|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
Saddam is killed
As you all know, Saddam Hussein was killed last night. You all know my thoughts on the death penalty. And this case is no different. Saddam was an evil man - one of the worst. And he committed terrible atrocities. But killing him does NO good. Not one person that Saddam killed has come back to life. Not one family has had the damage repaired. All it does it quench the thirst for vengeance. And people will continue to die in Iraq. And the cycle of violence continues. UPDATE: At least one church/denomination is speaking up. From the Catholic Church:
And from Human Rights Watch:
And from Jesse Jackson:
I long to have an American politician step up and say that the execution is wrong. Is anybody willing? Comments, Pingbacks:
Well, I admire your consistency on the issue, even though I (may) disagree.
If there were ever a justified case for the death penalty, it was this one. To me it boils down to Justice vs Compassion. His death does not bring anyone back - but it does punish him for doing the things he did. If there were ever a justified case for the death penalty, it was this one.True, but that still does not justify it. To me it boils down to Justice vs Compassion.But is it really justice? Should not justice lead to good? Should not justice lead to good? Are you advocating a form of consequentialism? Is there no punishment for wrongdoing?
Refraining from killing a wrongdoer does not mean that there is no punishment. Why do you see only these two possibilities?
Henry...a Jen stated, there are more than two options. There are many punishments that can lead to good. Death is not one of them.
Jen, you have forced those two possibilities upon me. I did not even begin to try to say there were only two possibilities. Dave seemed to assert that only justice that bring about good results is real justice. That seems to strike out punishment as a whole.
The execution was controlled just like the sentencing days before the election.
3,000 soldiers just died... and hardly anyone is paying attention. It's obviously fixed. Shit is about to hit the fan when the new congress convenes. They need as many distractions as possible. mho, it's worth considering.
It seems to me that if one thinks there should be a punishment for crimes, then with crimes at the magnitude of his, it might warrant a death penalty.
Now, one can argue that this was not for the whole of his crimes, only the ordering of the deaths of, I think 183 people, and for that perhaps the death penalty is not warranted. I think this is an excellent test case for the death penalty. It shows the consistency of Dave's principles. It forces someone like me, who does not like it in its flawed practice, to pick one side of the fence. Anyone remember debating with your friends or schoolmates if Hitler should have been executed? Here is a real life case of it.
Comment from: gringo [Visitor]
 · http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/31/ap/politics/mainD8MBJL1O2.shtml 01/01/07 @ 02:01
 Permalink
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/31/ap/politics/mainD8MBJL1O2.shtml
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/31/MNGL3NAR3O1.DTL&feed=rss.news
Dave,
You speak of his death fueling the thirst for vengeance. What if (and I recognize that I am dealing in a what-if) keeping him alive fueled more violence than if he were to be killed? Then should his captors, the Iraqi government, kill him? What if keeping him alive fueled more violence than if he were to be killed?Well...that is a huge what-if. And I think you would have a very difficult time justifying how that would occur. But no, I still would not say that he should be killed. First, killing him is more violence. Second, I cannot justify violence with more violence. It seems to me that if one thinks there should be a punishment for crimes, then with crimes at the magnitude of his, it might warrant a death penalty.I am not sure where you go from punishment to death. Why is death the likely logical outcome of crimes having punishments?
Comment from: gringo [Visitor]
· http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6224173.stm 01/02/07 @ 11:41
Permalink
Comment from: gringo [Visitor]
· http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/02/1526255 01/02/07 @ 11:48
Permalink
The Hanging of Saddam Hussein: A Roundtable Discussion on International Law, the U.S. Role, the Kurdish Response and the Media's Glossing Over of U.S. Ties to Saddam - DN! - 02JAN07
Gotta love it (or hate it) when those in favor of the war and the execution "gloss over" or turn their heads when convenient at US foreign policy. Willful ignorance, hypocrites. Gotta love those who allegedly honor honesty, "values", trustworthiness, transparent government. Bastards.
What, then, is violence? Is not holding people against their will violence? Is not any kind of punishment violence of some sort?
Now, I am sure that you, Dave, would say that the termination of a person's life is at the extreme end of the amount of violence done to a person. (Now, I realize that it may not be the worst, prolonged torture is more than likely worse than death.) Since any kind of violence can (although not always justly) be used as punishment, then it is at least possible that for the worst kinds of crimes, the worse types of punishment should be used. Is not holding people against their will violence? Is not any kind of punishment violence of some sort?Sure, I could agree with that...but you and I both know that there is a very clear difference between the "violence" of imprisonment and the "violence" of torture or death. it is at least possible that for the worst kinds of crimes, the worse types of punishment should be used.I just don't buy the "eye for an eye" argument. Should we steal from those who steal? Rape those who rape? There is no question that different crimes should receive different punishments. But I do not think that you need to go to the level that the worst crime deserves the worst punishment.
wanted to share this comment about the following story: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10275
That floor speech is from a former Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate. Now, I know some of us claim to be libertarians or what have you or some hybrid something or other (I've lost count these days) but the fact is: The Iraq Occupation is not "conservative" or "libertarian" thinking. It goes against the very premises of their thought... does this make them "liberal"? Will Bush supporters undercut Rep. Ron Paul? I guess what gets me is that while you two are focused on the consistency of the death penalty there has been no talk about the timing of this execution and how it will in fact make things worse. There has been no talk from Henry in regards to US foreign policy looking the other way when Hussein committed his atrocities, the memory hole on Powell's admitting the UN presentation was a "blot" on his record, LTC Wilkerson's (Powell's Asst. Chief of Staff) admitting that "intelligence" was exaggerated and fabricated. And the only rebuttal I can be sure of getting is that "The WMDs are in Syrian now..." allegedly. Please, do me a favor and talk about the real issues. Yeah, the death penalty is bad... but that's not the real issue here, imho. It's a failed foreign policy of which to my surprise some are still holding on to. The timing of this is absolutely impeccable and quite obvious as such was his sentencing. Leave a comment:
|
Support
the mindful mission friends recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
