Court said that he could not complain that it was his attorney who erred, since he was not entitled to an attorney in the first place.41 Coleman was executed without a full review of his innocence claims.

Leonel Herrera may have been innocent, but he was not innocent enough to satisfy the Supreme Court.42 A former Texas judge submitted an affidavit stating that another man had confessed to the crime for which Herrera was facing execution. Numerous other pieces of new evidence also threw doubt on his conviction. Still, the Court said that at this late stage of his appeal, he needed an extraordinary amount of proof to stop his execution. He was executed in Texas in 1993.

Another kind of innocence was illustrated in the case of Jesse Jacobs, who was executed in Texas on January 4, 1995.43 Jacobs had been convicted and sentenced to death after the state had put on evidence to show that he was the actual killer in an abduction ending in murder which also involved a co-defendant. At the later trial of the co-defendant, the state reversed its story and said it was the co-defendant, not Jacobs, who pulled the trigger. In fact, the prosecution used (and thus vouched for) Jacobs's own testimony that he did not do the shooting and did not even know that his co-defendant had a gun. The co-defendant was also convicted, though not sentenced to death. Despite the admission by the prosecution that the arguments they made at Jacobs's trial were false, Jacobs was executed.

Jacobs was not innocent in the full sense of the word. He had admittedly participated in the underlying crime, but it is doubtful that the jury would have sentenced him to death if the prosecutors had acknowledged that he was not directly involved in the actual murder. Three Supreme Court Justices were highly critical of this deception on the prosecution's part. Justice Stevens wrote: "It would be fundamentally unfair to execute a person on the basis of a factual determination that the state has formally disavowed. I find this course of events deeply troubling."44

Senator Arlen Specter, an ardent death penalty supporter and former district attorney, was also distressed at this development, and in addressing the Senate he warned against such impositions of the death penalty in "a callous or unreasonable fashion."45 The European Parliament likewise passed a resolution expressing "shock" at this execution; there were no votes opposing the resolution.46

The recent execution of Coleman Wayne Gray in Virginia is another example of improper state tactics used to tip the balance toward a death sentence. At the time of Gray's sentencing hearing, the state circumvented the rules of disclosure and at the last minute raised the prospect of other notorious offenses by Gray (even though he had not been charged in these alleged offenses). With no chance to adequately refute these allegations, Gray was sentenced to death. Federal District Court Judge James Spencer found the state's action unfair, but found himself constrained by the new Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 from granting Gray any relief. He wrote: "One cannot morally support the death penalty without some assurance, by evidence or faith, that the ultimate penalty is imposed fairly." Gray was executed on February 26, 1997.47

Does the System Work?

The fact that so many cases of innocent people on death row have been overturned could convey the impression that the appeals system in capital cases prevents a fatal mistake from being made. However, a review of why many of these mistakes were discovered leads to a very different conclusion.

Randall Dale Adams's innocence was primarily established when an independent film maker, Errol Morris, went to Texas to do a documentary on the infamous psychiatrist who repeatedly testified for the state that each defendant he considered presented an ongoing threat to society and hence should be executed. The course of that documentary took an unusual turn when the real killer confessed to the crime. The resulting movie, The Thin Blue Line, was a critical factor in Adams's release.48

Clarence Brandley was convicted of murder and rape in a racially charged case in Texas. Fortunately, the civil rights community mounted a major effort to prove his innocence, and a 60 Minutes documentary added to the considerable doubt about the veracity of the original trial. Brandley was exonerated, but such resources, though critical, are not available to most death row defendants.49

Kirk Bloodsworth was exonerated in Maryland because DNA testing became available years after his trial. This was a fortuitous scientific development, not the normal workings of the appeals process.50

Similarly, recent reversals such as those of Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez, Verneal Jimerson and Dennis Williams were all helped by the development of DNA testing. In the case of Cruz and Hernandez, the state continued to prosecute them despite the fact that another man had confessed to the crime and the evidence against them was unreliable. One assistant in the Attorney General's office resigned rather than continue the prosecution of these men. But the state pressed on, partly under the guidance of a prosecutor who became the State's Attorney General. Now both inmates are free, with all charges dropped. Three former prosecutors and four police officers have been indicted for obstruction of justice in this case.51

Fortunately, Cruz and Hernandez were assisted by an excellent defense team, including experts from Northwestern University Law School and well-known author Scott Turow. Considerable media attention over many years also aided the defendants in this case. Clearly, if their appeals had run out four or five years after their convictions, they would be dead today instead of free.

