The Death Penalty

[ST88]

On the TV show, "Homicide", one of the characters describes the Death Penalty this way: "It's wrong... and necessary." On TV, it's often used as leverage to get suspects to confess -- I don't know if it works this way in real life. But the idea is that the threat of death as a punishment for violent crime is part of its effectiveness.

We often hear the religious among us talk about the sanctity of life when it comes to topics like abortion and assisted suicide, and though many religions have come out against the Death Penalty, only one actually puts a fair amount of resources towards opposing it (Quakers, I believe).

Most of the world's nations have banned the death penalty, and yet the U.S. is made up of people who arrived from most of the world's nations. We have a culture of death in this country -- idealizing death as the ultimate punishment, in some ways the ultimate exile from society. In this way, the U.S. is less pragmatic than other nations, and more reliant on an image of the ideal society. The ideal society myth is part of the reason why people emigrate here.

The Death Penalty strikes me as pie-in-the-sky reasoning about what death should mean to people and how the threat of it affects their behavior. In pop-sociology, what it is intended to do is deter people from committing violent crimes for fear of having the government put them to death. This is ludicrous, of course, but the ideal is still around.

What is the purpose of Capital Punishment, and is it a fair way to deal with the worst violent criminals in society? What does religion have to say about the death penalty, and how has it informed U.S. opinion?

[youngborean]

You sound really excited for it to happen. I think the people to best judge Saddam are his countrymen. I hope that justice is served quickly and both sides can move on together.

[McCulloch]

I must agree. Dubya's disregard for international law will be the ultimate humiliation for the USA. Yes, it certainly appears as if the problem is the Dubya administration.

[juliod]

You sound really excited for it to happen.

I'm sure giving me this undeserved scorn makes you feel very superior, but it won't stop the insurgency nor will it prevent Hussein from regaining power.

I think the people to best judge Saddam are his countrymen.

Then it will be very hard to show he committed a crime. Hussein will easily turn this trial into a trial of the occupation. And it will be our fault for not moving him to The Hague and internationalizing the situation.

Meanwhile, Spain has issued a warrant for the arrest of three US soldiers....

DanZ

[micatala]

Of course, the problem is the Dubya administration. Since they don't want there to be an "legitimacy" to international law, they have failed to move Hussein to The Hague where he could undergo a real trial for crimes against humanity. They are trying him for Iraqi crime. It will be difficult to show that anything he did was an actual crime in Iraq at the time he did it.

Hussein was then, and still claims to be, the legitimate President of Iraq. Due to our negligence in keeping him in Iraq, I think it possible that he will once again be President of Iraq.

First he will present an image of dignity and defiance, as he is doing now. This will resonate with the Iraqis. He will become a symbol of resistance to the occupation, both inside and outside the insurgency. Then he'll become too dangerous to execute, for fear of a general uprising. Once the insurgency reaches a crescendo, he may be freed (by the government or by a mob). This would be the ultimate humiliation for us.

I would agree that this is a plausible scenario, and it is frankly hard to assess its likelihood. We would be foolish to dismiss it as a real possibility. Certainly, we know there are not an insignificant number of Iraqis who continue to identify or sympathize with Saddam, even if they don't swear allegiance to him.

I would also agree that the Bush administrations unwillingness to submit to, or even really deal with, international legal agencies is a problem. Yes, in the short term this may mean some 'loss of sovereignty,' but I think it is short-sighted to deem this potential loss as more important than the long term gain of building a world that is more unified in its support for universal human rights and more civilized with respect to international relations.

One of my main reasons that I have opposed the war in Iraq from the outset is that I think we have now sown very durable, long-lasting seeds of anti-Americanism and terrorism in the region, just as our past support for the Shah of Iran (and even Saddam in the 1980's) has sown seeds of anti-Americanism and support for terrorism that we have seen flower in Iran.

