BF2S Forums The Death Penalty-

Honestly, his crimes don't change anything.  If a person is against the death penalty, it is generally because they don't want their government sinking to the level of murderers, no matter how many people they killed.  I'm not really all that for- or against the death penalty.  I mean, I'm for capitol punishment, but it takes so long in America that it's way more expensive than just letting the bastard rot.  However, I wouldn't necessarily want it to take less time to kill someone because I think you deserve your appeals to do everything we can to insure we don't put an innocent person to death.  *shrug*  Saddam is irrelevant to me.

no exception to killing Saddam ... belief has no holiday

Its kind of ironic, because they will kill Saddam because he killed many people (so he is a murderer) but doesn't that make the ones who said Saddam should die, aren't they murderers aswell? So they ought to be hanged to?

RDMC(2) wrote:

Its kind of ironic, because they will kill Saddam because he killed many people (so he is a murderer) but doesn't that make the ones who said Saddam should die, aren't they murderers aswell? So they ought to be hanged to?

Exactly, I am not a supporter of capitol punishment but in this case I fear that I must say that  the bastard deserves it. I only have one better option of hanging him and that is to stick him in a jail with Shia prisoners.
   In addition, if we dont kill him now, what US forces leave without seting up more security  then we are seeing in Iraq. Sunnis could take power again an reinstall Saddam as dictator.

RDMC(2) wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

Its kind of ironic, because they will kill Saddam because he killed many people (so he is a murderer) but doesn't that make the ones who said Saddam should die, aren't they murderers aswell? So they ought to be hanged to?

Exactly, I am not a supporter of capitol punishment but in this case I fear that I must say that  the bastard deserves it. I only have one better option of hanging him and that is to stick him in a jail with Shia prisoners.
   In addition, if we dont kill him now, what US forces leave without seting up more security  then we are seeing in Iraq. Sunnis could take power again an reinstall Saddam as dictator.

True, since you can't hold him in prison in the US he needs to be in prison in Iraq and could get the oppertunity to get back up again...true, true

Says who? We'd just throw him in Gitmo.

kilgoretrout wrote:

Honestly, his crimes don't change anything.  If a person is against the death penalty, it is generally because they don't want their government sinking to the level of murderers, no matter how many people they killed.  I'm not really all that for- or against the death penalty.  I mean, I'm for capitol punishment, but it takes so long in America that it's way more expensive than just letting the bastard rot.  However, I wouldn't necessarily want it to take less time to kill someone because I think you deserve your appeals to do everything we can to insure we don't put an innocent person to death.  *shrug*  Saddam is irrelevant to me.

Nope, I mean if your not gonna hang a child kidnapper/murder that killed 15 people why kill this guy.

BTW I am for the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty in most cases (serial killers and child murders being the most common exception) mostly because the process seems too expensive in comparison to letting the murders rot.  In Saddam's case, I'm definitely for it.  The only thing I would change in his case is the method of execution, preferably either gassing him with the same stuff he used on the curds or revive the age old burning at the stake.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

I'm against the death penalty in most cases (serial killers and child murders being the most common exception) mostly because the process seems too expensive in comparison to letting the murders rot.  In Saddam's case, I'm definitely for it.  The only thing I would change in his case is the method of execution, preferably either gassing him with the same stuff he used on the curds or revive the age old burning at the stake.

But why should he deserve it more, if you make one exception surely more exceptions should be made.

Not to be an ass, but my exceptions were in the first sentence.  I think he deserves it more because he rose to power by killing and torturing others and he continued to do so until he was kicked out of power.  I guess it's mostly because he basically preyed on the innocent and weak in his country to try to maintain his royal life style.  And for the exceptions I mentioned, serial killers are too much of a danger to society to be allowed to live, and child murders have committed crimes so heinous that death is the only price remotely close to what they deserve to get.

RDMC(2) wrote:

Its kind of ironic, because they will kill Saddam because he killed many people (so he is a murderer) but doesn't that make the ones who said Saddam should die, aren't they murderers aswell? So they ought to be hanged to?

