Saddam execution order upheld....thoughts?

[Firebird V]

Amen. Well said Stuk.

[Argos]

Sex is just raping, intercourse, child molestation.... it's all the same thing. Yeah, who needs those damn pesky words....

Since you can't mentally parse the specific circumstances causing one act to be different from any other similar act, I will never know or understand you.

And yes, the term "State Sanctioned Murder" is a catch phrase mostly used by secular progressives. The same ones who screamed at Vietnam vets coming home for being child killers, protesting executions, yet want to take your 14 year old daughter to an abortion clinic without your knowledge because it's freedom of choice to kill a baby.

It doesn't have to do with defined circumstances. It has to do with interpretation. Words are nothing but mental constructs we have to express ideas and emotions. If you disapprove of execution and find it barbaric, you consider it murder. Period.

This is very simple. And I'm pretty sure that you understand it and are just arguing for the sake of defending yourself against a "secular progressive assault". If that's the case, I can't help you understand anything about my opinion. But if you'd like me to try and explain why I don't support capital punishment, I'll be happy too.

That is, of course, if the people on this board can consider differing opinions without insulting people and acting like children. So far this thread is looking grim in that regard.

Ah, but you said "in ANY context"! Now you're rethinking it already. You shoulod think of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam, and the millions of their family members who mourn them. Do you think imprisoning him, in a country as unstable as Iraq, is what they want? No, they want him dead, and he deserves it for the depth and depravity of his crimes.

I'm not concerned about what they want--that's not the issue. They're entitled to their opinion just as we're entitled to ours. It's no more acceptable to kill Hussein than it was for him to commit the crimes that he did. Since when do two wrongs make a right? They don't. You teach that to your children, but when emotions come into play, it's out the window.

[wulfe13]

It doesn't have to do with defined circumstances. It has to do with interpretation. Words are nothing but mental constructs we have to express ideas and emotions. If you disapprove of execution and find it barbaric, you consider it murder. Period.

This is very simple. And I'm pretty sure that you understand it and are just arguing for the sake of defending yourself against a "secular progressive assault". If that's the case, I can't help you understand anything about my opinion. But if you'd like me to try and explain why I don't support capital punishment, I'll be happy too.

That is, of course, if the people on this board can consider differing opinions without insulting people and acting like children. So far this thread is looking grim in that regard.




I'm not concerned about what they want--that's not the issue. They're entitled to their opinion just as we're entitled to ours. It's no more acceptable to kill Hussein than it was for him to commit the crimes that he did. Since when do two wrongs make a right? They don't. You teach that to your children, but when emotions come into play, it's out the window.

2 wrongs? I don't believe it's "Wrong" to kill someone that murdered thousands, I think it's the "Right" thing to do! He ended their lives, what's wrong with ending his? They're not killing him because they "think" he might have killed them. We KNOW he did it.

Why is it always wrong to execute someone? How is it barbaric? Why should a murderer deserve to live?

[StukaJU87]

Argos, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

"An armed man bursts into your house. Before you can react, he punches your lights out and ties you up. He then waits for you to come to, just enought to see him execute your family while you watch. Your wife and kids blown into oblivion. Then he politely unties you, hands over the shot gun, and tells you he is done and that he is sorry. He will let you live and wait while you call the cops to come get him."

Having lived through and being witness to that:

Would you rack that 12 Guage and finish business, or call the cops first?

Would you want your tax dollars spent on keeping him in prison at the cost of 25-65 THOUSAND dollars a year? If the money doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it bother you that he is getting 3 hots and a cot. Roof over his head. Free medical care.

All this while you try to maintain your sanity and try to put some kind of life back together.

[rjohnstone]

[monk]

Argos, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

"An armed man bursts into your house. Before you can react, he punches your lights out and ties you up. He then waits for you to come to, just enought to see him execute your family while you watch. Your wife and kids blown into oblivion. Then he politely unties you, hands over the shot gun, and tells you he is done and that he is sorry. He will let you live and wait while you call the cops to come get him."

Having lived through and being witness to that:

Would you rack that 12 Guage and finish business, or call the cops first?

Would you want your tax dollars spent on keeping him in prison at the cost of 25-65 THOUSAND dollars a year? If the money doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it bother you that he is getting 3 hots and a cot. Roof over his head. Free medical care.

All this while you try to maintain your sanity and try to put some kind of life back together.

Where would you draw the line if someone deserves to die or not? Would it matter if your family, instead, was killed when crossing the street, by some random driver who unluckily was blinded by the sun at exactly the wrong moment and could not see them? Or if the driver was in a hurry trying to "find his own killer to kill" and did not care about slowing down when your family got in the way?

[rjohnstone]

Where would you draw the line if someone deserves to die or not? Would it matter if your family, instead, was killed when crossing the street, by some random driver who unluckily was blinded by the sun at exactly the wrong moment and could not see them?

That scenario would be considered an accident. There was no malice or intent to harm. It would be sad, but not a reason to execute anyone.

Or if the driver was in a hurry trying to "find his own killer to kill" and did not care about slowing down when your family got in the way?

That is a criminal act and considered manslaughter or even murder 2.
Not a capital crime in my state. Only a first degree murder conviction will make you eligible to be executed, and there would have to be other conditions that would have to have been met on top of the murder 1 conviction to meet that criteria.

