I think that question answered for itself. I mean, come on, don't you read the news...every day more and more people are dying in Iraq and most Iraqis say times were rough but better under Saddam because at least you could go to the store without worrying about getting blown up my a mortar of a car bomb.
2007-01-18 06:27:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Agata 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think ending a life because he ended the lives of other is too easy. It serves as a warning to others, yes but it certainly doesn’t stop the problem. I think that the punishment should be more severe and have a greater impact for those who suffered.
A simple example would be to place someone in servitude for the rest of their natural lives, have them work everyday to make the lives of their victim’s families better. A by work I mean, hard labour, building roads, cleaning and rebuilding the cities they damaged. By just ending SH’s life, what has really been achieved?
2007-01-25 23:43:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The execution of Saddam Hussein was not intended, or expected, to motivate in itself anyone to stop acting violently. The execution of Saddam Hussein, if anything, was tantamount to the excising of cancer from someone's body. He was poison and as long as he was around he affected those around him and the entire world community. Now that he is dead hopefully it can represent the end of that horrible era and Iraq, and the world, can move on.
2007-01-18 06:29:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by griffon1426 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll answer this question with the assumption that when you say punishment you mean execution.
Well it prevents it in the sense that you've executed someone so they can't commit more violence themselves, but isn't a solution because others who disagree may retaliate with more violence. It is also is hypocritical to say "don't kill" and then commit the same crime you've said was bad. I believe that capital punishment isn't they way to go. You can punish without lowering yourself to a criminals level. I mean you have to make it clear to someone who's violent that they've done something wrong and that you don't approve but extremes are not going to solve the problem. I understand that not everyone can be rehabilitated but that doesn't mean they should be given the satisfaction of dying when they believe it will make them a martyr.
If Capital Punishment was truly just then after the criminal is killed the executioner should be killed for committing murder. And this his executioner should also be killed and so on and so forth. It's infinite regress in it's most hostile state.
I think for punishment to be appropriate criminals should be given life in prison. But they shouldn't be given TVs and exercise machines; it's not supposed to be livable, it's supposed to be prison.
2007-01-18 06:39:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by emilypye 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Capital punishment might want to or gained't stay away from crime. except the elementary genes differences the criminals will be persevered to be criminals. yet capital punishment is critical for eliminating the criminals from the society and safeguarding the sturdy human beings. yet, obviously, as reported in till now reply possibility free ought to no longer be punished. inspite of if small doubt exits capital punishment ought to no longer be resorted to.
2016-11-25 01:41:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by pfeifer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Generally talking "Do not fight fight with fight"..In his case the timing was disrespting the celebrating Eid ul-Adha. Eid ul-Adha is one of Islam's most important holidays, which celebrates Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael to Gode.Muslims holy months which prevents them to excute any one in these months maily the day of their Eid. Timing was wrong but excution could be made later.Voilence create more vioence but in his case this can not be called violence but still the timing is wrong.
2007-01-25 15:33:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kenzy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
well statically yes when capital punishment was happening the crime rate was not a quarter of what it is now. people thought twice about their crimes. now its just oh he has a bad attitude ill just shoot him, i shoot her cause she has ginger hair, i will go to eBay or e books and buy a gun they are only one hundred pound , i can rob the corner shop police are too busy under the thumb chasing cars cause the big boss is getting paid more money from the mafia to keep it sweet you know ..... the authority government had control over the country .what have they got now? i mean it makes you think ,
2007-01-25 15:38:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by troublesomlou 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think punishment makes you more angry. The reason people do horrible things to others is because they are angry. They are acting out their anger. To punish them leads to more anger. Just check the jails. Most are full of repeat offenders. Jails are places to go if you want to learn more ways to hurt others. You don't learn anything good in jail. It is better to understand why a person offended in the first place and to teach them it is wrong to take out your anger in this way. Stealing is an offense. People steal because they want something and don't know how to get it properly. Their morals and standards are not up to par for some reason. Will they become better if they don't get taught why it is necessary to have morals and standards? I doubt it.
2007-01-18 06:36:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by olivia 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Given that many people are rational actors, yes. If you make consequences severe and likely, you will prevent violence.
I'm a sig owner and will do what is necessary to protect myself. Knowing that, would you break into my house when I am there?
2007-01-25 14:19:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by SigGirl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Punishment is just that, punishment. Execution will definitely prevent more violence... As he is dead he can no-longer rape, murder or terrorize anyone!
2007-01-18 06:30:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by oldfatcowboy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