saddam gets the noose

[david johnson]

the sentence is...hanging.

dj

[Kevin R]

He certainly deserves it. I would love to be there to watch him swing.

[jbuck919]

Do I wish any less than this for such an incredible monster? In my heart of hearts, no. But if you adopt a policy against the death penatlty, you must carry it through consistently. I would rather have Saddam imprisoned for life than have many lesser criminals be put to horrible death under current US law, as they still frequently and with great shame on us are. Death as a punishment is thing of the past, and this negation must be consistently observed as a matter of civilization.

Let's look at this a slightly different way, would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward. Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists.

[pizza]

Eichmann told one of his officers: "I'll die happily with the certainty of having killed almost six million Jews."

I wouldn't have hesitated a millisecond to grant him his wish.

[Ralph]

Do I wish any less than this for such an incredible monster? In my heart of hearts, no. But if you adopt a policy against the death penatlty, you must carry it through consistently. I would rather have Saddam imprisoned for life than have many lesser criminals be put to horrible death under current US law, as they still frequently and with great shame on us are. Death as a punishment is thing of the past, and this negation must be consistently observed as a matter of civilization.

Let's look at this a slightly different way, would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward. Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists.

*****

Executioners have written their memoirs and the occupation has been examined and studied. Many of them live quite happy and normal lives. If one believes in the death penalty it's not hard to accept participating in it, at least for many people.

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

[jbuck919]

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

Goody goody for him. I believe the same can be said for the Marquis de Sade and Vlad the Impaler, and why do you feel you need to post contrarily when you know that you agree with my fundamental point?

[pizza]

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

Goody goody for him. I believe the same can be said for the Marquis de Sade and Vlad the Impaler, and why do you feel you need to post contrarily when you know that you agree with my fundamental point?

Probably because you asked for it:

"Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists."

He showed you.

[jbuck919]

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

Goody goody for him. I believe the same can be said for the Marquis de Sade and Vlad the Impaler, and why do you feel you need to post contrarily when you know that you agree with my fundamental point?

Probably because you asked for it:

"Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists."

He showed you.

Pizza, speaking for Ralph. That out-Herods Herod.

[Madame]

Do I wish any less than this for such an incredible monster? In my heart of hearts, no. But if you adopt a policy against the death penatlty, you must carry it through consistently. I would rather have Saddam imprisoned for life than have many lesser criminals be put to horrible death under current US law, as they still frequently and with great shame on us are. Death as a punishment is thing of the past, and this negation must be consistently observed as a matter of civilization.

Let's look at this a slightly different way, would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward. Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists.

*****

Executioners have written their memoirs and the occupation has been examined and studied. Many of them live quite happy and normal lives. If one believes in the death penalty it's not hard to accept participating in it, at least for many people.

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

An important point is that, generally, it is done voluntarily, and in many states, without compensation. The bigger concern seems to be that it is not botched -- that is, that the person does not suffer an agonizing death.

I remember the 1977 Utah execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad (his desire, if you recall) -- 6 people on the firing squad, fired simultaneously, one had a blank charge in his rifle, but none of them knew which one it was. Execution team received counseling and briefing before, and debriefing and counseling afterward.

[jbuck919]

Do I wish any less than this for such an incredible monster? In my heart of hearts, no. But if you adopt a policy against the death penatlty, you must carry it through consistently. I would rather have Saddam imprisoned for life than have many lesser criminals be put to horrible death under current US law, as they still frequently and with great shame on us are. Death as a punishment is thing of the past, and this negation must be consistently observed as a matter of civilization.

Let's look at this a slightly different way, would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward. Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists.

*****

Executioners have written their memoirs and the occupation has been examined and studied. Many of them live quite happy and normal lives. If one believes in the death penalty it's not hard to accept participating in it, at least for many people.

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

An important point is that, generally, it is done voluntarily, and in many states, without compensation. The bigger concern seems to be that it is not botched -- that is, that the person does not suffer an agonizing death.

I remember the 1977 Utah execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad (his desire, if you recall) -- 6 people on the firing squad, fired simultaneously, one had a blank charge in his rifle, but none of them knew which one it was. Execution team received counseling and briefing before, and debriefing and counseling afterward.

That is indeed how executions by firing squad have been traditionally done. But no modern sane person participates in one. These "volunteers" are not normal people, and should be considered more suspect than the person they are killing.

[mourningstar]

Finally, He gets what he deserves

but what i find rather poor is the denial of the international tribunals from the side of the US. They were actually the one who started it, I think it was President Jefferson.

