your views on saddam hussein. should he have gotten the death penalty?

Question

or should he have gotten a life sentance to suffer in jail. he was 79.... he probably wouldnt have much longer to live anyways.

do you even agree with the death penalty?

Answer 1

I'm against death penalty because it's only about vengeance (or retribution whatever you want to call it).
The case Saddam Hussein is a perfect example: this guy is a clear monster, but what good will it do to kill him? Nothing.
When you are thinking about putting someone on death row, you should think if this would make the world better or worse. It's rarely better, and in the case of Saddam Hussein, this will be worse: in the last years, most people are dying because of an endless cycle of revenge.

Answer 2

No. The death penalty brings society down to the level of the evil ones which it is trying rid itself.

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.

Answer 3

Why do people talk so much about making people 'suffer' for their crimes? What exactly is the point apart from making oursleves more like them?

Justice is about justice....determining who has been done wrong and by who.

Saddam was a brutal ruler in an area that has lived by brutality for a very long time. He was ruler..he was the law. Period. Thats why the trial was a farce. They killed him anyway.

Afghanistan is another example of the West's 'good intentions' going horribly wrong. What has happened in Iraq is no suprise to many.

Hate to say it but Saddam was doing a better job

Answer 4

Excellent question!!

I personally favor the death penalty for multiple murderers, child killers and tyrants like Saddam.

However, if the death penalty were not an option in his case, a wonderful punishment would have been to keep him in a cage in the middle of Baghdad, Iraq, with only enough food and water to survive. Then the people he terrorized and tortured could do what they wanted with him; a wide variety of things.

Answer 5

He ruled a country in a region,where being meek and mild is despised,where only the strong survive,where liberals fear to tread.He is a Sunni, the US backed him when he was at war with IRAN(Shiites), SAUDI ARABIA (Sunnis)and the US friend in the region wants to check Iran's influence in Iraq. TURKEY does not want the Kurds to get autonomy and it is also ISRAEL'S and the US partner. SYRIA is helping IRAN destabilising IRAQ, LEBANON, ISRAEL and PALESTINE. SADDAM HUSSEIN bears the same trait as the other leaders in the region and is particularly interesting when in the BIBLE (GENESIS 16:10,11,12) it describes the descendants of Ismael, who are the people of this area, "And he will be a wild man, his hand will be against every man and every man's hand against him

Answer 6

i think of that I straddle the fence in this one as a results of fact on the single hand Saddam did very hideous issues to his own human beings and could have been punished for them. on the different hand I observed this broken previous guy who not had any ability or posed a danger to all and sundry. i think of like the different butcher milosovic he could ultimately have died in penal complex and that i could have been comfortable with that.

Answer 7

noooooooooooooooo absolutely noo.
actually george w. bush should be hanged b'coz he is the reason behind the death for a president of country for a reason (of weapons of mass destruction) which is false.
saddam hussein might have not been a good president but he had not cheated his people like bush had.
i feel very sorry for saddam.he deserve better than this

Answer 8

it doesn't matter what i think
the atrocities of maiming torturing killing and starving perpetrated by this maniacal megalomaniac of his own people and at his own whim for 2 decades gives the Iraqi government the right to decide and his hypocrisy of carrying and quoting the Koran through out the trial and execution and his supposed utterance of Mohamed as his last words is sacrilege

Answer 9

I'm really torn about the death penalty. On the one hand I don't think that governments should endorse murder, but on the other, if my wife or child were ever intentionally hurt or killed by someone, I would kill them myself. But like I said, I don't think the government should endorse murder. I know its a bit paradoxical, but hey, there are no black and white choices in a world of grey.

Answer 10

I think he should have been sentenced to death. Death by hanging was a good choice because he was against it. He wanted to be shot. I just think it should have been done in public so everyone could have thrown rocks at him first!