Verneal Jimerson and Dennis Williams were involved in another Illinois case involving four defendants. All have been freed, and the state has admitted that it prosecuted the wrong defendants. The breakthrough came when a journalism professor, David Protess, assigned the case to some of his students. They reinvestigated, discovered that the wrong men had been convicted, and supported their findings with DNA testing.52 The journalistic review process worked well--the appeals process had not.

Conclusion

The risk that innocent people will be caught in the web of the death penalty is rising. The increased rate of discovery of innocent people on death row is a clear sign that, even with the best of intentions, the criminal justice system makes critical errors--errors which cannot be remedied once an execution occurs. Courts are allowing executions to go foward even in the presence of serious doubts about the defendant's guilt. The current emphasis on faster executions, less resources for the defense, and an expansion in the number of death cases means that the execution of innocent people is inevitable.


How can a so called justice system tolerate executing innocent people? Are those who are wrongly killed considered 'acceptable casualities' in the application of capital punishment? Is the capital punishment system 'perfect' with many checks and balances or are mistakes made?

[usmc1]

Sanlines, a very good post.

And the truth is that you have barely scratched the surface of all the reasons against the death penalty. Mistakes are a powerful reason against, as are the fact that it lands disproportunately on the poor, is applied differently in separate jurisdictions, is arbitrary, and its imposition is often incredibly torturous.

For me, and no one ever really engages the debate from this angle: Do we want to cede to the state the power of deciding who lives and who dies, and for what reason?

In the early years of the Iraq war (years, folks, years-- do you catch the irony of that?) there were enough frenzied people out there who would gladly imposed the death penalty on traitors such as I who were speaking out against it. It is not entirely far-fetched to think that we could tip into a scenario where death could be applied to "criminals" who resist or oppose state actions.

Unfortunately a significant amount of people driven by the emotions generated by the horrors of crime confuse retribution with justice abd ask the state to do the work for them.

The strange thing is that most of those who so strongly support the death penalty also identify themselves as conservatives. They somehow fail to understand how contrary to conservatism the death penalty really is---vesting total power in the state (government).

[Naturist Mark]

Mark, the severity of sentances in Singapore compared to the lax sentances in the US and Canada is probably the difference. Actually is the difference.

Don't seem to understand what exception means. The severity of sentences in the US is very high compared to most of the world, particulary the 'first world'. No nation in the entire world has more of its residents behind bars than the US. I you were right, the US would be the safest nation in the world. Unless the Singapore example is an exception.

Exception.

By the way, Hong Kong - which retains its British style justice system and is far more free wheeling than strictly regimented Singapore has a little more than half its crime rate.

I think you may need to look at deeper cultural factors - like social conformity and economic mobility - to explain crime rates.

-Mark

[Pete Knight]

In these days of high tech forensic sciences it should be possible to conclude without doubt the guilt of anyone charged with a crime serious enough to warrant the death penalty, unfortunately it is corruption and incompetence in the legal system that results in anyone being executed for a crime they did not commit.

The police and prosecuting authorities are driven to produce results, unfortunately justice just does not enter into the equation, whereas securing a conviction does. Over this side of the herring pond the police are judged on their "clear up" rates, so any conviction is seen as a good conviction.

There are, of course, other factors in the equation that cast doubt on many convictions, but the underlying factor is the ultimate goal of a secured conviction.

I still consider the death penalty to be a good deterrent, and an excellent way to reduce the prison population.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

I still consider the death penalty to be a good deterrent, and an excellent way to reduce the prison population.