And the case was just amature, a judge being dispelled by the government, what about the Trias Politica!!.

[Madame]

An important point is that, generally, it is done voluntarily, and in many states, without compensation. The bigger concern seems to be that it is not botched -- that is, that the person does not suffer an agonizing death.

I remember the 1977 Utah execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad (his desire, if you recall) -- 6 people on the firing squad, fired simultaneously, one had a blank charge in his rifle, but none of them knew which one it was. Execution team received counseling and briefing before, and debriefing and counseling afterward.

That is indeed how executions by firing squad have been traditionally done. But no modern sane person participates in one. These "volunteers" are not normal people, and should be considered more suspect than the person they are killing.

I doubt that either of us could attest to their sanity, but in the Gilmore case the firing squad were certified police officers selected from a list supplied by a law enforcement agency, selected by the director of Corrections. Witnesses chosen by the offender, as well as the victim's family, watched the execution take place.

[jbuck919]

An important point is that, generally, it is done voluntarily, and in many states, without compensation. The bigger concern seems to be that it is not botched -- that is, that the person does not suffer an agonizing death.

I remember the 1977 Utah execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad (his desire, if you recall) -- 6 people on the firing squad, fired simultaneously, one had a blank charge in his rifle, but none of them knew which one it was. Execution team received counseling and briefing before, and debriefing and counseling afterward.

That is indeed how executions by firing squad have been traditionally done. But no modern sane person participates in one. These "volunteers" are not normal people, and should be considered more suspect than the person they are killing.

I doubt that either of us could attest to their sanity, but in the Gilmore case the firing squad were certified police officers selected from a list supplied by a law enforcement agency, selected by the director of Corrections. Witnesses chosen by the offender, as well as the victim's family, watched the execution take place.

How would you feel if you had to push the buton or fire the shot?

No, the death penalty is outside the realm of modern civiization and should not be defended even implicitly. As I have posted before, it is not a questions of what happens to them; it is a question of what happens to us.

[david johnson]

'That is indeed how executions by firing squad have been traditionally done. But no modern sane person participates in one. These "volunteers" are not normal people, and should be considered more suspect than the person they are killing.

Let's look at this a slightly different way, would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward.'

??

you do not speak for all folx...not even the civilized ones.
i suppose you could turn saddam over to the kurds. they know how to use woodchippers, too...just like he & his boys did.
i think he'll prefer the necktie party.

dj

[Madame]

I doubt that either of us could attest to their sanity, but in the Gilmore case the firing squad were certified police officers selected from a list supplied by a law enforcement agency, selected by the director of Corrections. Witnesses chosen by the offender, as well as the victim's family, watched the execution take place.

How would you feel if you had to push the buton or fire the shot?

No, the death penalty is outside the realm of modern civiization and should not be defended even implicitly. As I have posted before, it is not a questions of what happens to them; it is a question of what happens to us.

How would I feel if I HAD to, like against my will? Of course I wouldn't want to be put in that position. But that isn't how it works. It's voluntary, the decision to execute has already been made, and some people can compartmentalize and say it's a job, and do it. Does that mean they are insane? No. Does that mean they have no respect for life? No. Does it scar them forever? Probably not, otherwise they wouldn't have volunteered. Did they take great pleasure in it? I doubt it.

I don't believe that the execution of Ted Bundy worsened "us" -- in fact, if you're really thinking in terms of being humane -- do you think Ted would have had any quality of life living out his years in solitary confinement in his sociopathic condition? Just something to think about.

I'm not trying to dissuade from your ideals about capital punishment, it's just that not everybody believes as you do, and that does not make them morally inferior to you.

Just for the record, I wish this nation would prioritize its resources toward our children and do a lot of prevention (even if it means intervening with a damaging family) to reduce the likelihood of their going into the world of crime. But we're more willing to spend $$ on jails than on our kids.

[Ralph]

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

Goody goody for him. I believe the same can be said for the Marquis de Sade and Vlad the Impaler, and why do you feel you need to post contrarily when you know that you agree with my fundamental point?

*****

Actually I don't think we are in agreement. I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I have always been fascinated by de Sade and would much have enjoyed his company. As to Vlad, well, there's a difference between an execution and a morbid act of sadism.

[Ralph]

The famed Warden Lawes of Sing Sing, who oversaw many electrocutions, wrote a book about his experiences. He lived to a ripe old age and seemed a very happy camper.

