I read in the newspaper today that the timing of his Hanging was technically illegal by Iraqi law. The reason for this is that it happened during Eid ul-Adha, a Sunni holiday. Originally he was supposed to be hung before the start of it, but for whatever reason they were late. Also I'd like to point out that if the trial had managed to last till Saddam's birthday in April he couldn't have gotten a death sentence due to him being over 70 at that point.

Still I'm glad he isn't wasting our atmosphere.

If my life or that of someone else faces immediate, mortal peril at the hands of someone else, I will interfere, and if it results on the death of the attacker, so be it.

Otherwise, no, never kill. I've yet to see proof that a dead criminal's memory "fades faster" than that of one sent to prison for life. Conversely, I've yet to see any reports that killing a child molester/torturer will help the victims heal. Our laws are all based on punishing those who violated the rights of others, and by fear of punishment they hope to curb such actions but in no way do they really prevent them; the first thing the Law does is revoke certain rights of the perprator (like freedom), but taking the life of the perpetrator is pointless. "What about the rights of the victims? Where's the outrage for the violations of their rights?" Last time I checked, the outrage appears in the news, and the violation is what moves Law enforcement against the perpretator, to capture him, deprive him of his liberty and make him pay amends for his wrongdoing in other ways. Obviously some of you are perfectly okay with demanding his life in payment even when the criminal didn't take a life; well, some of us are not okay with that. Why? Because it doesn't fix the wrong; NOTHING will fix the wrong; even in such a crime where amends can be made (like financial fraud or something) nothing can take away the feelings of rage and hurt the crime inflicted on the victims. OJ Simpson owes a ton of money for his conviction on the murder of his ex-wife and her friend; even if he paid ten times that, it will not return the victims to life nor take away the pain and suffering of the victim's families, the damage is done and nothing will put things to rights again. And if it doesn't fix I fail to see the purpose to take a life when simply keeping the culprit away from society will do. Why? because it's revenge, and I don't condone it. It is a part of human nature, yes, but not everything about human nature is good nor should it be encouraged; I believe the desire for revenge, no matter how deeply rooted in our psyche, is one of the reasons the world's as fucked up as it is and we'd be better off without it. The species has shaken itself up from other destructive behaviors, so it stands to reason this one can be shed too. You might not like, approve or even understand this point of view, but it is on a surprisingly large number of people share, and it cannot be discounted. Go check the news, the US population is once more shying away from the death penalty, the same is happening on other countries. It is a paradigm shift that will take place over many years, one grave at a time, but I'm confident the need for capital punishment will eventually fade from the human psyche.

Jex, neither does any form of punishment "fix the wrong." The wrong is unfixable; nothing can "repair" it. Criminal law can exist to for one of or both of two reasons: retribution and utilitarianism. The first punishes for having chosen to do wrong; the second removes from society only so long as is necessary to prevent further harm, and involves no punishment.

"but taking the life of the perpetrator is pointless." Hardly. It is the ultimate deprivation, just as living itself is the ultimate freedom. Keep in mind that punishment isn't designed to make victims "heal"--it's the concept of vengance as filtered of its excesses and blindspots through the state's system. Your objection is a moral one, not one about pointlessness. Don't overreach.

I will deal with your sad conception of revenge in a bit.

For now, let me clarify the illegality of Saddam's execution for look...; the muslim calendar is a weird weird thing. First, Eid ul-Adha is NOT a sunni holiday; it is a muslim holiday. Sunni's celebrate it one day earlier than Shi'ites. For the minority to which Saddam's party belonged, Eid ul-Adha did begin on the day of his execution. BUT the day of his execution isn't defined by 1200am for purposes of Eid ul-Adha; these people want to invoke the holiday but discount its meaning. Eid ul-Adha only begins at SUNRISE on its given date. He was, as they ensured, dead well before dawn. Even if he hadn't been, I would say that the Eid ul-Adha date of the ruling power (Sunday, not Saturday) should determine executions.

sick joke i've read some place else...

"for 500 billion $, i would have expected better image quality..."

am i sick if i find that very funny?

There's fantastic image quality in the unreleased official version :)

Thanks for clearing that up for me Lecter. I was wondering why I haven't heard more of a fuss about it. Also I completely forgot that the Muslims consider sunrise to be the start of the holiday, not 12AM. It clearly was not sunrise when he was hung.