Back to the death penalty, I continue to be opposed to the death penalty, even for such a one as Saddam. Yes, in the sense of 'cosmic justice,' Saddam deserves the worst punishment we can imagine. However, what good would this punishment actually do? I don't think you can say that it is going to have any real deterrant effect on 'potential future Saddams.' It might, in some sense, make us feel better or make the Iraqi people feel better. It also would insure that he doesn't come back to power, but it neglects the possibility that his death will inspire others as bad as himself to seek power. The insurgency is testimony to me to the notion that even deposing him in the way that we did has had negative impacts that I don't think would have occurred if we had been more patient and continued to look for other ways to have him deposed. Yes, this is speculation, but it is also speculation to assume that he would have remained in power indefinitely without the U.S. taking the action that it has.

I also believe executing Saddam would come at the cost of ultimately making us less humane.

If we let a mob take care of Saddam, what will happen when the mob wants to take care of someone else that they take a dislike to, even if they do not deserve such treatment? We have a civilized rule of law partly to avoid the prospect of 'mob law' which is really no law at all.

[micatala]

PS I haven't seen the news on the arrest of the 3 U.S. soldiers. Perhaps it can be the impetus for another thread related to the consequences of the Bush administration's position on international law?

[Dilettante]

juliod wrote:

Of course, the problem is the Dubya administration. Since they don't want there to be an "legitimacy" to international law, they have failed to move Hussein to The Hague where he could undergo a real trial for crimes against humanity.

International law? Who administers that? International law is mere fiction, at least until there is an international government it will be worth less than the paper it's written on. A proper system of checks and balances dictates that there shouldn't be an international (thus, extra-territorial) judicial power in the absence of an international legislative power and an international executive power.
A real trial? Under the UN, at The Hague? Come on... Milosevic's trial is enough of an embarrassment (vague political charges, controversial proceedings...).

[questioner4]

I oppose the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. I think it's wrong to take another human's life.

[ST88]

Yes, in the sense of 'cosmic justice,' Saddam deserves the worst punishment we can imagine. However, what good would this punishment actually do? I don't think you can say that it is going to have any real deterrant effect on 'potential future Saddams.' It might, in some sense, make us feel better or make the Iraqi people feel better. It also would insure that he doesn't come back to power, but it neglects the possibility that his death will inspire others as bad as himself to seek power.

Why would you call the death penalty "the worst punishment we can imagine"? Surely there are more effective ways to dole out punishment to someone than to end their existence. The only real punishment in this is the nervous tension engendered before the execution. Any perceived punishment after that pre-supposes an afterlife that hinges on poetic justice.

[Cephus]

Really though I question the logic in sentencing a person to life in prison without possibility of parole. If an individual is so heinous that society has determined that he or she should not be allowed to exist in that society then doesn't elimination make more sense than perpetual incarceration?

Absolutely. We have so many people in prison right now, they're letting violent offenders out early because they have nowhere to put them. We really need a complete revamp of our criminal justice system, it makes no sense at all to put someone away for life without the possibility of parole and then keep feeding them for 50 years.

The cost of capitol punishment, if it is properly seperated from the appeal process, is much less than 50-80 years of incarceration.

The only expensive thing about capital punishment, indeed about most of the justice system, is the ridiculous amount of appeals that people can file. They don't even have to claim they are innocent, they can file that someone forgot to cross a 't' or that they just don't like the sentence. I think we need to eliminate all appeals on all cases except where the defendant claims to be innocent of the charge. That would cut down on the expenses of the prison system right there.

[juliod]

I think we need to eliminate all appeals on all cases except where the defendant claims to be innocent of the charge.

The problem is that you cannot appeal based on innocence. All appeals must be based on technical errors. Once a jury has found you guilt you are guilty. To get a new trial you have to find an actual legal error in the trial (i.e. a technicality)

In fact the Supreme Court precedent is that a state may execute a person known to be innocent as long as the original trial was fair.

And since we are still finding people on death row to be not guilty by reason of actual innocence it is apparent that our appeals process is not sufficient.

BTW, we don't need anything like a complete revamp of the legal system. We need only eliminate mandatory sentances, life without parole, and the prohibitions of marijuana and cocaine.

DanZ