in my opinion ...he should have been put in jail for the rest of his life forbidden from sun light and night time untill the day he dies alone in the darkness of his cell instead of suffered few seconds by being executed like that.
2006-12-30 03:19:07 · 14 answers · asked by Gabex17 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
the problem with that is future terror attacks for his release. Not to mention jails that you are speaking of are outlawed in most nations, especially the US. Today you have to have cable tv and a certain amt of yard time. You must be catered to and the govt. (most likely US) would have to foot the bill. Granted I think hanging was a little easy on him.
2006-12-30 03:23:09 · answer #1 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
December 29: Vatican official says executing Saddam would be wrong: http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5865506&nav=menu83_2
December 30: Vatican spokesman denounces Saddam's execution as 'tragic': http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-12-30-vatican-saddam_x.htm?csp=34
Jesus, John 8:1-11, spares a women guilty of adultery whom the Mosaic Law said should be stoned to death.
If the guilty person's identity and responsibility has been fully determined then non-lethal means to defend and protect the people's safety from the aggressor are more in keeping with the common good and the dignity of the human person.
The Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives.
However in today's modern society, the capability of rendering the offender incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
With love in Christ.
2007-01-02 16:45:35 · answer #2 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A small part of me agrees.
The large part of me, though, thinks that I kinda wish death sentences were carried out that quickly in our own country, instead of someone being executed after spending 30 years on death row.
I think in the case of Saddam Hussein, the quick death made sense for one main purpose: if something were to go wrong, if the Iraqi people who supported him were somehow able to find a way to free him, if they overturned the baby government there, if he's dead, there's no way for him to be out again. If he were in prison for the rest of his natural life, there's always a remote possibility of escape.
I wouldn't have minded him suffering more in some way. Personally, I think a gas chamber woudl have suited him perfectly.
2006-12-30 03:25:04 · answer #3 · answered by CrazyChick 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yesterday, I would have agreed with you as I believe that life imprisonment is the worst form of punishment. However, this morning, when I found out that we were finally rid of this beast of a man, I found myself to be thankful. We no longer have to wonder about where he is or what he is doing. Because, of course, if he had received the life sentence, he would have found a way to escape, lets face it, the man hid in a hole for ages! In no way do I support murder and I am definitely worried now for the people of Iraq, but I am glad he's dead..
2006-12-30 03:41:03 · answer #4 · answered by Steph C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well actually, he wanted to be shot instead of a long painful death but iraqi officials decided to torture him. If he was executed in the us however; he would have to be killed fast so it wouldn't break the laws of cruel and unusual punishment.
2006-12-30 03:29:59 · answer #5 · answered by flylikepowell 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's yet another symptom of our barbarian baseness. The world still has too many death-mongers. And on a practical level, it was probably a dumb political move. But why break with our "victorious" traditions?
2006-12-30 03:30:45 · answer #6 · answered by JAT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had thousand of gallons of tremendously centred organophosphates, (nerve brokers), and warheads that have been shown to have been packed with those comparable nerve brokers. It became written off as insecticide. That begs the question, Are the cockroaches in Iraq relatively so massive which you ought to shoot them with a 120MM cannon, loaded with the chemical equivalent of 500 gallons of RAID?
2016-11-25 00:50:25 · answer #7 · answered by cantabrana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why waste the money to keep him alive?
Nothing wrong with an eye for an eye in some cases.
2006-12-30 03:23:53 · answer #8 · answered by bradxschuman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know how many Iraqis and Iranians are happy about his death? A man like that doesn't deserve to breath so it was necessary.
2006-12-30 03:26:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why didnt you all stop Pol Pot?
Go into North Korea now and get Kim's head too.
2006-12-30 03:23:34 · answer #10 · answered by SHIH TZU SAYS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