The Dictator is Hanged...

[loz]

As far as the crime/punishment thing goes.....we reserve the worst punishments for the worst types of crimes, hoping that will deter persons inclined to bad behavior from doing the worst sorts of crime. For the most part, it works fairly well. But there are always exceptions.....

To remove the highest punishment from the list, upsets the whole thing......a person as bad as Saddam, would have escaped hanging, would have been serving time in prison much like a common criminal, who never murdered anyone. This is not acceptable to me, and to many others.

Look at your contradictions.
You say that the point of death penalty is deterrance to crime.
But the biggest problem of not applying it is that you find it unfair, immoral.

Is the death penalty a problem of efficiency (against crime), or a problem of morality ?

It can be, of course, both. But but if you try to discuss it, choose the point of view of each of your "arguments".

[Beyonder]

Wrong. You continue to push these incorrect half-truths; simply because someone doesn't agree with the death penalty does not infer that they are "soft on crime."

If you oppose the death penalty in all situations, then you are very soft on the worst end of crime. So either you're soft on crime, or you're all over the place about it.

Then again, none of you seem particularly against torture, so perhaps the one here who is on average soft on crime compared to the others is me. Oh well.

If I oppose the death penalty, why am I "soft on crime?" Is it because I believe it's an ineffective, expensive, pointless endeavor? Yes, I suppose one could say that. Is it because I have sympathy for criminals? No, I've made it quite clear that isn't the case. So the use of the term soft/hard here is a ridiculous assignment, because it implies that I'm somehow sympathetic to the plight of criminals.

So I totally disagree with you, although obviously you're entitled to define the term however you like.

The reason you're so enthused is because you think it supports your position of the death penalty as a viable correctional measure in the United States, but you're mistaken.

Pot and kettle, it's you anti death penalty people who are taking your beliefs that the death penalty doesn't deter regular crimes and from there jumping to the conclusion that it doesn't faze criminal leaders either.

Why would I believe that it deters crime and fazes criminal leaders? There is no factual evidence to support that conclusion.

I suppose you believe that it does faze criminal leaders; if that's the case, where is your evidence?

[mathias]

On the contrary, I support putting Foley, Delay, and a list longer than ever before of the criminal party into jail.

Your oppinion on what should be done to a random group of alleged criminals says very little about how hard you are on crime. What typically gives away people who are very hard on crime is when they want to give considerable punishments to people who barely even did anything. Same principle for people who want limited punishments for the worst criminals.

The neocons, if allowed, will kill atleast 10x more people than Saddam if we allow them to go with their quest for world hegemony.

Oh, so you want to apply the enron method of tracking figures to genocides? How about doing so for sadam? If he could have, he would have wiped iran and israel off the map.

This statement shows an ignorance of what conditions in jails are like, and the aspect of rotting away slowly seems to beyond your grasp.

To avoid being captured, saddam hid in a burrow. I don't think prison would have been such an unimaginable horror for him.

If I oppose the death penalty, why am I "soft on crime?"

Because you're being very leniant to certain criminals, and because, like bluefront said, you're hamstringing the ability of the justice system to discriminate between crimes.
Edit: I see this sort of contradicts my first response in this post. If you're very harsh on misdemeanors, then in some cases that would make you soft on felonies.

Is it because I believe it's an ineffective, expensive, pointless endeavor? Yes, I suppose one could say that.

So, how much do you think the iraqis could have saved by not hanging sadam? And how much do you think it would have cost to fry jeff skilling?

Is it because I have sympathy for criminals? No, I've made it quite clear that isn't the case. So the use of the term soft/hard here is a ridiculous assignment, because it implies that I'm somehow sympathetic to the plight of criminals.

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever? So does that imply you really would be not against torture, if it was proven to be effective, and if we could be absolutely sure of the guilt of those it's used on?

Pot and kettle, it's you anti death penalty people who are taking your beliefs that the death penalty doesn't deter regular crimes and from there jumping to the conclusion that it doesn't faze criminal leaders either.

