Saddam setenced

"He is no less guilty than Bush and Blair however. "

This thread is heading south in a hurry.

quote:

Originally posted by Skip:
"He is no less guilty than Bush and Blair however. "

This thread is heading south in a hurry.

I agree. I would (ahem) attempt to draw a slightly finer distinction between leaders than Mr Tsunami has done...

I decline to argue US politics among this crowd. It is hard enough to do among my own family, much less on a global forum for music lovers.

DEar All,

Many Islamic countries have capital punishment for far lesser crimes than the crimes committed By Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

The methods of despatch in Muslim countries are far more barbarous than hanging.

Stoning to death for one.

Beheading with a large blade inexpertly is another.

This is matter for the new govt of Iraq and no one else.

He has been tried in their courts under their judicial system and has been sentenced according to their laws.

A humane death is too good for this person. but that may be what he gets.

For what was done in his name by his govt is beyond imagination in modern times, but that is what happened. Most of the crimes were against fellow muslims but of a different order and who did not have allegience to him.

So he reduced their population by foul means as we in the CIVILISED SOCIETIES watched.

That i feel is also a crime.

We went in too late, but we went in and have to reap what has been sown.

If Iraq can survive his executuiion and move on and prosper that is the right outcome.

if it descends into Internecine factional fighting again then i would suggest leave them to it until they realsie they are only harming themselves and their future.

regards david

Interesting replies none of which address the one central issue - is it wrong to kill?

It would seem that some people believe it to be OK as long as it suits their particular purpose. In that view, please explain how they differ from the perpetrator? Nobody involved thinks their purpose unworthy, so just where do we start?

It strikes me as very difficult to move people away from uncivilised behavour as long as we are prepared to tolerate it when it fits our purpose.

An execution, whether by hanging, shooting, beheading, lethal injection or whatever has to be the most horrendous failure to promote the cause of civilisation.


My two bobs worth is that no country that sanctions executions can call itself civilised. If we can't find somewhere secure and unpleasant to keep this man until his life ends - we're not trying.

Regards,

Steve.

I think absolutism is never the hallmark of civilisation.

Those who oppose the death penalty tend to do so absolutely. Those who favour it do not advocate the wholesale killing of everything that moves, but selective destruction in tightly delineated circumstances - that is, their position is not absolute.

If your family were threatened by a killer, would you, Steve, kill to protect your family or, in the name of civilisation, allow them to be killed? This is an open question and I would appreciate a reply.

Fraser

Fraser, in the first instance I would use whatever force was necessary to protect against aggression - this of course, has nothing to do with a considered decision.

You second point, would I allow them to be killed? I assume you are trying to establish whether my view would change if the victim was someone close to me. You can't prove a negative of course but I see no value in taking a life in this situation, other than to be reduced to the same level as the perpetrator.

Quote - "I think absolutism is never the hallmark of civilisation."

I have no ldea what you mean by this. What I would say is that not killing people is a reasonable indication of a civilised country.

Regards,

Steve.

From your first paragraph, it seems you would kill in the acute setting but would excuse it because the killing would not be a "considered decision". However, you have now considered your response in advance of the circumstance arising, and have established that you are pre-conditioned to kill if you felt the circumstance was so extreme as to require it.

You have thus answered your own question "is it wrong to kill" in the qualified negative. Further, if you do come to kill in the circumstance of acute threat to your family you could not write off your lethal response as being in the heat of the moment.

Your second paragraph states that you "see no value in taking a life". Is this as an acute act of aggression or a deferred act of revenge? I was after your response to the acute event and I think I got that in your first paragraph. I assume this relates to premeditated killing after due process.

My point about absolutism is that it involves ungraded responses to variable circumstances and works against the development of mutual understanding between peoples - hence my contention that is "never the hallmark of civilisation". I contend that the hallmark of civilisation is grading the response to the circumstance.

Fraser

quote:

I contend that the hallmark of civilisation is grading the response to the circumstance.

Interesting stuff Fraser, I'd better clarify. I would not seek to kill under any circumstances. In violent struggle you can't rule it out as an outcome.

However, this graded response interests me. Once you legitimise kiliing to suit yourself, the problem becomes one of arguing over legitimacy rather than whether killing is right or wrong.

On the 'eye for an eye' basis nobody ever thinks that stealing from a burgler (in retaliation for a theft) is appropriate or punishment do they?

Regards,

Steve.

Steve,

You seem to associate civilisation only with people who would not kill. (full stop). I don't.

Individuals and small groups should not kill. Society as a whole should have the right to enforce a death penalty on those individuals and small groups who do kill. Certainty and circumstances of the crime need to be considered before excercising a death penalty. In my view this does not reduce society to the base level of a murderer. Clearly , this is where people like you and people like me, differ.

You have accepted that under certain circumstances you would defend your family. If that accidently led to the death of their assailant, you would accept that as unfortunate but understandable (please clarify your position if I have misunderstood it - you appear to be somewhat vague). Most people I know (myself included) would positivly kill an aggressor if necessary, to save an innocent family member.