Pete,

Just curious why you think that the death penalty is a good deterent when most factual evidence indicates otherwise? Th death penalty might deter in a few cases but in so many cases (as I have indicated above) it is not a deterent. Is there any factual analysis out there that indicates that the death penalty is such a good deterent? Suppose an innocent man or woman is wrongly killed for a crime(s) that he or she did not commit. Is this a price that society is willing to pay? 30 years ago we also thought that the death penalty was based upon fantastic state of the art technologies that could prove beyond a shadow of doubt the guilt or innocence of someone. Eventually new technology came along that vastly improved upon guilt and innocence (and proved the innocence of many on death row). Are we prepared today to say that our technologies are the best that will ever exist and that there will not be vastly improved future technologies vis a vis guilt or innocence?

As for reducing the prison population, our prisons are full of people who have commited non capital offenses. The percentage of inmates on death row is miniscule compared to the overall prison population. The only way we will vastly reduce the prison population is to change the laws to administer the death penalty for non violent crimes such as drug offenses. Do we really want to do this?

[Pete Knight]

Sanslines

I don't believe that the death penalty for crimes less than murder or rape to be the right and proper way to go, but we have, in Britain, a number of murderers of such notoriety who have spent their entire lives in prison, and one in particular 'Ian Brady' has tried to kill himself by refusing to eat, he has been force fed by the prison authorities. What is the point of keeping these people alive if they are never to be allowed to mix with decnt human beings.

Brady, and his accomplice Myra Hindley (She died in prison.) killed several children, they took pleasure in torturing those children, and the body of one child has never been found, despite pleas to Brady to reveal the location of the body. Ask the mother of that missing child what she would like to do to Brady!!

There are, and always will be cases where the crimes are undisputed, and so heinous that the perpetrators will never be allowed to walk free again, that being the case they should die for their sins, and crimes against humanity.

Whilst I'm unable to furnish you with documented evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, I would suggest that the rise in violent crimes is directly related to the soft touch sentencing we are experiencing here in Britain.

Facts, figures, statistics are merely words and numbers on a page that can, and are interpreted differently, by people with differing views, I see a growing trend in violent crime in my country since the abolition of the death penalty, and the prisons are overflowing with inmates. The criminal element are no longer afraid of authority, the number of repeat offences in violent crimes is truly frightening, only this week have we been informed that murderers have escaped from an open prison, the question being raised by our media is "What were they doing in an open prison in the first place.

May I ask you this question:
Why do we put dangerous criminals in prison? Let me answer that one for you, its to separate them from and protect the honest, right thinking citizens left outside. If a felon is so dangerous that he/she can never be allowed to walk free for the safety of the general populace, what is the point in keeping them alive.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
Sanslines

I don't believe that the death penalty for crimes less than murder or rape to be the right and proper way to go, but we have, in Britain, a number of murderers of such notoriety who have spent their entire lives in prison, and one in particular 'Ian Brady' has tried to kill himself by refusing to eat, he has been force fed by the prison authorities. What is the point of keeping these people alive if they are never to be allowed to mix with decnt human beings.

Brady, and his accomplice Myra Hindley (She died in prison.) killed several children, they took pleasure in torturing those children, and the body of one child has never been found, despite pleas to Brady to reveal the location of the body. Ask the mother of that missing child what she would like to do to Brady!!

There are, and always will be cases where the crimes are undisputed, and so heinous that the perpetrators will never be allowed to walk free again, that being the case they should die for their sins, and crimes against humanity.

Whilst I'm unable to furnish you with documented evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, I would suggest that the rise in violent crimes is directly related to the soft touch sentencing we are experiencing here in Britain.

Facts, figures, statistics are merely words and numbers on a page that can, and are interpreted differently, by people with differing views, I see a growing trend in violent crime in my country since the abolition of the death penalty, and the prisons are overflowing with inmates. The criminal element are no longer afraid of authority, the number of repeat offences in violent crimes is truly frightening, only this week have we been informed that murderers have escaped from an open prison, the question being raised by our media is "What were they doing in an open prison in the first place.

