sohkmj1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 yes, he should have been hanged, but not by the usa you see, usa has no right to just walk over and say to saddam "hey you have to be hanged." no, if he was to be hanged, at least let it be by his own ppl just my few words... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 He was hanged by his own people. ish. Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Also, It is being said, he died as a "hero". His hair had jell, he was wearing nice clothes, he responded peacefully to the other people who were about to hang him. In Iraq, some people believe he died as a hero. Being Iraqi, I agree with the way he was killed. Giving him a gunshot to the head would be what he wanted. We are not going to give this criminal what he wants! :-X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futurama Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I think they should have mustard gassed him to see how he fricken likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I think they should have mustard gassed him to see how he fricken likes it. Or they could have put him in a cage to rot in the middle of Baghdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 yes, he should have been hanged, but not by the usa you see, usa has no right to just walk over and say to saddam "hey you have to be hanged." no, if he was to be hanged, at least let it be by his own ppl just my few words... It was his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusqi Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 why were they let out if they had a possibility of murdering again? That's something to ask the parole board. I agree. The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed. I would need to double check the actual numbers but I agree too much money is spent on people sentenced to death. This could be corrected. There are many ways to accomplish this without increasing the risk an innocent person would slip through the cracks. You said: The death penalty does not discourage murders. Why? 1) because many murders are committed when people are beyond reason, such as murdering a cheating spouse. 2) because many murderers are psychopaths, who think they can beat the police and that it is a game. 3) because many murders are committed by people with mental problems who also do not stand to reason. Reality and statistics say this: "The swift and certain application of the death penalty throughout the early years of the century brought murder into a steady decline. The peak in homicides occurred in the 1930s--generally associated with Prohibition. Executions also peaked across the country in 1935 at 200 (roughly four per state). After that point, the murder rate dropped steadily. As homicides fell, the number of executions followed them down. By the early 1960s, capital punishment was applied only in a few well-publicized cases. Still, the concept of "going to the chair" was fixed clearly in everyone's mind. By 1963, the murder rate was triumphantly low. Then a fatal miscalculation occurred. Convinced that the problem of felony murder had been solved forever and that it was now "barbaric" to continue executions, liberals mounted a campaign to abolish capital punishment. By 1966 there was a de facto moratorium in nearly all states, and in 1971 the Supreme Court overturned all existing death-penalty laws. But at zero executions, the predictable happened. Beginning in 1966, the rate of murder skyrocketed, soaring by 1980 to more than double the 1963 rate. Moreover, this was not just a broad, general rise in murder. "Crimes of passion" stayed virtually the same. Almost the entire increase was the result of an explosion of felony murder. http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-death051601.shtml As to my point about the death penalty saving innocent people's lives here are some statistics. "As Prof. Paul G. Cassell pointed out in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 1993: "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following those convictions. Executing each of these inmates following their initial murder conviction would have saved 821 innocent lives." No, we should all agree that the world is a better place when men like Saddam aren't able to kill anyone. There is no need to kill him ourselves to show everyone that killing is bad. So say they imprison Saddam in Iraq. Then in 10 years all troops are gone from Iraq and the new Iraqi government is toppled. Saddam gets released and takes power back. How many people is he going to kill? I watched a show profiling Saddam tonight and he was averaging 100,000 murders a year of his own population when he was in office. Now imagine how many he would kill if he had actually been overthrown and regained power? It would be a bloodbath. All of this is now prevented because he and his sons are dead. It isn't about some kind of macho blood lust. It is about paying the penalty for the crime committed, preventing future violence, and protecting what would have been future victims. Some random bullets, because I've had many death penalty debates in the past and I consider the debate to be over. 1) arguments against the death penalty, including cited research (for the UN, not just some reporter's article) showing that the death penalty does not deter crime any more than other punishments. And also some stats on innocent people who have been released after being put on death row. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng 2) "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following those convictions. Executing each of these inmates following their initial murder conviction would have saved 821 innocent lives." But then there would have been 52,000 dead people. That doesn't bother you, because you think that once a murder has occurred then that person is irredemable. After all, if 810 were there because they killed again, that means that there are potentially 51,190 that previously got out of prison and didn't kill again. 3) Saddam won't get out if the American government does what it says and stabilises the country. 4) "some people view capital punishment as justice" - yes, justice in the sense of "an eye for an eye". That's called revenge, which is what I said. 5) "too much money is spent on people sentenced to death" less money spent = more innocent people dead by mistake. 6) When you look at the countries that have the death penalty, they're all ones that you don't want to be associated with when it comes to human rights. "In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA." 7) Oh, and for those that don't think it is blood lust in America and wanting to see people dead, I encourage them to look into the case of Kenny Richey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Richey - who has spent over 18 years on death row in Ohio, and keeps getting batted between various courts, because America knows that he's innocent but doesn't want to admit that they screwed up and locked someone up for 18 years with pathetic evidence. Even freaking Pope Jean Paul II has called for him to be released. For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.The time when the living and the dead exist as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redserpent4 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 3) Saddam won't get out if the American government does what it says and stabilises the country. It's pretty obvious that they are failing in those attmepts so far. For the Western governments, Saddam's trial was a difficult one, America and Britain should not have influenced it (whether they did or not i do not know) and certainly his final sentence was best chosen by an Iraqi court, as indeed it was. The thing to do now for America and Britian would be to worry less about whether the trial was fair and whether it should have been carried out differently and to worry more about how on earth they are going to help set up the democracy they want with a civil war appearing to seem more and more likely with each passing day and each passing bomb or gunman's attack against other Iraqi's. The country is tearing itself apart and if Bush wants to retain any kind of credibilty as the leader and defender of the free world, he needs to sort the mess he made out over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 4) "some people view capital punishment as