I’ve been reading this stuff on Saddam Hussein and how he was sentenced to death. Great, wonderful, he deserves to die in my opinion. However, I’m now reading about people in the Middle East, Europe and even here in the US who are OUTRAGED that he was sentenced to die and are now complaining about the trial, procedures, etc, etc.
First of all, any of you remember how everybody had a FIT about the possibility that the trial would be held here in the US? Remember that? Everybody said “no… I can’t be held in the US, we need it held in Iraq. It’s better to be held there.” So, we did that and this is the outcome. But now that we had THIS as the outcome, oh my gosh! We can’t kill him, no… that’d be wrong!!
Ok, explain this wise guy? How is killing a man who had a fair trial (despite his countless attempts to taint it and make it grind to a halt) and killed hundreds himself wrong, when going to war with (for instance) al-Qaeda is not? Are we not killing members of al-Qaeda for even less than what Saddam Hussein was just convicted of?
Yes, many people are against the war too, but many are not. For instance, Tony Blair, constant friend of the White House, has now decided that capital punishment is wrong and that you can’t put someone, even Saddam Hussein to death. Despite the fact that he condones the war in Iraq. Oh, and what about the other countries that have troops in Iraq, members of NATO, etc, etc? They certainly don’t think that killing someone while at war is wrong, but after a fair trial determines that someone deserves to die, THEN we’ve got a problem with it.
So, you might ask, “Well, what would Europe do about this problem instead? Surely they can’t just let him go…” No, you’re right, they wouldn’t. Spain has the perfect solution instead of killing the convict outright: Madrid: 38,000-year jail terms sought. 38,000 YEARS??? Ok, how is that different than capital punishment? Really, I would like to know. I mean seriously, isn’t that even worse than capital punishment since they have to spend the rest of their lives in prison? Why not just kill them and be done with it?
Anyway, I’m not sure I understand, and not sure I ever will. But if you’ve got some insight, I’d love to hear it.
{ 6 } Comments
First off, I haven’t heard of any executions of al-Qaeda members, so I’m not sure where you heard that.
Some people are just against capital punishment, period, so they protest against it, no matter who the executee is, which I can respect as an opinion.
Now, people who are complaining about it because they view this as a way to throw a monkeywrench into the US midterm elections is simply petty partisan bickering.
As for the long jail term vs. execution, think about this. Say you have a non-chrisitan in jail, sentenced to die. Do you kill him now, and basically condemn him to hell, or do you let him sit in jail and live out the rest of his life, because there’s a possibility he may come around?
I’m not talking about executions. I’m talking about killing people in the normal course of war. To me, there’s no difference between shooting someone who looks to be the enemy (or blowing them up with a bomb) and executing them for their crimes.
I can certainly see the logic in that and honestly, the only thing I can say is that I personally don’t think that capital punishment is wrong. However, I can also honestly say that if you’re not wanting to execute someone because of the above reason, I can understand that too. I just happen to think that executions help to solve the problem of crime more effectively
Explain it? No, i say, “Kill him!”
I agree with you Charlie. I remember at one point during the war they had thought that they had blown up a building possibly where Sadam had been hiding. They weren’t sure if they’d gotten him or not. Had this been the case and the Americans had blown him to bits & peices with one of their “bunker buster” bombs, these protestor pansies would have nothing to say.
Sometimes I’d say it’s a good thing that we don’t get to decide the fate of homicidal world leaders. If we did, then our 50/50 culture would not be able to agree on what to do with them.
Eddie Izzard once put this into a great comedy routine. He said “You kill one man, you go to jail. You kill 10 men, they send you to Texas and shoot you. You kill 50 men and they put you in a round room with padded walls and give you a little round window to stare through. You kill a million people and … we just can’t handle it. We almost just say … ‘Well Done!’ You must have a very busy day. ‘Death, death, death, lunch, death, death, afternoon tea, death, death, death, death, quick shower.” It time to uunderstand, “Except resonsiblilties for your actions!” If America adopted the UK’s strictness on crime, it would drop like theirs did. Nearly 60% in one year!
I’m not sure I agree with you. First of all, according to the data released by England, their crime rate has decreased by 44% since their high in 1995 (ALL CRIME – British Crime Survey data).
Also, according to a number of articles I found, the United Nations issued a report in 2002 that said that England had a higher crime rate than the United States (England has worst crime rate in world).
Lastly, the crime rate in the United States has been dropping considerably since 1993 (Key Crime & Justice Facts at a Glance). Adding that all up, I would make the following conclusions:
1) Both England and America’s crime rates are dropping.
2) Both are not as good as it could be, lots of work to be done still.
3) Neither is the clear “winner” in this area. Both appear to be in generally the same area in terms of crime.