POLL: What should Saddam's punishment be?

Remove all ads!

Look here are reasons for anyone's punishment (as misguided as some may be);

As a detterent either for the perpertrator him or herself, or for other would-be criminals;

Closely related to this, to serve as a type of rehabilitator, that is, to make one think about their actions so they will not commit an offense again (if the threat of punishment as listed above is not enough);

Or, to pay restitution or make amends for their acts -not every punishment includes inprisonment or death (most in fact do not);

That is, a punishment is supposed to enforce some valuable outcome, some lesson learnt to a criminal et al, or at the very least, to make someone think twice about their actions.

To 'punish' solely out of vengeance, that is, to derive pleasure out of the act, is a great breach of humanity. When you call for someone's death (or for their pain and suffering while still alive) you injure yourself more than you do them. They are dead, they do not have to live with their acions any longer. You are the one who has sacrificed yourself, done damage, regardless of what may have allready been done- it is done, it is over. All we can do is try to make amends, try to work for the future.

To call for blood and pain for someone becasue they have done the same may indeed make you more a monster than they. They have done this presumably to further their own pursuits, their own greed and pride. You are doing it because you enjoy their suffering. Which is worse?

I think chevalier has amply refuted the rediculous notion that he should die simply for not being a US yes-man, or because "he" lost a war against an invading army.

I agree with what Ishmael has said as well, regarding the fact that to make 'an example' of someone specifically flies directly in the face of what justice is supposed to represent.

Also, it is good to keep in mind that the US has formed an alliance with Turkey against the Kurds, those same Kurds which we are saying Saddam should be killed for (let alone the Iraqi Iranian and Kuwaiti citizens that US troops have killed).

If the Iraqi council (as much as lap-dog as it seems to be) decides to order the death penalty, that is their choice. For us to bay for it is another matter entirely. We have not been directly injured, we have no reason to be so angered as to forget that our greatest mandate is forgiveness and compassion. If you have relatives who fought and died in the invasion, you should be looking to your own government. Anyone who tells me they are angered at the insult to humanity is only going to injure me, from extensive fits of laughing that is, as you cannot possibly contemplate that that is true while doing the same thing yourself.

If he was killed the instant he was found, whoever they were that found him, then I would understand, if it were me in that situation I might have done the same. But time has now passed and tempers have had time to, well, temper. Consider the consequences of your thoughts upon yourself before you voice them.

 

I vote for a trial and sentence by a proper legal court.

If he is to die, let it be by a system he despises so much: civilization.

 

Careful up there, it's a long fall off that high horse.

Retribution is an entirely valid theory of justice and you don't really address it. Also, there are reasons one might think the greatest utility is served with his death.

When you imply that others that think differently than you are less human or are monsters, you only hurt yourself. Think about the consequence of your thoughts upon yourself before you voice them.

 

Uhm, if "retribution is an entirely valid theory of justice and you don't really address it", we would have a lot of dead people.

 

Meh, kill him. He deserves it, we all know he deserves it, he knows he deserves it and it'll save some damn money.

We could cover him in cow blood and feed him to rats or something... Or throw him in a vat of boiling sharks...

Trial him if you want, you know his punishment will be death, its your money you're wasting.

 

Firstly he should be made to give back all the money that the US gave him when they sponsored him for the position of dictator of Iraq since he did such a poor job.

Secondly the world's banks should be forced to stop adding interest to their account marked 'IRAQI DEBT'. Then they should be made to transfer all the money from their account marked 'MR HUSSEINS PERSONAL SAVINGS DO NOT TOUCH' into the IRAQI debt account.

Since the banks lent the money to Mr Hussein they should send their debt collectors only after him, and not be indefinitely milking the Iraqi people (who never seen any of the money) for its return.

The banks should negotiate a repayment plan with Mr Hussein, using a manageable monthly repayment scheme. He can sew mailbags in prison to earn the cash for the repayments or write a book about how to be a dictator (Mr Bush can help him out with the stuff he doesn't know).

He could also do an exclusive photoshoot for Hello magazine. A million dollars here and a milliom dollars there will soon add up.

