I am opposed to the death penalty.
I don't believe the state has the right to end the life of even the most deserving of criminals as a form of punishment.
Life imprisionment without the hope of parole is a worse punishment and does not require the state to play God. And in the event that exculpatory evidence later comes to light a person in a prision cell can be return to society. A body in a pine box can not.
The Iraqis would make a more important statement to each other and to the world be leaving Saddam to live out the rest of his natural life in a cage than they will by making a spectacle of his execution.
But I have no doubt they will choose the latter.
Posted by snark at December 9, 2005 10:19 AMWhy is the mother fucker even still alive? Give it to him the way he did the four people he murdered, face down with a couple of shotgun blasts to the back. And they should do it in the town square. Fuck him and anybody that stands up for him.
Posted by thelaw at December 9, 2005 11:53 AMI thought you were leaving, snacky snack?
Posted by hmmm at December 9, 2005 11:55 AMIronic that you call yourself "thelaw".
Posted by snark at December 9, 2005 11:56 AMI thought you were leaving, snacky snack?
Reading comprehension problems?
Posted by snark at December 9, 2005 11:57 AMI understand why the neo-cons didn't but I have never really understood why the US didn't create a Truth & Reconcilation Committee/Board/Tribunal in Iraq as the means by which to both de-Baathify Iraq and create the beginnings of a civil society. South Africa certainly had problems as severe as Iraq and yet they have made this oh-so-British/Christian/Anglo-American idea work. To have forced 3 Iraqis - a Shia (maybe a cleric like Sistani), a Sunni and a Kurd - to sit together 'in camera' and be required to together legally absolve Baathists of their crimes if, and only if, they gave a full account of their crimes, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Imagine (with a tip of the hat to John Lennon), no terrorist bombings, because the entire country was watching absolution actually happen on their television sets - and learning the ideals of foregiveness, charity and the need to move into the future, not dwell in the past. Imagine, no roadside bombs killing Ameican soldiers, because no one was out and about - they were all inside riveted to their TV sets watching the ultimate 'real TV' - a 'Survivor' to beat all others. A white security agent came before South Africa's Commission and told of sitting in a lawn chair on a cold fall/winter night drinking beers with his mates as they watched and waited for the flames to completely consume the body of a black man they had been ordered to kill. The purpose was to ensure that the man was absolutely disappeared. The family never knew what happened to him. After his testimony the family still could not forgive the men or the government that committed the crime but they had some measure of peace. At least their grieving could come to an end and they could go forward with their lives. The agent? He was granted immunity for his crimes but to get that grant he had to tell the world, in words out of his own mouth, that he had at one time been a beast, not a man. But for him there must have been some relief, also, no longer having to carry the knowledge of what he did by himself. Must he always walk with one eye behind him? Yes, revenge is a powerful human emotion. But can he start a 'new' life, try to make amends for the things he has done to his country? Again, the answer is Yes. A life redeemed (sort of), a family not mired in the paralysis of grief but finally able to begin the long journey into the future, and a country not riven by war. Had we but looked at what poor but educated black men had wrought before us. But then again, foregiveness seems to be in short supply in Red America.
Posted by Paul Lucic at December 9, 2005 01:25 PMI still cant get over Chris Hitchens who has practically written a martyrology for Ricky Ray Rector, rolling over and turning into Texacutors boy-toy.Yeah I know he's a "regime change" guy, but let him be it for anybody but that oppurtunistic scum.
Posted by jondee at December 9, 2005 03:28 PMA truth and reconciliation in Iraq that was honest would inevitably reveal that the current war criminals running things in the US (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were supporting and enabling Hussein in committing some of the war crimes for which he is to be tried in the near future.
It would also give oridinary Iraqis the dangerous illusion that the US invasion was meant to empower them in running their own country. Even a cursory look at the history of the US occupation would show what garbage that idea is.
I think the death penalty is a stupid waste of resources, and inefficient approach to controlling serious crime, which is the bottom line as far as I am concerned. The vengeful arguments and emotions shown in its defense in this post and by some of the commenters is distrubing. I think people who feel that way should find their own little Island where they can build their own little Lord of the Flies gig and get away from the rest of us. I think rabid supporters have serious unresolved emotional issues. When I meet one, I feel nervous and hope that they can "maintain" for as long as I am in their vicinity. Most of them are way too self righteous as well.
Mark Twain understood. He wrote something to the effect of "Every man is in me, anything anyone is capable of, I am capable of, under come circumstance." OK, Mark Twain said that, and he is the voice of All-American American-ness, and so there! Love it or leave it!