We don't just kill people for the fun of it ya know.
Only the really sick fucks get the needle.
The rest rot on a jail cell for the rest of their lives. The sad part is, they live in better conditions than some of the people that aren't in prison.

[Argos]

Argos, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

"An armed man bursts into your house. Before you can react, he punches your lights out and ties you up. He then waits for you to come to, just enought to see him execute your family while you watch. Your wife and kids blown into oblivion. Then he politely unties you, hands over the shot gun, and tells you he is done and that he is sorry. He will let you live and wait while you call the cops to come get him."

Having lived through and being witness to that:

Would you rack that 12 Guage and finish business, or call the cops first?

Would you want your tax dollars spent on keeping him in prison at the cost of 25-65 THOUSAND dollars a year? If the money doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it bother you that he is getting 3 hots and a cot. Roof over his head. Free medical care.

All this while you try to maintain your sanity and try to put some kind of life back together.

That's an interesting question, and I'll admit that I thought about it for a few minutes.

In the end, I would not kill the intruder. How does that make me any better than him? Given, I may or may not be justified in taking his life in retaliation. But I'm not going to fall to the level of taking life, especially when it's motivated by something so vain and petty as to simply make myself feel better. That's a dangerous road.

I'm not an advocate of the current penal system, so ideally I wouldn't have the man locked up in a cement hotel for the rest of his life, either. Punishment would certainly be due, but not capital. I have come to believe that mercy is the virtue of a true man.

If he had broken in and not had a chance to tie me up before I could react, would I have shot him (assuming I and my family were in mortal danger)? Absolutely.

[monk]

If it is not for fun, then what is the point? Personal revenge and pleasure? The rest, or 99%, of the "civilized" world are doing just fine without using the death penalty. You are (together with the third world) stuck several hundred years ago in your reasoning. The death penalty does not lower the crime rates, it does not lower the costs and once done there is no way to repair an eventual mistake made by judges, jurys or whatever.

Gandalf: "Sméagol's life is a sad story. Yes, Sméagol he was once called. Before the Ring found him… before it drove him mad."

Frodo: "It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance!"

Gandalf: "Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?"

Gandalf: "Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends..."

[lerxstcat]

That's an interesting question, and I'll admit that I thought about it for a few minutes.

In the end, I would not kill the intruder. How does that make me any better than him? Given, I may or may not be justified in taking his life in retaliation. But I'm not going to fall to the level of taking life, especially when it's motivated by something so vain and petty as to simply make myself feel better. That's a dangerous road.

I'm not an advocate of the current penal system, so ideally I wouldn't have the man locked up in a cement hotel for the rest of his life, either. Punishment would certainly be due, but not capital. I have come to believe that mercy is the virtue of a true man.

If he had broken in and not had a chance to tie me up before I could react, would I have shot him (assuming I and my family were in mortal danger)? Absolutely.

So you're saying you would shoot him if you got the drop on him in the first place, but NOT after you watched him kill your wife and kids? I can only call bullshit on this statement! If your wife read this post she should leave immediately, seeing that you would shoot the guy to protect your property but not to avenge her murder and that of your children!:ROTF::ROTF:

[Argos]

So you're saying you would shoot him if you got the drop on him in the first place, but NOT after you watched him kill your wife and kids? I can only call bullshit on this statement! If your wife read this post she should leave immediately, seeing that you would shoot the guy to protect your property but not to avenge her murder and that of your children!:ROTF::ROTF:

What good does it do me to kill him after my family is already dead? It certainly won't bring them back.

Zero. It'd only be to satisfy my own vanity. How petty! Revenge killing is a medieval, outmoded idea better suited to feudal Japan than to the first world in modernity.

[StukaJU87]

I give up.:ROTF:

[rjohnstone]

I'm not an advocate of the current penal system, so ideally I wouldn't have the man locked up in a cement hotel for the rest of his life, either. Punishment would certainly be due, but not capital. I have come to believe that mercy is the virtue of a true man.

So you would have him be what... slapped on the wrist?
Publicly flogged maybe? Or put in mental hospital perhaps?

Talk about creating chaos in society.
If life imprisonment or even the possibility of death are not an option for punishing those who commit murder, where is the deterance?

You have to either lock them up for life or execute them.


In this civilized society you speak of, people shouldn't be going around killing other people. But that place will never exist as long as humans are invloved. This world is occupied by man, an imperfect animal with animal instincts. We just have higher brain function than most other animals, and even that's debateable in some cases.
Mercy will only let man have another crack at it.
I'll save mercy for the petty thief trying to feed his family.

[lerxstcat]

What good does it do me to kill him after my family is already dead? It certainly won't bring them back.

Zero. It'd only be to satisfy my own vanity. How petty! Revenge killing is a medieval, outmoded idea better suited to feudal Japan than to the first world in modernity.

Most people would say that a man who wouldn't avenge his own dead wife and kids would be a gutless pussy who deserved to lose them. Imagine telling that story to your first date after letting the killer go quietly to jail for his "life" sentence that really means 8-10 years. Probably wouldn't get any second dates, ever.

[Argos]

That's merely argumentum ad populum.