Once the debt is cleared he can gain immunity from further prosecution by testifying against _COUNTRYNAME_ and allowing the GDI, sorry, the USA to liberate _COUNTRYNAME_ from its burden of self determination.

He will probably spend a couple of years in Cuba, a God-forsaken island, with nothing except good weather and great cigars (and good food and a heady nightlife) and where the best hotels have only two stars. Ha! That'll show him.

 

Well, I'm not exactly qualified to go into much depth, as I don't knwo a great deal about any of this, I've really only been following the news stories an the surface and have been to cautious to get into the undercurrent of it all. That said, I say a life term would be good for him, but only if there were some way to get him to realise the damage he has done to so many others. A death sentence would be too quick and of course acquittal just seems insane after going to so much trouble to find the beast. Although, the final sentence should most definitely come from an Iraqi court as their justice system would most likely be best set-up to deal with such people.

 

I think they should do what the English did to Joan of Arc. Make him feel hopelesness and powerless. Let i]him fall into utter despair. After that he will be empty, then you can leave him somewhere. By then he will have lost all reason, and strength to live.

 

Laches. I was not going to respond to this originally, as I thought you were being deliberately obstinate, and that there would be little point in arguing with someone not taking the issue seriously.

However, mayhap you are serious, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You may indeed feel satisfied by dealing retribution, you may even call it justice, but it is not moral and serves no purpose other than to satisfy said urges. I would not talk of utility when discussing murder, but nevertheless, I must ask you what 'utility' you propose to cause by this, and how satisfying retributative emotional desires better provides for this cause than any other means- which is what you say with '...one might think the greatest utility is served with his death."

I agree that many may think this, and I may be incorrect in assuming you that you do as well, but if you do, could you please explain your reasoning, because it truly escapes me.

As Tassadar has allready said, if retribution was so vaild, many more people would be dead. I doubt you would be so eager to accept death, or the death of another you cared for, if that was someones will, if they believed they had been slighted in some way, whether you yourself thought it was just or not it is their retribution to doll.

And yes, I am aware that your closing remark was intended as some sort of sarcastic or insulting irony, but I actually agree with you. I have long contemplated this. Advice is a double-bladed sword. One may be misled, and in advising others cause them too to be mistaken, and thus do more harm than good. And I fear it is also a product of my own arrogance, or pride, or impatience, that causes me to comment so, when I so often say that one should leave others to reach their own conclusions- and indeed, in any matter of consequence this shall be the case. So if I am doing no consequential good, yet serving my own fulfillment of desire, am I not harming myself by voicing these thoughts? Perhaps I am, but I shall take that upon myself and meet those consequences when they arise, for now I believe this is the most good I can do in this manner.

On the issue of morality, well, that would be a heavy discussion indeed, and time-consuming to the extreme of limits if I were to enter into such a heavy philosophical (or theological) debate, especially in those fields where wisdom is so heavily enforced, such as the Buddhist or Vedic doctrines and faith.

Luckily, the majority of participants here seem to be, if not of that background, then most knowledgeable regarding the Christian precepts, in which a useful summary can be found, one upon which we can base most every action.

What I refer to are the seven deadly sins, and seven contrary virtues.

Humility in place of Pride. Kindness in place of Envy. Abstinence in place of Gluttony. Chastity in place of Lust. Patience in place of Wrath. Liberality in place of Greed. Diligence in place of Sloth.

If we treat everything with an attitude of Love and Temperance, then the truth of our actions is revealed. In this light, how does retribution seem? I do not try to paint you a monster, I do not try to attack your character, I understand perfectly why those thoughts may be held, and have oft held them myself. I only say these things because I do care for what afflicts us all, and do not wish to see anyone stricken so.

 

Well, I'm kinda surprised that I feel this way, but I hope that they don't give him the death penealty.

I would love to see him found guilty, sentenced to death, and then have his sentence commuted to life in prison. I think it would be a good thing for Bush to say "look, there's been enough death linked to Saddam. Enough killing in the middle east in general. It's time for us to put away our guns and start rebuilding Iraq."