Why would I believe that it deters crime and fazes criminal leaders? There is no factual evidence to support that conclusion.

Did I say anything about your lack of belief that the death penalty does faze criminal leaders?

I suppose you believe that it does faze criminal leaders; if that's the case, where is your evidence?

Why should I be obliged to have evidence for having a certain belief?

[nick705]

Your oppinion on what should be done to a random group of alleged criminals says very little about how hard you are on crime. What typically gives away people who are very hard on crime is when they want to give considerable punishments to people who barely even did anything. Same principle for people who want limited punishments for the worst criminals.

Because you're being very leniant to certain criminals, and because, like bluefront said, you're hamstringing the ability of the justice system to discriminate between crimes.
Edit: I see this sort of contradicts my first response in this post. If you're very harsh on misdemeanors, then in some cases that would make you soft on felonies.

Not only contradictory, it comes from phoney, made-up assumptions.

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever? So does that imply you really would be not against torture, if it was proven to be effective, and if we could be absolutely sure of the guilt of those it's used on?

Why on earth should it imply anything of the sort? What a tendentious, irrelevant leap of (non) logic. Utterly pointless.

Pot and kettle, it's you anti death penalty people who are taking your beliefs that the death penalty doesn't deter regular crimes and from there jumping to the conclusion that it doesn't faze criminal leaders either.

Why would I believe that it deters crime and fazes criminal leaders? There is no factual evidence to support that conclusion.

Did I say anything about your lack of belief that the death penalty does faze criminal leaders?

Why should I be obliged to have evidence for having a certain belief?

It does help when you're trying to present a rational argument in support of that belief (as opposed to arguing just for the sake of being argumentative, like some irritating adolescent). Especially when you require it of other people.

[jaganath]

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever?

As Christians say, hate the sin not the sinner. There is a big difference between having sympathy for criminals and acknowledging that they deserve humane treatment.

Why should I be obliged to have evidence for having a certain belief?

Well, if this were a scientific discussion, evidence would be rather crucial, and I suppose you can consider the area of public policy as it relates to crime and punishment a social science.

[aristide1]

On the contrary, I support putting Foley, Delay, and a list longer than ever before of the criminal party into jail.

Your oppinion on what should be done to a random group of alleged criminals says very little about how hard you are on crime. What typically gives away people who are very hard on crime is when they want to give considerable punishments to people who barely even did anything. Same principle for people who want limited punishments for the worst criminals.

One way to be soft on crime is to advicate maximum punishement for everyone except your friends, and even overlook what they have done. Foley is a criminal, alledged is not in the picture there. Same with Delay.

This statement shows an ignorance of what conditions in jails are like, and the aspect of rotting away slowly seems to beyond your grasp.

To avoid being captured, saddam hid in a burrow. I don't think prison would have been such an unimaginable horror for him.

You think Saddam had the danger of being gang raped on a regular basis in a ditch? You certainly would not jail him with the non-violent offenders.

[mathias]

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever? So does that imply you really would be not against torture, if it was proven to be effective, and if we could be absolutely sure of the guilt of those it's used on?

Why on earth should it imply anything of the sort? What a tendentious, irrelevant leap of (non) logic. Utterly pointless.

What's so illogical about it? If you had no sympathy for criminals whatsoever, you'd be willing to consider the most promising, over-the-top deterents conceivable.

Did I say anything about your lack of belief that the death penalty does faze criminal leaders?

I see I have to spell it out for you...
lack of belief that the death penalty does faze criminal leaders =/= belief that the death penalty doesn't faze criminal leaders

Why should I be obliged to have evidence for having a certain belief?

It does help when you're trying to present a rational argument in support of that belief (as opposed to arguing just for the sake of being argumentative, like some irritating adolescent). Especially when you require it of other people.