This exact irony is why I've become anti-death penalty.  I'll still talk tough about certain people and say they deserve some sort of suffering (in rare occaisions), but in the end, I still believe it's the epitome of civil arrogance and vanity to think that any society, civilized or not, has the right to take life from those who took it (or didn't for that matter).  When killing begets killing, it's a lose-lose situation.  How arrogant are the men/women who make laws that condemn people to death.

I have a friend who is on death row in San Quentin prison who did some gruesome murders and during their trial, I offered to testify on behalf of one of the killers (justin) giving a positive character profile of Justin from when I knew him in the early to mid 90's.  During the trial, I learned to hate the prosecutor (and have learned to despise this killer after seeing him act in other cases in such a blood thirsty way) Hal Jewitt and it was during this trial that I kept up on closely (because Justin was an old friend) that i developed my understanding of how stupid the death penalty is. 

For Justin's case, he should truly be punished for butchering 3 people, but being put to death??  Why?  what purpose does it serve?  "Closure?"  How many times has a murderer been put to death (even "reformed ones") and we've heard the interview from the victim family members say nothing about closure, or having denied that it gave closure but instead saying "well, at least he won't hurt others..."  No shit!  They can't hurt others if they're locked away forever.  For Justin, the dude was seriously mental during that splurging period of drug use, and I know him enough (now and before the murders) to know he'd never hurt a fly if he were out.  I don't want him out of prison (unless by some miracle, there were some type of true rehabilitation process that could occur) or anything, but killing him?  Why?  He could do soooo much more good being alive.

Bah, i hate this topic.  Too many people who think with vengence.

Ever hear of Danny Rollings? Killed 5 college students of the college in the town where I live. He beheaded one Sophomore girl and put her head in a jar over her dead body. He was executed a few weeks ago and I say it was the right thing to do. I don't believe in the death sentence in many cases, but this one was one of the few that I did support it.

IRONCHEF wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Sondernkommando wrote:

If your country is attacked and your citizens fight back, killing the enemy, then they are not murderers, right? 

Now, look at homicide as an attack on the country in a smaller scale.  It may be an attack on a single citizen, or perhaps a serial killer to make my comparison stronger.

Defending citizens by killing the enemy is the government's prerogative.  Hussein is one the Iraqi people's biggest threats:  tens of thousands massacred are a testament.

By your rationale, since the Kurds were engaged in an uprising against the Saddam, they were therefore the enemy, he was therefore entitled to kill them.

Warefare is different...unless you execute prisoners of war..then that's the same as the death penalty.

If you are using your justice system to execute people who are detained, then that's murder.  Warfare is politics..or the end thereof.  It's horrible and despicable and is "killing" for political means and the burden of guilt is the one who has the lesser cause.  But take for example the darfur conflict.  THe people losing that conflict (the farmers) started it by attacking the nomad/herdsmen.  The nomad/herdsmen became backed by the government (though they deny it), and now there's massive massacre happening in the darfur region.   Who should die among them should "they" be caught and tried in a court?  None.  Should those repsonsible suffer under their justice system, of course.  Nothing will bring back the dead or right the wrongs.  But the offenders can be confined and lose all freedoms.  That's as fair as you can get.  Killing them does NOTHING to atone for the lives taken or suffering felt.  In fact, I believe that if someone dies at the hands of "justice" then it only makes the "just" or the prosecutors killers themselves..making things worse.

Ignoring the distinction between capital punishment and warfare for now, I was just observing that he said that "defending citizens by killing the enemy is the government's prerogative", which is basically Saddams excuse for gassing the Kurds...

Des.Kmal wrote:

OK, listen here. This is from the heart:

if you have been proven to have done a heinous crime(rape, murder, things to harm other people, not dealing with money or material things) without a doubt(not reasonable, a single doubt) then yes, you should get your fucking head chopped off.

..but why?  what is the purpose for it?  WHO does it serve?