Goody goody for him. I believe the same can be said for the Marquis de Sade and Vlad the Impaler, and why do you feel you need to post contrarily when you know that you agree with my fundamental point?

Probably because you asked for it:

"Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists."

He showed you.

Pizza, speaking for Ralph. That out-Herods Herod.

*****

Herod had his good points.

[Ralph]

I'm thinking, isn't it odd the court decided Saddam's fate right before our elections? I wonder if Karl Rove is involved in this. Any thoughts?

[Corlyss_D]

Do I wish any less than this for such an incredible monster? In my heart of hearts, no. But if you adopt a policy against the death penatlty, you must carry it through consistently.

Aw, com'on, John. Let the PC mask slip just a li'l. . . .

horrible death

? I've put down animals with the same mix of chemicals. It's a very peaceful death as deaths go. It's the death part that bothers the perps, not the manner.

would you be willing to be an excetuioner? I think not. Any modern person who would be involved in such a thing is either completely perverted himself, or could not live with himself afterward. Show me the man who has pushed the buttons and caused the poisons to go into a man's arm and lives a normal live afterward. I doubt that such a person exists.

You've asked this before and I've answered it before: wouldn't bother me a bit. Of course, I prefer firing squad - I need the range time. For people like Saddam, I'd also prefer more lingering and excruciating ends, rather like interminable medical experiments that make them plead for death. But that's out these days . . .

[Corlyss_D]

I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I think in John's case the executioners are merely the embodiment of the state.

I'm curious. How did you arrive at your position on the death penalty? I'm just looking for info here, not a fight.

[jack stowaway]

You've asked this before and I've answered it before: wouldn't bother me a bit. Of course, I prefer firing squad - I need the range time.

It's not mine to give, but if it were I'd award Corlyss 'Post of the Day'.

[Ralph]

I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I think in John's case the executioners are merely the embodiment of the state.

I'm curious. How did you arrive at your position on the death penalty? I'm just looking for info here, not a fight.

*****

In brief, the risk of mistake and caprice is too great. And I seriously doubt that equal protection in terms of defense resources can ever be made available in capital cases. Of course that can also be said in other less serious criminal matters but as is often noted, "Death is Different."

My objection to the death penalty is solely with regard to murder committed in the United States . I have no quarrel with, for example, the death sentences handed down at Nuremberg. Nor do I have an issue with the tradition of imposing the death penalty on wartime spies, e.g., the Germans who landed by U-boat on the Atlantic coast.

[Corlyss_D]

In brief, the risk of mistake and caprice is too great.

I agree as it is presently administered. I am opposed to executing innocent people and there's been too much doubt cast on convictions of late. (And by that I do not mean people who are guilty but retarded, crazy, or underage. I mean people who didn't do the crime.) I've toyed with the idea of getting involved with the Innocence Project for that reason.

[Corlyss_D]

You've asked this before and I've answered it before: wouldn't bother me a bit. Of course, I prefer firing squad - I need the range time.

It's not mine to give, but if it were I'd award Corlyss 'Post of the Day'.

Thank you, Jack. The thought is appreciated.

[rasputin]

I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I think in John's case the executioners are merely the embodiment of the state.

I'm curious. How did you arrive at your position on the death penalty? I'm just looking for info here, not a fight.

*****



I have no quarrel with, for example, the death sentences handed down at Nuremberg.

I have. Speer Should have been hanged

[Donald Isler]

Actually, it was originally supposed to be death by firing squad. Cheney was pushing for this because he figured it would:

1) Give him an opportunity to improve his aim, and

2) Be his first military experience.

[jbuck919]

I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I think in John's case the executioners are merely the embodiment of the state.

I'm curious. How did you arrive at your position on the death penalty? I'm just looking for info here, not a fight.

*****

In brief, the risk of mistake and caprice is too great. And I seriously doubt that equal protection in terms of defense resources can ever be made available in capital cases. Of course that can also be said in other less serious criminal matters but as is often noted, "Death is Different."

My objection to the death penalty is solely with regard to murder committed in the United States . I have no quarrel with, for example, the death sentences handed down at Nuremberg. Nor do I have an issue with the tradition of imposing the death penalty on wartime spies, e.g., the Germans who landed by U-boat on the Atlantic coast.