Sure it would help, but good statistical data on genocides and good psychological data on dictators just aren't there. And if there was evidence showing that dictators do fear personal consequences for their actions, it wouldn't likely be clear how much they fear what kind of consequences. So I'll have to be content with reasoning that criminal leaders can be capable of reacting normally/rationally to the possibility that they will be executed.

I'm not the one telling anyone whether to believe that the death penalty is effective as a deterent.

One way to be soft on crime is to advicate maximum punishement for everyone except your friends, and even overlook what they have done. Foley is a criminal, alledged is not in the picture there. Same with Delay.

That wouldn't be an example of being soft on crime, it would be an example of being in denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley ... gal_issues
Foley apparently didn't actually do anything that was illegal.

I can't seem to find anything showing that this delay is defintly a criminal, just a large bunch of charges and a larger bunch of suspicious events.

To avoid being captured, saddam hid in a burrow. I don't think prison would have been such an unimaginable horror for him.

You think Saddam had the danger of being gang raped on a regular basis in a ditch? You certainly would not jail him with the non-violent offenders.

Saddam wouldn't survive a week in a general population type prison setting in an iraqi jail. AFAIK those types of people are usually put in solitairy confinement.

An anarchic system of dealing with criminals doesn't exactly strike me as ideal.

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever?

As Christians say, hate the sin not the sinner. There is a big difference between having sympathy for criminals and acknowledging that they deserve humane treatment.

Why should I be obliged to have evidence for having a certain belief?

Well, if this were a scientific discussion, evidence would be rather crucial, and I suppose you can consider the area of public policy as it relates to crime and punishment a social science.

Ironic, you refer to religion, and then right after that you contest that you can have beliefs which you can't find evidence for.

Sure I should have evidence for my claims, but how is that relevant to the point in question?

I don't accept that criminals are all entitled to humane treatment. Sure we should try to be humane to them, but if you have good reasons for it, I think it's okay to be somewhat inhumane to the worst of them. Don't get me wrong, I think the gay dungeon master approach to prisons is too inhumane in a lot of cases.

[Beyonder]

Because you're being very leniant to certain criminals, and because, like bluefront said, you're hamstringing the ability of the justice system to discriminate between crimes.
Edit: I see this sort of contradicts my first response in this post. If you're very harsh on misdemeanors, then in some cases that would make you soft on felonies.

The justice systems in parts of the world that don't have capital punishment seem to be chugging along just fine. So it's quite clear this isn't a big issue for the justice system.

If anything, it's utterly obvious that having the death penalty is a hamstring for the justice system. The amount of complexity and overhead it adds is undeniably an issue.

So, how much do you think the iraqis could have saved by not hanging sadam?

What do you mean, "saved?" Saved what? My point for Saddam isn't that it's a savings of anything, but it's pretty obvious that it hasn't done any good either. So why bother?

You have no sympathy for criminals whatsoever? So does that imply you really would be not against torture, if it was proven to be effective, and if we could be absolutely sure of the guilt of those it's used on?

Umm, no. Just because I have no sympathy for criminals hardly makes it practical to execute them. I think the logistical, judicial, social, and ethical issues associated with capital punishment far outweigh any of the arguments in favor of the death penalty that I've heard. Torture obviously has all of those downsides, and more, so why would I support it?

More or less, people want to engage in a practice that is based solely on punitive measures, has no demonstrable deterant effect, costs an obscene sum of money, has major ethical debates, etc. It's madness.

Yet, with uncanny consistency, I'm "soft" on crime by people who seem to think the only way to solve a problem is by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Beyonder]

And how much do you think it would have cost to fry jeff skilling?

This is a great example.

Did Jeff Skilling do anything wrong by engaging in one of the most massive corporate scandals in American history? Well, yeah, I suppose he did. He's been convicted and sentenced to years in prison for it as well.