May I ask you this question:
Why do we put dangerous criminals in prison? Let me answer that one for you, its to separate them from and protect the honest, right thinking citizens left outside. If a felon is so dangerous that he/she can never be allowed to walk free for the safety of the general populace, what is the point in keeping them alive.

Pete Knight

Pete,

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if you read my above posts. In a perfect world with the best of intentions, some god like person would decide what crimes are worthy of the death penalty. Then, this perfect god like person would objectively determine if this person was completely guilty of such crimes and carry out the death sentence. Unfortunately, we do not have a god like person who is perfect. At least in the USA, we are dealing with an imperfect system. My posts above detailed many of the problems with the capital punishment system along with hard data that demonstrates that the death penalty is not a deterent to crime. For your edification:


American Incarceration Rates Still Highest In World... And Rising

April 24, 1997 - Washington, DC, USA

, - The number of Americans behind bars has more than doubled since 1985 and now stands at over 1.6 million, according to the latest report from the U.S. Department of Justice.

"America is the world leader in incarceration -- both by number and percentage of population -- and these latest figures indicate that this trend is continuing unabated," said NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup. "Much of this increase is a direct result of the 'War on Drugs.'"

Prisoners in the custody of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government account for two-thirds of the incarcerated population. The other third are held in local jails. California houses the highest number of inmates while Texas has the highest rate of prison incarceration among its state population. The report concludes that, "One in every 163 U.S. residents [is] incarcerated."

"Stiffening penalties against non-violent drug users has led to an explosion in American prison growth," summarized Stroup. "Drug offenders now make up nearly two-thirds of all federal prisoners and more than one-quarter of all state and local inmates."

The above is one major reason why our prisons are full.

Concerning death row in the USA:

The October 1, 2006 report includes the following statistics:

The number of inmates on death rows across the nation is 3,344, a decrease from 3,366 reported on July 1, 2006.

Jurisdictions (having 10 or more inmates) with the highest percent of minorities on death row
- Pennsylvania (70%)
- Texas (69%)

Jurisdictions with the most inmates on death row:
- California (657)
- Florida (398)
- Texas (392)
- Pennsylvania (228)


Source: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, "Death Row USA" Fall 2006.

Thus, 3344 inmates are on death row out of a total prison population of 1.6 million and rising. Death row inmates represent 0.21 percent of the total prison population. Killing everyone on death row will hardly 'clean out the prisons' and so the argument that killing people to make vastly more space for other offenders is obviously not valid.


In addition, as my posts stated above, in the past many on death row were found innocent of the crimes that they were accused of. (From my above post: Since 1973, more than 120 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 innocent defendants were released from death row.) Would you have these 120 innocent people killed in addition to those who are guilty? Can you see how our system is flawed? Your posts above did not address the issue of what happens when an innocent man is executed and I am still curious as to how you feel about that. You are using as an example a man who is obviously guilty of a crime that has been determined to be so horrific that he deserves to die (btw who makes these life and death decisions?). What about those who are wrongly convicted and put on death row? Do we kill them also and say 'so what if we kill a few innocent people for at least we killed the guilty ones too'. At least in the USA, people are not ready to kill innocent people along with the guilty and until a perfect system can be found, I think that we will continue to see very strong opposition to the death penalty.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
...

Facts, figures, statistics are merely words and numbers on a page that can, and are interpreted differently, by people with differing views, I see a growing trend in violent crime in my country since the abolition of the death penalty, and the prisons are overflowing with inmates. The criminal element are no longer afraid of authority, the number of repeat offences in violent crimes is truly frightening, only this week have we been informed that murderers have escaped from an open prison, the question being raised by our media is "What were they doing in an open prison in the first place.

...

Sorry to raise the spectre of "facts and figures", which are apparently as real as faeries and hobgolins, but the homicide rate in Britain is NOT increasing. It remains stable at about 1.6 per 100,000 people -- just over a quarter of what it is in the U.S. which has capital punishment and a huge percentage of its people in prison.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Dana Jackson:
perhaps you (Naturist Mark) should straighten out our Hm0504. He is against policies that are ineffective or worsen crime. I can only assume that he feels putting people behind bars, as you reported in your link, actually increases crime.