Yes, but Ralph do you realize how inconsistent that is? It is an extreme example of "andere Zeiten, andere Sitzen" ("other times, other morals)" You are drawing fine distinctions that frankly shock me. Let's talk about death for a minute. The French and Russians horridly executed their last monarchs and their families for no very good reason. Napoleon was allowed to complete a natural life in exile. Can't you see the differece? Blood on one's hands is the decisive factor. As I have posted several times, it is not what it does to them, it is what it does to us.

Let's go back to the Nazis for a minute. We could even revisit the issue of life in prison, which the great Russian humanist and scientist Andrei Sakharaov thought the equivalent of the death penalty. Arguably, Rudolph Hess was the least of the major Nazi leadership. He never did anything that awful and apparently even tried for his separate peace. But because of the insistence of the Russians, whe was never released from Spandau, lived a horrid existence there, and eventually, at a great old age, took his own life. He should have been released after a few years of incarceration and been allowed to live a quite life with his family.

Even in Germany, if you commit a serious crime, they lock up the cell and throw away the key. I'm not pretending that this is not the best penal solution we have absent everything else along with reasonable possibilities for rehabilitation, which is not a myth. But killing someone? No possibilitty for of parole in a life sentence except in the most extreme cases? No, these are not the standards of modern penology, or civilization.

[Madame]

Actually, it was originally supposed to be death by firing squad. Cheney was pushing for this because he figured it would:

1) Give him an opportunity to improve his aim, and

2) Be his first military experience.

Shooters headed for the hills when he insisted on a circle configuration with Saddam in the center.

[Ralph]

I'm against the death penalty but I don't demonize executioners nor do I believe my view, which is not based on any inherentent evil in killing, comports with your position.

I think in John's case the executioners are merely the embodiment of the state.

I'm curious. How did you arrive at your position on the death penalty? I'm just looking for info here, not a fight.

*****

In brief, the risk of mistake and caprice is too great. And I seriously doubt that equal protection in terms of defense resources can ever be made available in capital cases. Of course that can also be said in other less serious criminal matters but as is often noted, "Death is Different."

My objection to the death penalty is solely with regard to murder committed in the United States . I have no quarrel with, for example, the death sentences handed down at Nuremberg. Nor do I have an issue with the tradition of imposing the death penalty on wartime spies, e.g., the Germans who landed by U-boat on the Atlantic coast.

Yes, but Ralph do you realize how inconsistent that is? It is an extreme example of "andere Zeiten, andere Sitzen" ("other times, other morals)" You are drawing fine distinctions that frankly shock me. Let's talk about death for a minute. The French and Russians horridly executed their last monarchs and their families for no very good reason. Napoleon was allowed to complete a natural life in exile. Can't you see the differece? Blood on one's hands is the decisive factor. As I have posted several times, it is not what it does to them, it is what it does to us.

Let's go back to the Nazis for a minute. We could even revisit the issue of life in prison, which the great Russian humanist and scientist Andrei Sakharaov thought the equivalent of the death penalty. Arguably, Rudolph Hess was the least of the major Nazi leadership. He never did anything that awful and apparently even tried for his separate peace. But because of the insistence of the Russians, whe was never released from Spandau, lived a horrid existence there, and eventually, at a great old age, took his own life. He should have been released after a few years of incarceration and been allowed to live a quite life with his family.

Even in Germany, if you commit a serious crime, they lock up the cell and throw away the key. I'm not pretending that this is not the best penal solution we have absent everything else along with reasonable possibilities for rehabilitation, which is not a myth. But killing someone? No possibilitty for of parole in a life sentence except in the most extreme cases? No, these are not the standards of modern penology, or civilization.

*****

Historical contextuality is critical to my thinking. Many who support the death penalty, most perhaps, are very clear that it should only be applied in narrowly defined instances. That has always been the case, at least in American law but the circumstances change with shifting values AND changes in the law.

Many of those sentenced to death are truly loathsome and their lives mean nothing to me. My concern is an imperfect system which can not be modified or adjusted to provide equal justice for all who face the death sentence.

Your "standards of modern penology" are neither a uniform set of postulates nor are they benefited by any discernible consensus beyond the obvious restrictions against certain odious practices. We just had a major conference on prisoners' rights at my school two weeks ago and there was plenty of argument.

[Corlyss_D]

Yes, but Ralph do you realize how inconsistent that is?

Consistency is the hobgoblin . . . etc. Why should one abandon the concept of justice for mercy that will return to bedevil one for generations?

The French and Russians horridly executed their last monarchs and their families for no very good reason.

They were murdered for a most excellent reason: to ensure that the monster of monarchy stayed dead. Their murders were not the significant part of the revolutions' decline into barbarism. It was the murders of the thousands and millions of middle class people that followed which doomed the revolutions. Nobody gave a rip about the monarchs.