That being said, what do you think capital punishment is going to do to stop the future Skillings of the world? To this very day, Skilling maintains his innocence. Watching his congressional testimony, it becomes very clear that he honestly believed that what he was doing was in everybody's best interests. That he believed Enron was doing good, and that these scandals were unrelated to him.

In a sense, he was (is) totally deluded.

So I fail to see how this cold, chilling, rational application of the death penalty to people who have obvliously deluded themselves into believing they've done nothing wrong is somehow going to prevent or improve society as a whole. (never mind that it completely ignores the fact that Enron is arguably a systemic failure, rather than one that can feasibly be pinned on individuals)

Sure, it is some form of punishment or retribution, but the only thing as deluded as Skilling's claims of innocence would be the idea that executing him would have done one lick of good. One more dead person in the world, and we can all turn our thumbs waiting for the next delusional, greedy boob to create another Enron. Fantastic strategy.

...and this strategy has clearly worked wonders for stopping the onslaught of repressive, vicious dictators like Saddam. Good plan, let's execute them. That'll send a message to all of those potential would-be thugs!

[andyb]

You bunch all seem to be missing a couple of points. If you put your personal opinions aside for a while and read this, you might stop bickering like children.

1, Criminal punishment is there for a reason, if someone does something bad they need to be punished for the bad thing that they have done, and also as a deterent to other people. If someone can expect a punishment if they do something wrong, then they might not do that crime at all.

2, Human rights lawyers should be kicked in the nuts until they are dead, or rather put on a very very very short leash. They are trying to destroy pont 1, and things are so ridiculous now that criminals might as well not be punished at all.

3, You guys seem to be argueing about "what is the correct punishment". Well this is something that has been talked about and changed over hundereds of years. Torture used to be allowed, prisons used to be filthy shinking cesspits, people used to be killed.

If we look at the shit sentences that judges are handing out to people and think about what they have done, everying is wrong, absolutely everything.

If someone commits fraud and lets say they steal £500,000, they should be given a menial prison sentance where that person will get bum-raped on a regular basis. They will have their bank accounts plundered, property sold etc etc and that money given back with interest to the company that was stolen from, and they should pay all and any costs associated with their crime.

If someone mugs someone and hurts them (common enough), then they should be put in a prison in disgraceful conditions for a year or 2, and have money taken from them to pay back in compensation the person(s) they have mugged.

If someone causes GBH (Grevous Bodily Harm) to someone, they should have the crap beaten out of them and put in a vile prison for 5-10 years, and they will be denied the appropriate human rights.

If someone murders someone they should be put in a prison until they die, they should be denied any and all human rights as they have violated someone elses. They should be denied doctors, medicine, nice food, sanitation, daylight, friendly guards, room to move around in etc etc. That is what is know as punishment, and it would be allowed if all of the human rights lawyers were kicked in the nuts until dead, and people stopped being such pussies and backed real punishment for criminals.


Andy

[mathias]

Did Jeff Skilling do anything wrong by engaging in one of the most massive corporate scandals in American history? Well, yeah, I suppose he did. He's been convicted and sentenced to years in prison for it as well.

A minimum security prison. He could at least be bumped up to medium security.

I suppose skilling's not the best example, but there had to be someone at enron deserving the death penalty.

...and this strategy has clearly worked wonders for stopping the onslaught of repressive, vicious dictators like Saddam.

Who cares if it works wonders? The issue is whether it works, even if it works very poorly. If it stops just one stalin wannabe, it's worth it.

[loz]

You bunch all seem to be missing a couple of points. If you put your personal opinions aside

And our brains too ?

[Bluefront]

Cruel and unusual punishments are not an option in the USA. A murderer will only get some jail time, and infrequently "life without parole".......life in our country-club prison system. Now is this the sort of punishment some of you would have given Saddam, were he convicted in the USA, in a state without capital punishment? I find that sort of punishment for a mass murderer......insanity. And yet that is exactly what I'm hearing from some here.