Dana, Dana, Dana, you are being silly! I've repeated many times here that a a large part of my opposition to capital punishment is because it seems to increase, not decrease, major crime.

I don't think you would take a genius to figure out that Naturist Mark are very much on the same page when it comes to this issue.

With regard to your last sentence, how many times has been pointed out that the US has the highest homicide rates in the Western world AND maintains the highest imprisonment rate in the whole world!

[Sanslines]

.........With regard to your last sentence, how many times has been pointed out that the US has the highest homicide rates in the Western world AND maintains the highest imprisonment rate in the whole world!

A repeat of the above facts as posted above:

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.


The number of Americans behind bars has more than doubled since 1985 and now stands at over 1.6 million, according to the latest report from the U.S. Department of Justice.

"America is the world leader in incarceration -- both by number and percentage of population -- and these latest figures indicate that this trend is continuing unabated," said NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup. "Much of this increase is a direct result of the 'War on Drugs.'"

From another above post:

"Facts, figures, statistics are merely words and numbers on a page that can, and are interpreted differently, by people with differing views......."

I don't know how the above 'facts' can be assumed to be 'mere words' and open to interpretation.

[Boreas]

Dana said: Still_Boreas, the only thing I am not falling prey to is this contradictory spin of horse pucky yourself, Hm0504, and Mark are trying to get me to believe.

is that your problem with the DP? that we might execute an innocent person? You seem to fall back on that line all the time. Can you provide one solid and bonofide example of this being done?



Let me state this simply Dana since you seem to be having difficulty understanding well articulated post written by other posters. You also seem to be having difficulty understanding what I am saying. Here is my view put in very simple terms that you might even be able to understand.

1. I believe murder is wrong.
2. I believe that capital punishment is a form of murder.
3. Since capital punishment is a form of murder (in my opinion), it is wrong.

Do you understand that?

Furthermore, I am not for protecting murderers or other violent offenders. Saying that I believe they should not be executed is not the same as saying they need to be protected.

usmc said: The strange thing is that most of those who so strongly support the death penalty also identify themselves as conservatives. They somehow fail to understand how contrary to conservatism the death penalty really is---vesting total power in the state (government
Brilliantly stated usmc.

And yes, that is my final answer.

[Pete Knight]

Its not a case of playing god, making life or death decisions, but one of eliminating unstable elements from society so that the decent people can live a safe and happy life. I get so damned annoyed when I hear of the liberal do gooders moaning about the infringement of civil rights of someone who took the life of human being that didn't deserve to die.

I don't suggest indiscriminate stringing up of all and sundry, but those that had no regard for human life deserve no regard in return.

I have an 11 year old daughter, if any harm came to her I would dedicate my life to making sure that the perpetrator got their just rewards.


Pete Knight
A concerned father.

[Naturist Mark]

I have an 11 year old daughter, if any harm came to her I would dedicate my life to making sure that the perpetrator got their just rewards.

I don't think any parent would feel differently, but that is vengence, not justice.

A very few can set aside their feelings to approach the tragedy in accordance with their moral beliefs - the parents in the Amish school house massacre being a notable (and exceptional) example of the few who can. Justice is not properly an outlet for vengence.

-Mark

Excellent posts, Sanslines

Allie

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have an 11 year old daughter, if any harm came to her I would dedicate my life to making sure that the perpetrator got their just rewards.

I don't think any parent would feel differently, but that is vengence, not justice.

A very few can set aside their feelings to approach the tragedy in accordance with their moral beliefs - the parents in the Amish school house massacre being a notable (and exceptional) example of the few who can. Justice is not properly an outlet for vengence.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if justice is properly served the right thinking citizens would be able to go about their daily lives without having to worry about their loved ones being harmed by those people of lower morale standards, who I believe should be removed from society on a permanent basis. I wouldn't need to seek revenge if my daughter is safe, therefore the removal of the offenders from society will facilitate a safer neighbourhood.