justice" - yes, justice in the sense of "an eye for an eye". That's called revenge, which is what I said. That is an improper characterization of the American justice system, actually. The death penalty is not handed out for someone who kills someone else, that would be "an eye for an eye." In order to receive the death penalty, the criminal has to do something that goes beyond just murder. If you put someone in jail for life, why is that not revenge? The only reason is because YOU don't believe that it is revenge, you see that as justice. No matter how long the person is in jail, no matter what kind of reeducation the person receives, it is still an act that is being done in response to the crime. That is either revenge, or justice, depending on your belief - and just because you think capital punishment can only be thought of as revenge doesn't mean it is. People can very easily see what you view as acceptable punishment to be nothing more than revenge, but that doesn't mean its so. You do not have the sole authority to define the difference between revenge and justice, so quit pretending you do. Accept that fact that although you think it is wrong, vengeful, and nothing more than blood lust, other completely rational people see it as justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusqi Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 You put them in jail because they are unable to function in society properly. You give them time, help, and the teaching to make them understand what they did wrong, and change so that they are able to function. Maybe some won't understand or change, but at least you're attempting to be constructive. You don't put someone in jail for revenge, or for punishment. These are decadent and morally childish ideas. For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.The time when the living and the dead exist as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 You put them in jail because they are unable to function in society properly. You give them time, help, and the teaching to make them understand what they did wrong, and change so that they are able to function. Maybe some won't understand or change, but at least you're attempting to be constructive. You don't put someone in jail for revenge, or for punishment. These are decadent and morally childish ideas. That is a belief, an opinion, that you hold. It does not make it truth just because you say it. There are people who believe that justice exists, and that capital punishment can be just, just because you disagree, doesn't make it untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 You put them in jail because they are unable to function in society properly. You give them time, help, and the teaching to make them understand what they did wrong, and change so that they are able to function. Maybe some won't understand or change, but at least you're attempting to be constructive. You don't put someone in jail for revenge, or for punishment. These are decadent and morally childish ideas. That is a belief, an opinion, that you hold. It does not make it truth just because you say it. There are people who believe that justice exists, and that capital punishment can be just, just because you disagree, doesn't make it untrue. Matters such as capital punishment in the end come down to opinion. Some think it's justice, others think it's revenge. Niether is right nor wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 No one deserves the death penalty, except maybe the million plus killers like Stalin and Hitler. Suddam should of just gotten a lifetime prison sentance. Everyone has a right to life, and excecution in barbaric. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 No one deserves the death penalty, except maybe the million plus killers like Stalin and Hitler. Suddam should of just gotten a lifetime prison sentance. Everyone has a right to life, and excecution in barbaric. Just my 2 cents. Some estimates put Saddam's death total at over a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Everyone has a right to life, and excecution in barbaric. I find it ludicrous to think that the very rights Saddam abused (right to life), people think it is good for Saddam to have hidden behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 If that's true, then I agree with yeh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
games_sneak Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Now don't get me wrong, i'm not calling Saddam a hero, but I believe his death was very heroic. I believe he definatly did deserve the death sentence. Whoever filmed the execution is seriously sick, as is anyone who chooses to watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Now don't get me wrong, i'm not calling Saddam a hero, but I believe his death was very heroic. I believe he definatly did deserve the death sentence. Whoever filmed the execution is seriously sick, as is anyone who chooses to watch it. I watched the footage avaliable on youtube. Not because i'm 'seriously sick' as you suggest, but because I was curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBoab Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Don't you think it's just a liiiittle bit hypocrytical, though? I mean I understand the crimes he committed were completely unacceptable but even so, you can't say he's not allowed to kill and then kill him. :? And it seems as though they're simply satisfying everyone's need for peace with a bit of violence. Though he probably would have escaped anyway. And as for those who were purposefully looking for videos of the death - I was absolutely disgusted. People want to watch a man die? That was really surprising. well think about it this way. if he had killed YOUR mum. YOUR dad. YOUR family. YOUR friends, would u let him walk about the street? no. you'd want him dead too, and dont deny it. the reason i disagree tht the death penalty should remain out of the justice system is what i just stated, because do-gooders like urself have ruined the world. My photobucket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 There was nothing that really could have been done "right" with Saddam. If we let him live in a jail cell, eventually he could run resistance cells. We can't post a guard to watch him 24 hours a day without angering the resistance. Killing him also angers the resistance. It's a lose-lose situation. At least he met the laws of his own nation. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alperbacon Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Wierd. He killed hundreds people. Think about there familys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issy2 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I think they should have mustard gassed him to see how he fricken likes it. But if we did that, we'd be hypocrites. :-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLOWSTORM Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Why would we be hypocrites for gassing him? What ever happened to letting the punishment fit the crime? Do you know how many people he gassed? I think we should not be so afraid of being called "Hypocrites" that we fail to do what is right. Governments execute people after due process of law finds that person guilty. There is nothing wrong with that. That's the difference. He was found guilty by a court of law. Hundreds of thousands of the people he murdered were not. When you are learning, you are growing. If you stop learning, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you die. Train hard, eat fried chicken, and take a one-a-day. (And cook that broccoli 'til it's yella and pour cheese all over it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I think they should have mustard gassed him to see how he fricken likes it. But if we did that, we'd be hypocrites. :-k Do you believe that it is okay to fine people for speeding, littering, or other small offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issy2 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I think they should have mustard gassed him to see how he fricken likes it. But if we did that, we'd be hypocrites. :-k Do you believe that it is okay to fine people for speeding, littering, or other small offense? Well, not really... Meh, I dunno. I'm not sure. Yes and no. Why, what's it got to do with hanging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now