The funny thing is that I am PRO death penealty. I just got to thinking after I heard the Iraqui's chanting "Death to Saddam!" I find it morbid that I allways hear people chanting "Death to (***insert person or country here)" in the Arab street. Haven't people in the Middle East had enough death?

Anyway, death is too quick and easy for this guy. Lets let him spend out the rest of his days in hard labor and misery.

 

I believe that an eye for an eye is j'ust'. But what is just is only necessarily 'right' in a perfect world. Who hear believes this world to be perfect? If you conceder that we, and such people as we demonise, are a part of it does that reduce it? Can any present evidence, rational or empirical outweigh all that makes this world seem unfair, imperfect?
I am certain there is not one among us, who, as they lost their innocence, did not utter those words ‘Its not fair’. Our world is not perfect. And what is ‘just’ is not always what is right.
We like to believe that what is right comes from some higher power, or is in some other way indubitable and evident to all of us. It is a conceit of the western world particularly to ignore the morals of other cultures.

Utilitarianism brings logic to morality in an attempt to make things as indubitably right or wrong as we wish them to be. It asks what the ultimate motivation common to all people is. And provides the answer. Happiness. The consequence of that answer is that, for a true utilitarian, ‘justice’ is irrelevant. The utilitarians goal is FIRST to eliminate the greatest amount of unhappiness for the greatest number of people, and SECOND to provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
The utilitarian must ask in what manner Sedam might be used to best eliminate unhappiness and best create happiness. They must also not over look that Sedams own happiness is of equal worth to any other persons happiness, whoever they may be, regardless of what crimes he may have committed. The utilitarian is not concerned with justice. The utilitarian is concerned only with the total happiness that action or inaction can bring.

Fpr those who would cling blindly to their theistic concept of justice, to their need for its fulfilment.. Let me ask those people as they quote the words the has bible given them. Let me ask of them its context. Let me ask them if the book states an eye for an eye to be right. Or if as i believe, that it in fact states that, taking more then an eye for an eye is wrong. If i am correct in my recollection Such a statement does not mean that an eye for an eye is right. And let me turn on them an equilly famouse phrase from their holy pages regarding who may throw stones and who may pass judgment.

For those who would believe in inherent evil but not in christian text let me ask you now a question. Is a man made evil through the fabric of his being, by his ‘nature’, or is he made evil by the forces that act upon him, those that ‘nurtured’ him?
If he is evil by his nature then how does the fault lie in him? The fault lies with that which created him, be it a divine hand or the random convergence of molecules.
If he is made evil by the events and situations in which he is placed, how is the fault then his? Is the fault not that of the events that shaped and compelled him to act?
How is a man any more evil then a knife? A knife may have been made to cut bread, or to cut flesh. But it has no more control then a man has over the purpose of its/his design. Just as it has no more control then a man when the forces acting upon it cause it to cut.
Do you condemn the knife when by its edge you are slain, or do you condemn the hand that moves it?

There can be no retribution against the tool of any action. And in one way or another it seems to me that we all must be tools. What some would call retribution i would call unhappy consequence or designe for i can only belive that our choices are limited by are enviroment and made by are nature. They are made for us, through us. We have no choice and no responcobility. Be we praised or pnished it can never be for anything that has originated in us. It can never be our ‘fault’.

Ok let the slaughter of my arguments comence.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

 

Either kill him in a nice, open, publicised manner, or go with Bluin's thing and make some money out of him. I'm sure Saddam could write a damn good book

 

So much as I don't like to say this, I must. It occurs to me a perfect example of American approach to international disputes, diplomacy and PR pertaining to this war and the present crusade, largely descending from the government onto single citizens participating in discussions.

Please, don't take it personal, but it's important that this is dealt with because that point of view is quite popular in Iraqi discussions in AoDA. Preferably dealt with for good, but I'm not this delusional

So, firstly, 'Monsters' is an editor's addition to what Manus originally said. It serves to exaggerate points raised by Manus and prepare them to meet the needs of the opposition and paint a pretty picture of points raised by the opposition. In short, divert attention from what's really important. It doesn't help.