How many children have to be murdered by any one person before you think they should be strung up? We have had cases of known child molesters who went from molestation to murder after serving a prison sentence, some vile people are unable to control themselves, society should control them with a noose.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have an 11 year old daughter, if any harm came to her I would dedicate my life to making sure that the perpetrator got their just rewards.

I don't think any parent would feel differently, but that is vengence, not justice.

A very few can set aside their feelings to approach the tragedy in accordance with their moral beliefs - the parents in the Amish school house massacre being a notable (and exceptional) example of the few who can. Justice is not properly an outlet for vengence.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if justice is properly served the right thinking citizens would be able to go about their daily lives without having to worry about their loved ones being harmed by those people of lower morale standards, who I believe should be removed from society on a permanent basis. I wouldn't need to seek revenge if my daughter is safe, therefore the removal of the offenders from society will facilitate a safer neighbourhood.

How many children have to be murdered by any one person before you think they should be strung up? We have had cases of known child molesters who went from molestation to murder after serving a prison sentence, some vile people are unable to control themselves, society should control them with a noose.

Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pete,

You are obviously angry, very emotional, and not yet able to take a few steps back and really understand what others are saying here. Both Mark and USMC are saying the same thing and I agree with them: USMC: " Unfortunately a significant amount of people driven by the emotions generated by the horrors of crime confuse retribution with justice abd ask the state to do the work for them." Mark: "......but that is vengence, not justice."

No one is advocating to allow murderers and other violent felons back out onto the streets so that they are once again free to victimize more individuals. No one is advocating being 'soft on crime'. There is a much larger picture then just killing murders and this picture is something that you are not seeing in your emotional approach to this topic. The approach to any problem solving is to gather reliable information, analyze that data, and then come to a logical conclusion. In this case, I have presented much data to show that killing those on death row will not clean out the prisons as claimed, will kill innocent people (because of insufficient safeguards built into the system), and is not an effective deterent to crime. In addition, there are many moral issues that must be taken into consideration. You have swept all of this aside and just want to kill those who have killed - plain and simple. Are you advocating real justice or just plain vengeance? (Justice: advocating fairness, righteousness, etc. Vengeance: the return of an injury for an injury, as in retribution or revenge.)

As an aside, in the USA we can't build prisons cast enough for the ever increasing number of drug related felons that are being sent to prison. Even with the strick and severe prison sentences imposed on drug offenses, the number of prisoners continue to increase rapidly. Therefore, a reasonable thing to do is to ask if this is the best approach to solve the drug problem, explore other options, and rationally and realistically face the drug problem.

Real justice involves determining what is fair in an unemotional and impartial manner. Justice involves implimenting that which produces desirable results for society and measures those results in an honest an impartial manner without dismissing all results as 'mere words on paper that are open to interpretation.'

All parents want their children to be kept safe. At least in the USA, we have many problems reaching this goal. Many of our solutions are not working very well and it is reasonable to consider finding a better way to accomplish this. I just don't think your approach to what basically amounts to mass killings of people will accomplish anything other then the act of carrying out pure vengeance.

In response to your specific statements and questions:


" How many children have to be murdered by any one person before you think they should be strung up? We have had cases of known child molesters who went from molestation to murder after serving a prison sentence, some vile people are unable to control themselves, society should control them with a noose."

No one is advocating to allow such individuals to be free to roam the streets to harm more children. However, killing such individuals is not the only solution. In states that do not have death penalties, sentences are imposed that involve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Those who receive such sentences will never be let out again to harm anyone. You may very well not agree with this approach, but it is really up to society as a whole to decide what is real justice and what is pure vengeance.

[usmc1]

A year or so ago, NPR had an outstanding radio series on the effect the death penalty has on those you ask to exact it; the wardens, guards, chaplins and executioners and witnesses of one year of exectutions in Texas.

No one should comment on the issue until they hear those voices.

If we are to continue to impose state ordered death, I would suggest that those prosecutor's who demand it, those juries who impose it, and those judges who sanction it should be the ones to carry out the execution -- not third parties.

