2006-12-27 07:31:28 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
It is not archaic for that region. It's all about standard and if you look at the present situation, you may notice that the modern age is more violent than the older days.
I'm talking about countries such as Iran, where women are stoned to death for committing adultery; or countries like Saudi Arabia where thieves get their hand cut off.
In order for the hanging to have been considered archaic, Iraq would have needed a more humane treatment of prisoners and criminals, equal to the one of Western Europe or North America. Ironically, one of the reasons why Iraq did not develop itself into that direction is because of Saddam. He had many people abused and it's a shame the court couldn't prove more of his crimes against his own people.
For our standard, it may be considered archaic, but that goes for that entire region.
2006-12-27 09:32:14 · answer #1 · answered by wizzard_bane 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hussein's hardly leader of any country, not since we toppled his government. I think it's more archaic to think that you shouldn't execute a (former) leader if he or she committed crimes your country's laws declare should be punishable by death.
The US has decided that hanging falls under "cruel and unusual" punishment. I'm not coming down on any side about this, because most ways to execute someone are rather grisly. Yeah, hanging isn't always quick, but neither is electrocution or lethal injection. In fact, I just read an article about a lethal injection gone horribly wrong. There were chemical burns. The distinction between those and hanging seems to me rather like the distinction between alcohol and marijuana- why should one be legal and the other not? How is one worse than the other?
2006-12-27 15:39:16 · answer #2 · answered by random6x7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing archaic about it, it's not like they are stoning him to death without due diligence of justice. The man was tried in court and was found guilty by his own people.
2006-12-27 16:52:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it's not. He wasn't an elected leader. Not in a free democracy anyway. He is a deposed dictator. Lots of evil dictators met their demise this way. He was toppled, and he ain't even the leader of his own rear end right now.
2006-12-27 15:41:23 · answer #4 · answered by Travis R 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Archaic yes and its not being done in America...like electric chair is better?
2006-12-27 15:39:42 · answer #5 · answered by Countess Bathory 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if a president murdered a person, not to mention groups of people, then i think the majority of the country would be supportive of the death penalty.
i would be there to cast the first stone.
2006-12-27 15:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by snocy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
people'd probably have more respect. we have a president claiming to be from the wild wild west but isn't even close. I'm not advocating the hanging, I'm like wow, couldn't even be a firing range? but hey
2006-12-27 15:33:42 · answer #7 · answered by smm 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