I would prefer to live in a scociety that locks up ruthless murderers rather than executes them. But I wouldn't refuse to work with societies that execute ruthless murderers where the crime is beyond reasonable doubt. I try to avoid societies (eg avoid buying their produce and products) where they execute people other than for murder.

We all have our own ideas about what constitutes civilisation and a civilised society. And most of us are very slow to change.

Cheers

Don

quote:

You seem to associate civilisation only with people who would not kill. (full stop). I don't.

Don,

I don't think there is a place for killing in a civilised society. You think there is under certain circumstances. That is where we disagree.

I couldn't have been that vague because your third paragraph is an accurate reflection of my view. The difference between us there is that I would do as much as it took to incapacitate the threat (accepting that lt's possible that somebody would die). You, on the other hand, seem as if you would be positively intent on killing the aggressor (if I have that right). So we disagree there too.

Your fourth paragraph I completely agree with.

Regards,

Steve.

Don,

Why do you only support capital punishment for murder?

It is generally accepted that there are worse states than death. If, then, a person is gratuitously beaten into a permanently-crippled state that is 'worse than death', why should their survival mitigate their attacker's penalty?

Given that the difference between murder and manslaughter is only one of perceived intent, shouldn't the penalty be governed by the nature of the attack (e.g.weaponry or fighting technique used) rather than its outcome? Certainly this argument already works the other way - if, in a bout of 'standard' fisticuffs, one player falls, by chance, awkwardly and sustains a fatal head injury, the verdict returned is seldom one of murder.

Fraser

quote:

Originally posted by Skip:
I oppose the dealth penalty on principle, but if there were ever a case for it, it is Saddam and his thousands of followers. I think they should line them up, try them fairly, and consign them to the same fate. We will never be safe until we are rid of these people. Maybe not even then.

Hope there is a bush included in your lineup

I`ve wrestled with the capital punishment issue at some length and reached the following conclusions

1. Doing bad things makes one bad, regardless of the justification, so state sponsored execution is little better than cold blooded murder. If killing another human being is wrong then it is wrong regrdless of circumstances...except where not to do so risks further death/suffering of "innocents"...so it would be justified to "take out" a gunman who was about to kill another person. This means that I would accept that killing may be justified as a preventive measure.... a case of the "lesser evil"

This applies to war situations...though does not include the terror bombing of civilians

2. Deterrence?......I have not seen any evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent

3. Punishment/retribution..it is arguable that execution is a suitable form of retribution, though this degrades the whole system of justice imo; "murder is wrong so let`s murder the murderer...?"

4.Mistakes ...there have been too many miscarriages of justice.
Personally I would rather that 10 guilty murderers got off free rather than one innocent person was executed mistakenly

On balance, considering all the above I am now a devoted anti-capital punishment advocate, though I have to admit that if given the chance, of say, shooting Adolf Hitler in the head I would not flinch..

laurie

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Skip:
"He is no less guilty than Bush and Blair however. "

This thread is heading south in a hurry.

I agree. I would (ahem) attempt to draw a slightly finer distinction between leaders than Mr Tsunami has done...

I should have written 'He is no more guilty than Bush or Blair'.

Well said Laurie.

I think, as a punishment and in order to discharge his debt to society Sadam Hussein should be put in charge of Iraq. He seems to be the only person who can keep the place from falling apart

I believe that Laurie has it about right, although my jury is still out regarding justification for war.
I often hear a story on the news that makes me feel that some people do not have the right to live, but the properly considered opinion is that it isn't for us to sit in judgement of the giving and taking of life. It's hard to stand by that sometimes when we hear of gunmen in schools etc, but I guess standing by our principles wouldn't count for much if it was easy.

There you are David!

How goes it?

Do you have a working e-mail address yet?

John.

Steve

quote:

Most people I know (myself included) would positivly kill an aggressor if necessary, to save an innocent family member.

The emphasis was on the "if necessary" bit.

In other words, "if necessary" I would knowingly be prepared to...

Cheers

Don

Frazer,

"I would prefer to live in a scociety that locks up ruthless murderers rather than executes them. But I wouldn't refuse to work with societies that execute ruthless murderers where the crime is beyond reasonable doubt. I try to avoid societies (eg avoid buying their produce and products) where they execute people other than for murder."

I had in mind countries like China, that execute people for trivial offences. For murder you could include crimes that are worse that murder.

I think the diference between murder and manslaughter is more to do with intent, than outcome. But i'm not an expert.

And my first sentence was the really important one. "I would prefer to live in a scociety that locks up ruthless murderers rather than executes them."

Cheers

Don

Dear J.N.

I do not as yet have an email address.

I do have a phone no and address though.

I do not have your address or phone no so cant contact you.

Mike flatman has my address and phone no.

regards david