Secondly, Manus didn't claim that who thought differently to him was less human. There is no causative relation between the two. He mentions something he considers not humane. If he disagrees, he can't share that point of view for obvious reasons. Ergo: he is thinking differently. Ergo: those who advocate what he considers wrong, think differently to him. Ergo: those who think differently to him, advocate something less than humane (according to him). Basing on this, you can attribute the sentence "those are not humane because they think differently to me" to just about everyone on this planet who holds a position with which at least one other person doesn't agree. It's just a rhetoric figure and bears no real meaning. Also, the whole 'who think differently than Manus' and 'those are less human' comes from you, Laches, as Manus didn't originally touch this question with a ten foot pole, but he encouraged you to look upon the consequences of your actions and urged you to look into your motives. If that hurt you...

In fact, Manus didn't even frame any conclusion - he didn't make any categoric, general and authoritative statements. He called simple things by simple names, presenting them as he saw them. It's also you who made an extensive set of conclusions attributed to Manus himself.

Ultimately, Laches, it appears that Manus's greatest fault is disagreeing with the point of view your presented in your previous post. That's what provoked personal attack from you. I don't say you were thinking this way, I'm far from it, but it looks like that from what you wrote. Interestingly, that is the thinking scheme you attribute to Manus.

So, I think it would be best now to cool down emotions and focus on what people really have to say without throwing labels around Hope this post helps achieve it.

On a different note, I agree wholeheartedly with Gandhi quote supplied by ctcc42. If we go for eye for an eye justice, what are we preparing for ourselves? Do we really want all our wrongs to come back to us in the same manner? I'm sure everyone would think twice before agreeing here.

 

They should just lock him up in the hole they found him in.

 

ArtE's got it, but here's the twist that would remove whatever remaining shreds of dignity he's got, and completely neutralize him:

Put him on a 24-hr webcam. Let him pick his own lice before the entire world.

For an egotistical maniac like Saddam, IMO there's no better punishment that abject humiliation. Let the world see what he's been reduced to. He'll punish himself.

 

Ummm...hold on...how can we intelligently discuss a punishment when to date there is no conviction? Aren't we putting the cart before the horse...or the gallows before the court house?

If convicted, I like the sound of ArtEChoke's idea, as modified by Rallymama, but I would include one more torment...he should be forced to play Pool of Radiance repeatedly until he dies of natural causes.

[ December 15, 2003, 19:46: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

It's strange, but I agree with Laches. I think that the people he brought suffering to and made his victims should decide his fate. If he is given a fair trial, and the weight of evidence is agianst him and his fate is death - which it should be - then it's pretty much open and shut. The problem is that it may be a media spectacle, which will make it unsavory to say the least.

Oh, and I did comment that it was strange - well, yesterday I discovered that Laches and I might be voting for the same guy for prez. Of course there's a hundred things that have to happen first, including an alignment of the political planets, but - Will Sorcerer's Place ever be the same again?

 

Looking at it from USA's and Iraq's point of view it would be best for them if he where to be put to a quick death. This way one would assume that it would stop any plain high jacking, or terrorist bombings to try and get Saddam free.

Where he to be locked away in some cell all his most loyal supporters wouldn't stop trying to get him free, even though he has lost all of his power. If they don't put an end to him soon, I really wouldn't be the least surprised when USA airlines get high-jacked with the price for the 500 or so people been let go is Saddam's freedom.

Looking from my point of view though, I'm against Death Penalty, to I of course disagree with him been put to death. I think he'd find it much worse if he where to be put into some small little prison cell for the rest of his life. We wonder why he didn't fight back when he was found, could it be that he preferred death to been stuck in a small hole? If that is so, why not throw him into a small prison cell? Seems the logical thing to do.

But then, if that where to happen the situation would turn to what I talked about in the first few paragraphs, so really, it's a no win situation in a way. I guess in the end the best thing would be for a lightning bolt to come down out of the sky and hit Saddam, killing him out right. But it would have to be on TV of course, or else people will suspect something.