Saddam's hanging by the current Iraq government, proves capital punishment need not be costly, in money or time. He was guilty, and he was hanged. Sounds simple enough to me. Almost nobody is crying over the incident, save a few people who lived far away from Iraq......and apparently a few mis-guided persons who believe keeping murderers alive, somehow serves some good.

[aristide1]

Cruel and unusual punishments are not an option in the USA. A murderer will only get some jail time, and infrequently "life without parole".......life in our country-club prison system.

If you think violent prisoners end up in a country club prison you suffer from delusions of educational adequacy.

Now if you're a neocon caught with his hand in a cookie jar (money or intern) then the worst that will happen is the country club prison.

[nici]

He should ha just been thrown in a well and left there, then jsut forget about him. Or force him to make suicide like the egyptians did.

Bottom line is that who gives a sheit? I think US foreighn policy is bullshit, but i would still want to live there.(mostly for the cheap cars and good climate)

Pay attention to local news. If the world ends tomorrow because a westers booboo initiated a nuclear war then you yes. Live one sday at a time so you dont' have any regrets when the nuke lands on your balls. Obviously it's just a dud and your balls are crushed. And so oon.
I never watch the new anymopre,. its just BOM BOM BOMBOMBOMBONBOmb KABOOOOOM DEATHDEATHADAETHDAETHNDAEEH oh fuckmeshitass.


THe only reason i would like ot see saddam alive is that if he was alive he could be procecuted for toher stuff, which might llead into to US government being under investigation. Now Thath would be interesteing.

[aristide1]

I dont have the time to write up an essay on why saddam's death was a positive thing, but i just thought i pipe in with my 2 cents.

Good riddance....he was a truly evil man.....

The US isnt perfect, but ill take its imperfection over any other nation.

There used to be a bumper sticker - My country, right or wrong.

I never understood or received an explanation as to why wrong was acceptable. Care to provide one?

Cheney is nothing but a draft dodger lining the pockets of his alledgedly former company with plenty of money. He's used his power to cloak his dirty dealings with oil companies under the cloak of national security. They ignore the Constitution and what this country is about.

You want Bush & Cheney? Feel free to take them. See if their handiwork makes you feel any safer.

[andyb]

I dont know a thing about Cheney, but Bush should be sent to the gallows.


Andy

[Bluefront]

aristide1......you continue to think life in prison is an equal punishment to execution. This is just not true, no matter the type of prison (in the USA). Just ask any prisoner on death row if he prefers life in prison over execution. The answer for the vast majority is that life under prison conditions is better than death. This has been the case for every study on the subject I ever read about.

Thus proving to me that the death penalty should remain at the top of the punishment list.......I'm sure even Saddam would have chosen life in prison over hanging.

[aristide1]

BF, you are going under the assumption that he would actually surive in prison. How would he do that? Can he bench press 410 pounds? Can he join the local white spremacist gang?

Your tally doesn't include responses from jailed convicts that have been beaten to death.

Still waiting for the Bush "Innocent Iraqis" body count. Did you run out of fingers and toes?

[aristide1]

Human rights lawyers should be kicked in the nuts until they are dead,

This would be an example of setting one's personal opinions aside, yes?

[nick705]

aristide1......you continue to think life in prison is an equal punishment to execution.

Execution isn't a "punishment" as such (unless you count the time the subjects spend anticipating what's going to happen). Once they're gone, the whole concept of punishing them is meaningless.

The people whom the state actually punishes are the families of the person executed, who aren't even allowed to grieve in public.

[Bluefront]

Nobody ever said that prison is a nice place to spend one's life.....quite the contrary. That is why going to prison is a deterrent to criminal behavior. Follow that line of reasoning further.....doing the worst sort of crime, might result in an even worse penalty, the death penalty. I feel certain that the worst punishments, deter the worst crimes.

This is the sort of thing difficult to prove with numbers.....but easy to prove with logical thinking. It's also easy to see that many people do not conduct their lives using logical thinking. Saddam is an example.....I'm certain he thought he could escape punishment forever (500,000 man "Republican Guard"), gone forever along with the monster Saddam himself.