Taking a human life, even in self-defense or as an act of war or in a legal execution destroys something within you that can never be restored. One can find forgiveness, one can find peace, but one never, ever recovers that which was lost.

And I ASK AGAIN, DO YOU PEOPLE WHO SANCTION THE DEATH PENALTY REALLY WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DECIDE WHO LIVES AND DIES FOR WHAT REASON? Think hard and carefully about that. History changes, times change and our veneer of jsutice is very damn thin, as that dry-drunk sociopath in the White House has demonstrated over and over. And remember that people were once hung for taking firewood from the King's forest.

[Pete Knight]

I'm not seeking revenge, I just don't want the remotest possibility that my beautiful daughter should suffer at the hands of some perverted, sadistic arsewipe. Over here they are letting people like that out of prison because they THINK that they have been rehabilitated only to have them kill or rape again, something of an expensive experiment isn't it?

Why waste tax payers money on incarcerating vile people for their natural lives, better to string them up and save a few cents. My daughter is more important to me than any civil rights crap.

Pete Knight

[Boreas]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
I'm not seeking revenge, I just don't want the remotest possibility that my beautiful daughter should suffer at the hands of some perverted, sadistic arsewipe. Over here they are letting people like that out of prison because they THINK that they have been rehabilitated only to have them kill or rape again, something of an expensive experiment isn't it?

Why waste tax payers money on incarcerating vile people for their natural lives, better to string them up and save a few cents. My daughter is more important to me than any civil rights crap.

Pete Knight

So what are you going to do about the ones who have not been caught yet and so therefore do not have a record yet? That does happen too. One of our most famous prisoners (Paul Bernardo)and his ex-wife (Karla Homolka) were both blond haired blue eyed "beautiful people" (gag) who no one suspected....before they were caught. They did some horrific things as "regular citizens".

[Sanslines]

Over here they are letting people like that out of prison because they THINK that they have been rehabilitated only to have them kill or rape again, something of an expensive experiment isn't it?

If they are letting out such people, then the obvious solution is to find out why and to stop letting out such people. Your solution is to start killing people and from what I gather you don't seem to care if innocent people are caught up in this killing spree. Pete, you need to realize that the innocent have families too and their family members care about them. How would you feel if one of your family members was killed by the state for crimes that he or she did not commit?

Why waste tax payers money on incarcerating vile people for their natural lives, better to string them up and save a few cents. My daughter is more important to me than any civil rights crap.

Because human life is worth something and no normal human being will advocate killing people to 'save a few cents'. Hey, while we are at it, why not kill off the handicapped too. Think of all of the money we can save that way!
Let's start doing what the Nazi's did and kill off all the undesirables.

Obviously this topic is degrading to silly nonsense and any sort of reasonable discussion is becoming more and more remote.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
I'm not seeking revenge, I just don't want the remotest possibility that my beautiful daughter should suffer at the hands of some perverted, sadistic arsewipe.

it would seem to me that if you want to minimize the chances of any such harm coming to your daughter, then you would be for lifelong imprisonment and against capital punishment

[Pete Knight]

Why should I as a tax payer have to fund the lifelong incarceration of someone who has taken a life, besides which there is an appalling wave of liberalism in Britain at the moment and some serious offenders are being released only to commit murder yet again, so how many innocent people have to be sacrificed before our government comes to its senses?

I'm not suggesting that all convicted murderers are strung up, just those where the conviction is solid, and the crime so heinous that they can never be released, so better safe than sorry I say string 'em up.

How many members of your family buried before their time would it take to get you to change your mind?

Remember, I'm not a victim, so revenge is most definitely not my motive, but I'm not prepared to sacrifice my children for the sake a social experiment by the namby pamby do gooders playing Russian Roulette with our lives.

That's my final word on the subject, I think you know where I stand on capital punishment, and whilst there is the slightest chance that my family are at risk my stance won't change.

Pete Knight

[nacktman]

Why does the images of a whip, a dead horse and a beating keep playing over and over in my mind as I peruse this thread?