Upper Case no your not sick; I found it hilarious too.

Ok...

I chose my words very carefully, Lecter. Like upper case, I think that any killing is, if not unjustified, then unfortunate to the extent that it validates a investigation if it was in fact justified (I deem self-defense to be an example of a justified killing, or, for that matter, killing a person to prevent further loss of life, like for example the shooting of a person who has taken another hostage and is directly threatening to kill said hostage. This is by no means meant to be exclusive and exhaustive.). Premeditated killing of a person is, at least in my book, never justified, not even, or rather, especially not if it was out of revenge. You say that one person, avenging the wrong sustained from another person, is justified in demanding the execution of the latter, and you also say that the right to vengeance is an inalienable human right. I see a problem with that, since the right to live is also a human right, I think, and those two would be in direct violation of one another, at least in a large percentage of the cases. However, I am no student of the law, so I might be very wrong about this.

Secondly, I do not debate the fact that any punishment is retributive. That is, as you correctly say, the meaning of punishment. This is not conflicting with my stance on capital punishment, however, since I do not believe in the 'eye for an eye' approach.

Also, I agree with jex's post.

And I stand by my original post.

Was I somehow unclear when I said that vengance, as part of Justice, is no longer the province of individuals? When I expressly stated that it was the exclusive province of the State? Or when I noted that, like all social contracts, the State has to uphold its end of the bargain in exhange for individuals parting with the right to arbitrate and deliver Justice?

And the 'right to life' is not, never has been, absolute.

Finally, you accept the validity of Justice including punishment but disagree with 'eye for an eye'. Are you not thinking this through clearly? If the criminal is rehabilitated in a year, isn't life in prison just the same thing... an eye for an eye? How dare the system indulge the vengeful wishes of hoi poli by locking that poor murderer/rapist up for one second longer than is necessary to reform them?!

Hey Dr Lecter,

I just wanted to say I really liked the amount of deep thought you have put into the issue. Thats very cool.

----

And hello everyone,

If we must kill tyrants and those who support them... err. . . what about when the US and many other civilized nations were supporting Saddam, during the cold war? When he was butchering Iranians?

Just wondering.

Also , what about all the innocent people who get killed by the death penatly? If its wrong to kill the innocent, doesnt that make society wrong?

Hey there, ananzi. I don't think the fact that innocents are being executed should count as an argument against capital punishment, since if you consequently applied that to the legal system, punishment would have to be abolished, since innocents do get convicted, there is no way around it. It is very sad that innocents die, but it is also sad if an innocent is being locked up for life, or sentenced to undergo treatment for a crime not committed, altering his or her life in a way such as to destroy it.

Lecter,

No, you were not unclear, I simply forgot to include the powers that be. In any case, I stand by my opinion that vengeance must not be the reason for punishment, no matter if it's an individual exacting it or a group of people, be it the commune, the state, or the entire world. Punishment is intended to hopefully have a lasting effect, disrupting the criminal behaviour of the convicted, or at least that's how I perceive it. If it does not do that, the punishment failed, and the person might transgress again if released. That is why sometimes persons are 'locked away for good', to protect society from him or her, but it should not be to satisfy a desire for vengeance.

Secondly: If someone is imprisoned for a duration that is longer than the time it takes to reform that person, that is unfortunate, but if it is within the law and cannot be altered within it, the state has to obey it. This has nothing to do with 'eye for an eye', it's bureaucracy, if you will. After all, the person who transgressed was sentenced for the duration because of the transgression, not solely in order to reform. See also the previous paragraph in this post.

"there's nothing to be gained by the death of the culript but slake the thirst for payback."

You do realize that execution is (ideally) much more economic than keeping them in jail for life, right?

Why would killing him be preferable to keeping him locked up for the rest of his life in a prison like a common criminal? Have him killed in the prison in some way if it was imperative for him to die (although this reeks of vengeance, not justice).

Two reasons.. 1) Who the hell wants to pay taxes to keep this asshole alive? 2) You think the Iraqi's would have allowed him to stay in the USA indefinitely? No.. they'd want him on their soil... where, unfortunately, since they can't even stop supplies from Iran and Syria from reaching the terrorists, he'd be broken out.. quickly.