[nick705]

Nobody ever said that prison is a nice place to spend one's life.....quite the contrary.

A murderer will only get some jail time, and infrequently "life without parole".......life in our country-club prison system.

With your "arguments" it's really just whatever suits at the time, isn't it?

This is the sort of thing difficult to prove with numbers.....but easy to prove with logical thinking.

Translation: "I have no evidence, but it's what I want to believe."

[Bluefront]

Our country-club prison system gives an inmate free room and board, free recreational/workout equipment , cable tv, free legal assistance, libraries, free medical care.....on and on. People on the outside should have it so good.

On the other hand......you cannot just leave the place, you are surrounded by dangerous people, you have lost many freedoms. This is not my idea of a nice place, despite the other perks. I don't want to spend my time there. But it beats hanging by a bunch.

Still as a tax-payer, I object to the "country-club" aspect of the prison system. And would prefer to see murderers hang.......avoids my paying for their upkeep, and maybe serves as a deterrent to many potential murderers. Something that cannot be measured.....

[aristide1]

Our country-club prison system

If you believe that then shoot the IRS guy and get free medical to boot. You will save so much money.

Still as a tax-payer, I object to the "country-club" aspect of the prison system. And would prefer to see murderers hang.......avoids my paying for their upkeep, and maybe serves as a deterrent to many potential murderers. Something that cannot be measured.....

1. Executions routinely costs more than lifetime prisonment, if cost is all that important to you.

2. Texas's murder rate is still higher than many states that do not have capital punishment. So where's the deterrent?

A deterrent requires reasoning, which you assume is present. On the other hand even more solid reasoning can be made of your capital punishment theory. Recall the first crime committed in the movie "Heat". They had all the witnesses, the people from the armoured car bound and gagged. When one of the theives got nervous he killed one of the guards. Now they were all going to get the death penalty. So what did they do? Once the first one was murdered, the death penalty allowed them to execute the remaining guards with zero consequences.

With ZERO CONSEQUENCES.

Get it?

So where's the argument for that BF?

[Beyonder]

And would prefer to see murderers hang.......avoids my paying for their upkeep,

Yeah, now you just have to pay astronomical court costs and legal fees associated with actually executing someone. The common response to this is, "gee, let's just execute people more quickly by removing all of the safety mechanisms our judiciary has built into the process," but that'd effectively give us the same sort of judicial process employed by governments like Iraq, under Saddam.

You can't have it both ways: some have argued that there are few (no?) instances of people being wrongly executed, but I sure much of that can be attributed to the lengthy legal process to ensure mistakes have not been made.

and maybe serves as a deterrent to many potential murderers. Something that cannot be measured.....

No, it can be measured quite well. Anything can be measured--it's moreso a question of how accurate or relatively accurate the results end up being. Rarely do studies measuring the deterrant effect of the death penalty conduct a similar analysis of incarceration. The one study that did found incarceration to be a more effective deterrant.

[andyb]

The only reason why the execution of an Inmate in the US costs so much (if its to be believed) is because your state is so bureacratic(u missing?).

The execution itself should only cost 3-months prison time in a real world, where does all of the expense get spent.??? I dont know, but if I lived in the US I would want to know.


Andy

[qviri]

The execution itself should only cost 3-months prison time in a real world, where does all of the expense get spent.??? I dont know, but if I lived in the US I would want to know.

People facing the death penalty deserve a lawyer, wouldn't you say?

[andyb]

Absolutely, that has nothing to do with my question though. Why does the execution cost so much.???

Are the lawyers present at the execution at the tax payers expense..... Surely not, the cost of lawyers has nothing to do with the cost of execution.


Andy

[qviri]

I believe Beyonder was using a mental shortcut. He included the costs of trial in the phrase "executing someone". I'm sure the physical act of killing is not that pricy.