Posted by anon at December 9, 2005 03:33 PMWhy is msm trying to make a bigshot out of this lowlife? Can't they find another non-story, like Terry Shaivo. Don't believe in death penalty because would-be D.M.V. workers get to decide who to prosecute.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 9, 2005 03:40 PMWe should have just shot Saddam.
Posted by Judith at December 9, 2005 08:50 PMI do believe in the death penalty for some crimes. The Manson murders are a good example of people forfetting their right to life. It is not a deterrent, however, it makes damn sure that the convicted person will never get out to repeat a crime. I personally think anyone who harms a child by killing them should receive the death penalty. I'm sure my stance is not popular here, but when I hear things like a man killing his two children to get even with his x-wife, I'm sorry, I have no mercy.
Posted by Judith at December 9, 2005 09:21 PMIf one is against murder, then one is against all murders. Whether a criminal comits an unlawful murder, or the the state with all the laws behind it, it's still murder. To say that one is for capital punishment only against the worst crime offenders makes no sense to me. It seems illogical. What is the purpose of killing a criminal? What is the upside? What is the logic of giving mercy to some and not others?
Posted by prabhata at December 9, 2005 10:15 PMI personally think anyone who harms a child by killing them should receive the death penalty. I'm sure my stance is not popular here, but when I hear things like a man killing his two children to get even with his x-wife, I'm sorry, I have no mercy.
I'm anti-death penalty as well. It's not a deterent, if it were there would be no more crime that might lead to the death penalty. And it ends up being too expensive.
I think life imprisonment is the only option. As for those who harm children and are subsequently jailed, they seem to get murdered by other inmates which is probably far more horrific than lethal injection.
Posted by ann at December 10, 2005 06:32 AMAnother everyday person pleading for mercy is a school teacher accused of having sex with minor students. As she is very attractive, one can wonder why she didn't have an adult male in her life rather than chase young boys, but it only adds weight to her claim of mental illness.
My guess would be that she had an adult male in her life when she was a child and was molested by him. People frequently don't behave rationally and yet their behavior usually makes sense. Should she be punished? Yes. This type of person must be shown that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. But I'm sure that somewhere along the way she was also a victim.
But what's up with your statement that an attractive young woman who doesn't have an adult male in her life is more likely to be mentally ill? LOL, that strikes me as kind of an ignorant and outdated mode of thought.
Posted by XJT at December 10, 2005 09:12 AMMy statement comes from decades of observation, XJT!
Posted by pessimist at December 10, 2005 10:14 AMRobert Martin, who successfully prosecuted and got a conviction for Tookie Williams, argued on Fox Sunday Show that Williams had not repented because he had refused to admit he had actually killed the four people.
Bianca Jagger (Mick's ex), made the case that two African American prospective jurors had been struck from the jury pool, along with some other problems.
Remember, this trial happened a while ago, when it was not uncommon for police to railroaded people they didn't like and charge them with murder. Why do you think jurors were capable of believing police set up O.J. if it weren't for the fact that they'd witnessed it before?
One hundred and eighteen have been exonerated by DNA; and if there were no DNA, well, that would've just been too bad...
It's a little late in the game but...maybe Williams refuses to recant because just maybe, he didn't do it.
Which brings me to mind about the radical clerics in Afghanistan who jailed a journalist for speaking out against their justice system and the way they treat women in his country.
The mullahs are now threatening to hang him unless he repents, the Washington Post reports today on Page A-28.
The publisher of a local magazine has refused to do so. And we applaud him, meaning the media.
Well, seems to me folks want Williams to repent for something he may not have done. So he's damned if he repents, for then we can fry him with a free conscience; and he's damned if he doesn't.
The majority of death penalty cases in the United States are just like witch trials in Salem of early American history. They are not about the worst of the worst.
In fact, it's usually more about ambitious prosecutors who garner political scalps at the helm of poor saps who can't afford effective legal counseling.
No...? Then why wasn't O.J. prosecuted for capital murder...?
Sonny von Bulen, Robert Blake, and hundreds of others probably got away with murder or attempted murder.
It ain't about justice. And the state has no right to murder someone in my name.
Posted by Mimi Schaeffer at December 11, 2005 01:45 PMOh, one more food for thought.
If you don't believe the spirit of my comment posted above, just google "wrongful conviction," then google "wrongful conviction" + "death penalty."
You will spend lots and lots of time pouring over the thousands of hits, so plan to stay a long, long while.
Posted by Mimi Schaeffer at December 11, 2005 01:54 PM