English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

I think they should have given him a much more professional and dignified execution. The aftershocks of this video circulating among the Sunni community could far outweigh any benefit his execution will bring. This just shows that Iraq has not progressed from the tyranny that was shown under Saddam Hussein's rule, and that the country is primed and capable of atrocities and reprisals even greater than we are seeing now.

By chanting "Al Sadr" to Hussein, with the noose around his neck, it showed that the executioners considered this Shiite revenge. They could have gotten away with this had it not been broadcast around the world.

Since Hussein was himself a mass murderer, I don't mourn for his death but will say that keeping him alive until after the civil war is over would have made much better since.

2007-01-01 10:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 0 1

I oppose the death penalty in the United States. Here are some of the facts about it-

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States that have the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not.

Capital punishment costs far more than life without parole. And a great deal of the extra cost has nothing to do with appeals.

More and more states have life without parole, which means what it says. Being locked in a tiny cell, for 23 of 24 hours a day is no picnic. Where this is the maximum sentence, the costs are many times lower.

The system is very error prone. DNA is not the answer. It was used to prove innocence in very few of the over 120 cases where people on death row were shown to be innocent. Most of us would regard the execution of an innocent person as intolerable, so we provide for appeals of death sentences.

Death sentences can be very hard on the families of murder victims. Every time the case is appealed, they have to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift, and rarely appealed. Many victims’ family members do not support the death penalty for these reasons.

Supporting a common sense approach to how we punish murderers and how we respond to depraved acts does not mean we condone either. The death penalty is just not a smart way to deal with crime.

As for the execution of Saddam, only time will tell if it makes the situation in Iraq better or worse. Judging from news stories about it, it may actually increase sectarian violence in Iraq. The rush to hang him has actually deprived many of his victims the chance to have their stories told. That is an injustice.

2007-01-01 11:20:48 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1 0

Some very, very good answers above!

Personally, I do not believe in the death penalty in any way. We, IMHO, do not have the right to take anothers life for any reason.

Even a convicted monster like Saddam should have been jailed 'forever'. He would not have wanted this! Death gives him the opportunity to live on in some of his people.

Me thinks that this was not well thought out. His name will not die as quietly as he did.

Happy New Year!

The OL' Sasquatch Ü

2007-01-01 12:00:23 · answer #3 · answered by Ol' Sasquatch 5 · 2 0

I am strictly against the death penalty. It is just too inhumane and gross. While Saddam was a tyrant, I am not sure that the people now ruling Iraq are any better, perhaps even a lot worse.

2007-01-01 10:45:57 · answer #4 · answered by seek_fulfill 4 · 1 0

It is an interesting thing to me to note that the majority of people who oppose the death penalty support abortion. Kill the innocent, but not the guilty. Good idea.

There are crimes so heinous that the person who commits them needs to be removed from this planet in order that the rest of humanity may move on. Take for example a person who sodomizes and murders little kids. Or a serial killer. Does society benefit from keeping such a person around? Do they serve a purpose? Do they have redeeming value simply because they are biologically human? I don't think so.

Some people, by virtue of their actions, forfeit the right to life. We do not put people to death to demonstrate that killing people is wrong as one person said. That is, of course, stupid. What we do is remove them from the gene pool. We remove the possibility of their escape (Ted Bundy), or parole, furlow, or other official type release (Willy Horton). We put them in a hole in the ground because society as a whole is safer, and better off, with them there.

2007-01-05 11:50:58 · answer #5 · answered by elricsfate 2 · 0 0

i think saddam made his own laws and the laws he made applied to everyone except him. He forgot to include that law in his laws that it did not apply to the president. So the irony of all this he was convicted by his own people with his own laws... Its a sad situation when a person is put to death. I think it was planned out very good. The USA did not try his case. He chosed to be tried by his own laws. I think he was just a "scape goat " another words a "front" for the bigger picture that is there.

2007-01-01 11:04:06 · answer #6 · answered by bankone1111 5 · 0 0

I think the death penalty is warranted in certain instances. As far as Saddam Hussein's death--what the hell difference does it make? Did it save American lives--no. Did it save taxpayer dollars--no. Did it do ANYTHING to get us out of that Iraq mess--no.

2007-01-01 10:42:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i do not agree with the death penalty think it does not belong in this world as a form of punishment but think that life should mean life if they have done very bad things and all human rights should be taken off them a kind of back to basics no nice beds with tv in there rooms and good food straight out and give them slop and bread

2007-01-01 10:53:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I don't believe in the death penalty.

I am also not totally convinced that it was Saddam that was hanged. He had many doubles when he was president to protect him from assassination. He was given the backing to become so powerful from the U.S. government and C.I.A. help, and the C.I.A. could easily set him up with a new identity for the 20 years of service he gave to the U.S. before he went rogue.

2007-01-01 10:57:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

kill and be killed.. I don't think hanging was painful enough.. No death penalty is painful enough.. I am so sick of hearing about how the death penalty is inhumane and the prisoners shouldn't suffer when they die. BS.. when r we going to start focusing on the victims.. I have never heard of a victim being killed that didnt' suffer in some way or another. they didn't care about how much the victims suffer..why do we care how much they suffer.

2007-01-01 12:00:17 · answer #10 · answered by chilover 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers