Yeah, unintelligible gibberish to 97% of the population.

Sad that this primitave verdict was handed down. Seems to be yet another failure in Iraq

But that only proves that Iraq as a nation requires such a harsh system of law that we as a nation find ourselves morally incapable or controlling them. Sure we created the situation, but can you fault us for not resorting the Machiavellian tactics? Now granted we shouldn't have gotten in there in the first place, but there's nothing to do about that now. I think the issue has more depth than you allow.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for absolving the American people of any sort of "blame" for what has come to pass. I mean, these are supposed to be elected officials that the people chose to represent their wishes (within their constitutional powers), right?

I know no one ever gets an ideal choice, but it seemed to me that after the Iraq war started there really wasn't a huge shift in power during elections. Most incumbents (who could) stayed there, and there wasn't a shift from one party to another in a large, overwhelming fashion. In other words, it seemed that the war happened and no one really cared as much as they should have. Who has been punished on our side for the debacle that is the Iraq war? Anyone (of real importance, and not just voluntarily resigning either)?

One thing that always bothered me was that in these times gay marriage was an issue last election; I mean, considering all of our other worries, it (among other silly things) seemed to construct a large part of the campaigns. But it's what people seemed to care about. The Iraq war was almost secondary to other issues at times. It's bad enough people want to poke into each other's personal business, but during wartime? It seems like madness that it was even under consideration. I swear, we need an "audit" system like the Athenians had.

It just seems on the whole that Americans are to blame because they are just pretty apathetic. It's not that they are stupid, they just don't care. Joe A. Public doesn't give a rat's *** about some Iraqi getting shot, or other geopolitics. And when you don't care about what happens, those who do take command, and their interests may not always be for the best.

While I can't say I feel bad for Saddam, and many of my arguments against the death penalty do not apply in a clear-cut case like this, I can definitely see him being declared a martyr and his death being used as a rallying point. A far better solution would be to let him rot in prison, publicizing his increasingly desperate statements as he slowly relieves himself of credibility with even his most ardent supporters.

I echo what Kuat said about the individual. That's the key thing about our system of government. You really can't blame the nation itself. You really have to blame the citizens for it really is up to them to put their government. Hence why I really really love this system for it puts the individual accountable.

Example: Many have claimed that the United States is 75% fascist. They would be incorrect in that statement for we are still able to remove government officials. In two days, the entirety of Congress can undergo a DRASTIC shift. Probable? Not likely but not impossible. In short, call me the fascist for I put said fascist (twice) there not the United States.

I think people shouldn't be taught that death is an acceptable for of punishment. Perhaps Sadam deserves to die, sure, but the death penalty gives off a wrong signal to the public. Many sociologists argue that this is one of the reasons why murder rates are often higher in areas that allow the death penalty. How can you explain to people, as a government, that killing is wrong, when you're using it yourself as a form of acceptable punishment? Because if it is, killing someone yourself is merely taking the law into your own hands. It's giving the wrong example.

In the light of the democratic rebuilding it would have been so much better if they had chosen for a more civilized form of punishment, especially since there have been so many mistakes in the trial that it is very questionable if this tribunal is capable of administering justice in accordance with international agreements.

I'm all for the death penalty, but not really for hanging.
Some may argue that he should be tortured to death for his crimes, I say that's pointless and inhumane (even the inhumane shouldn't be treated inhumanely).
When someone gets to the point that they need to be killed, it means they've reached the point where the only way to stop them is to end them. I think people that are serial killers and serial rapists should be killed. No need to torture them or anything like that. Just one bullet sent directly through the brain.

Of course I know that simply saying "serial killers and rapists should be shot" is a bit too vague, how many victims does there need to be before they are declared serial? I don't have the answer to that, I'm not about to pretend I have complete knowledge of the criminal mind or the effectiveness of punishments either. I just say when someone is repeatedly committing horrible crimes against humanity, they need to be stopped, and jail isn't stopping them.

How is life in prison without the possibility of parole not going to stop them?

1 Life in prison isn't normally your full life
2 Crimes are committed everyday within the prison walls
3 Rich and powerful criminals mastermind crimes for their peons to do whilst they stay safely in the slammer
4 Prison breakouts
5 Why waste money keeping the very worst of scum in the most expensive detention centers when a bullet is so cheap

We should just send them to another continent.

That's why I said life in prison without the possibility of parole. Regardless, just make it 200 years or something. It's not a problem.


In a maximum security prison, a lot of people there are probably ones who you'd have killed anyway. And, hey, they're criminals. They don't have rights in prison. That's why they're in prison.


I would like a source that proves this is true, and happens often, outside of Hollywood.


From a maximum security prison? Yeah, how likely is that? Even if they do get out, chances are they'll just be shot dead. Even if a few do manage to get out, it's better than all the others wrongly convicted and put to death.


Bullets are not cheap. The appeals process that folks on death row go through cost the state a crapload of money.

It will still be a lot cheaper to kill them then to keep them in a maximum security prison till they die.

$5 in rope vs food and clothes for the rest of his life.

I can say that in America, it is cheaper to keep someone for life than it is to put them for death simply because of the legal fees required in bringing someone to the supreme court with an appointed defending lawyer.

While I agree with most of that, I would caution you before you take it the last step and say 'Bush is evil'. Everyone bangs on their 'Bush Lies' drum. Any sensible person can do a little research and see that he had good reason to believe Saddam had weapons. If you really believe something, and have evidence to show it, but it turns out to be false, are you still a liar? No, lying takes a conscience decision to be false.

For those people who think American's don't care, some of us do. A large percentage of our population doesn't care about anything. These are the mall-zombies. It's okay, because these people also don't vote. Iraq is the hot ticket item this time around because the Democrats don't have much else they can complain about. They can't come out against closing the border, because the polls show that the public agrees with the Republicans on that issue. They can't ***** about the 'tax cuts for the rich' anymore, because they worked. The economy is up. They can't harp on abortion, because they've already got it. Gay marriage is inevitable. All that leaves is Iraq, and calling Bush a liar.



Gay marriage represents to many people a collapse of morality in America. Marriage has also long been the domain of the church. Thankfully, it's unlikely that churches will not be able to continue to reject marriage candidates. I propose common law marriage be abolished entirely. Let the church keep that label. At the same time, set in place a system of civil unions between any two individuals of legal age that comes with all the rights of marriage, but not the label. What, then, do the religious among us have left to complain about? Marriage retains it's special status (Which it needs. Marriage is a GOOD THING) and the gays get the rights they really want.

It's important to remember that, when speaking about the American populace, that about 85 percent of us claim to believe in God, and most forms of Christianity reject homosexuality and moral relativism. (Which is odd, considering Jesus' whole philosophy was 'forgive and forget')

Em, I actually wanted to see the sources for Hussein being given a death penalty, all Google searches brought up "Husseing might be facing death penatly," not a word about hanging. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Jon`C.

Well here's the BBC's article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm

That's because they erroneously treat homosexuality as a choice. Morality only applies where there's a choice. You aren't immoral because you're black, you aren't immoral because you're male, and similarly you aren't immoral because you're homosexual.

Are you saying being black is a disease?

Sorry, I'm not smart enough to decode your hidden message (I think it's some kind of satire that somehow agrees with my statement, but I don't know).

I'm saying being black isn't a choice. Unless you're Michael Jackson.

Hahahahaha..

Who told you that bull****? Was it the 250,000 people in my state alone that are now out of work? Yeah that economy owns.

Why should biologically inferior slackers like those be allowed to drag the rest of us down?

Social Darwinism is a fancy term for psychotic behavior.

A single round of .45 ACP costs 16 cents, as opposed to millions to keep someone in prison.

Oh please. If you get to reduce the death sentence to the cost of a single bullet, then I get to reduce the life in prison to the cost of meals for the rest of a prisoner's life. It's just as asinine.

Yeah, I mean, you have to pay to dispose of the body.

No matter how you try to sort it out, it will always be less expensive to just execute the guilty and move on.

Go hug a tree and kiss a seal, you damn hippie.

It's the appeals system that costs so much money..

Which is why we need brain memory scanning or some such, to determine absolute guilt right away. Then fill them with holes.

As Roach already pointed out, you're wrong.

He failed to take into account a lifetime of meals, clothing, medical attention (particularly in old age, medical costs, including surgeries, are paid for by the state), the cost of the cell, the guards, all sorts of things.

You failed to take into account anything at all except the cost of a bullet.

I didn't really want to type out a long list, but it would still be less expensive, and would be a much better deterrent to crime than a lifetime in club fed.

<Steven> Even with five years of lawyer fees, it's cheaper
<Jon`C> I can guarantee it's going to be cheaper to keep Saddam Hussein alive than it will be to kill him
<Steven> In his case, yes, because there will be major reprucussions
<Jon`C> Major.
<Steven> But the average run of hte mill gangster murderer, no

I think Steven was talking about a general case instead of a specific one.

I agree the death sentence is a better deterrent to crime than life in prison. But I think life in prison is a worse punishment, and I think prison's primary purpose is punishment and rehabilitation; not as a deterrent.

Certainly not. The primary purpose of punishment is to protect society. The secondary purpose is to punish.

I might rephrase that, if I were you, heheh.

I liked the way it sounded. It's ironic.

I really doubt that. Premeditated crimes of things like rape and murder will still happen. They're premeditated, and in most cases, the person thinks they'll get away with it. That's why they do it anyway. Crimes of passion and such are committed in the moment, without any thinking, so it's not going to affect those.

I can dig up some sources later when I have nothing better to do.

That's what people always think, however, the experts tend to think otherwise.



Source