Napoleon was allowed to complete a natural life in exile.

His British jailers wisely murdered him too.

Blood on one's hands is the decisive factor. As I have posted several times, it is not what it does to them, it is what it does to us.

Oh bother! Worry more about a west that is incapable of defending itself rationally because it has no culture of righteous revenge. Hell, it doesn't even have a culture of righteous indignation against any foreigner, only against its own.

But killing someone? No possibilitty for of parole in a life sentence except in the most extreme cases? No, these are not the standards of modern penology, or civilization.

Globaloney, John.

[jack stowaway]

Corlyss wrote:

Oh bother! Worry more about a west that is incapable of defending itself rationally because it has no culture of righteous revenge. Hell, it doesn't even have a culture of righteous indignation against any foreigner, only against its own.

That's an interesting take on it. In other posts I've lamented the lack of ordinary outrage shown by politicians and the media at Islamist savageries, including 9/11.

Many commentators ridiculed Ann Coulter for her remarks immediately following 9/11 -- that we should 'invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations.' I couldn't understand why. Almost alone among pundits Coulter expressed the visceral need for vengeance that the average citizen felt at such barbarity. But suddenly Coulter --and her unreformed attitudes, became the problem, not Islamist savagery.

Can you imagine if the US had reacted in the same vein following Pearl Harbour? 'Oh, we provoked them by our callous disregard for their feelings. What can we do to atone?'

The almost-lost capacity for moral outrage is the same quality I admired in Orianna Fallaci. She had nothing but contempt for Islamic 'values' and their forced imposition on a largely unresisting Western political class. Her response to 9/11 was transparent and heartfelt -- as it should have been. She understood what was at stake, what was worth fighting for. The Islamists may have hated her but they respected her passionate conviction.

The West seems afflicted with a peculiarly post-modern spiritual malaise in which every offence, no matter how great, is greeted with a great yawn of indifference --or endless self-recrimination. No wonder the Islamists despise us. 'Don't you consider anything worth dying for?' goes the taunt.

So the Islamisation of the West continues apace, with only the occasional naysayer standing up to object. And he or she is quickly attacked in the media for 'bigotry' or 'simple-mindedness' or [gasp!] 'intolerance' while the enemy, unhampered by such scruples, goes from strength to strength.

Gibbon wrote of how Christianity -that despised sect, eventually prevailed over the might of Rome, 'raising the Cross in the Capitol' through sheer persistence and conviction in the rightness of their cause. Does a not dissimilar fate await the modern West?

[Ralph]

There is no reliable evidence that Napoleon was murdered, much less that his jailers committed the deed.

[Brendan]

There is no reliable evidence that Napoleon was murdered, much less that his jailers committed the deed.

Once a popular theory, it has since been debunked (http://www.napoleonguide.com/naparsenic.htm).

[Brendan]

Jack,

For some reason this reminded me of another article. From http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpag ... ec_id=4438, emphasis mine:

The question arises, Where does this moral frivolity come from?

The judges in New Zealand are not entirely to blame, since they have to sentence according to guidelines laid down for them. They cannot impose any sentence that they happen to think is just. But they do not protest against guidelines that are patently absurd. Nor was there any reason why the fourth judge should have granted bail in the first case I described. Therefore the judges cannot absolve themselves entirely of responsibility.

Lying behind the frivolity of the New Zealand criminal justice system (which also infects the British system) is a willingness to ignore, or an unwillingness to take seriously, the most obvious prognostic signs, or even to take considerations of justice into account. Just as Mailer failed completely to recognise the significance of the passage in Abbott’s book, which after all was composed of letters to himself, that I have quoted above, so the judges and others in New Zealand ignored the most obvious considerations in their dealings with the criminals before them. Their own reputation for generosity of spirit and lack of vengefulness was more important to them than protection of the public.

Lying in a layer of the mind yet deeper than this desire for approbation is the baleful influence of Rousseau’s idea that Man is or would be good but for the influence of society upon him. If this is the case, then the murderers in the cases I have cited were as much victims as their victims, and the society which has thus victimised them has no moral right to treat them harshly. Rather, it must reform, indeed perfect, itself. Until it does so, it ought to expect cases of the kind I have described.

[Corlyss_D]

Once a popular theory, it has since been debunked (http://www.napoleonguide.com/naparsenic.htm).

Thanks for the update, Brendan.