[Mobius]

I prefer the hanged man with written:

S_DD_M

I told it to my class...they enjoyed it!

[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6263787.stm

Hanging of Saddam's aides filmed

Iraqi government officials have shown journalists video of the hanging of two of Saddam Hussein's aides, during which one of the men was decapitated.

The film shows Barzan Ibrahim - Saddam Hussein's half-brother - and Awad Hamed al-Bandar hanged side-by-side.

Barzan, former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, were convicted over the killing of 148 Shias in 1982.

The government said Barzan's beheading was accidental.

The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says the video first shows both men being prepared for execution standing next to each other.

They were both dressed in orange boiler suits.

Executioners in balaclavas placed hoods round both men's heads, then the noose.

A short while later the footage, which is silent, shows both men fall.

Almost immediately the rope that was round Barzan's neck flicks upwards, the body dropping below.

The cameraman then shows the pit below and a headless body, bloodied at the neck and what officials say was Barzan's head still covered by a hood.

Al-Bandar's body was still hanging above, said one official who was present at the execution.

Our correspondent says officials say they are not planning to release the footage publicly.

The hangings took place at 0300 (0000 GMT), apparently in the same building where Saddam Hussein was put to death on 30 December after being convicted of the same crime.

The manner of the former Iraqi leader's execution drew international criticism after unofficial mobile phone footage showing him being taunted and insulted in his final moments was released.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there were no such scenes at the hanging of his aides.
[/quote]

So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?

[Nuclear1]

So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?

Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else.  Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.

So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out?  Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.

[aldo_14]

So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?

Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else.  Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.

So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out?  Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.

I'd say the state giving itself the right to kill enemies of society is rather a key factor in what we conceive of as democracy, yes.  Democracy is essentially a byword for a state which respects basic human rights (at least in the context of 'spreading democracy across the middle east'), and I'd say the botched (not to mention sectarian) nature of both the trail and the execution is a very good exemplar of the general chaos and disarray of Iraqi 'freedom'.

[Nuclear1]

So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?

Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else.  Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.

So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out?  Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.

I'd say the state giving itself the right to kill enemies of society is rather a key factor in what we conceive of as democracy, yes.  Democracy is essentially a byword for a state which respects basic human rights (at least in the context of 'spreading democracy across the middle east'), and I'd say the botched (not to mention sectarian) nature of both the trail and the execution is a very good exemplar of the general chaos and disarray of Iraqi 'freedom'.

True, but the trial, sadly, was doomed to be botched at this point in Iraqi history, given that the whole country is simply a mess.  What we can hope for is that Iraqis don't use this as precedent for any future trial; Saddam's death was supposed to be the 'end of an era' for the Iraqis, and let's hope they can keep that in mind.

[Vasudan Commander]

I hope to see it on youtube or ebaumsworld soon...

[Rictor]

It's floating all over the Internet. I can't remember where specifically I saw it, but I'm sure that if you Google for it you can find it:

aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords  the victim some measure of dignity.

Saddam was a dictator. He knew full well that he ruled by force and may eventually fall by force, and that he would recieve exactly the same treatment he afforded his victims. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Ghostavo]

So you would request rape against the rapists?

Also Braveheart, Che Guevara, etc... are we supposed to idolize the people being killed? Is Saddam supposed to be idolized for him being killed?

[aldo_14]

It's floating all over the Internet. I can't remember where specifically I saw it, but I'm sure that if you Google for it you can find it:

aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords  the victim some measure of dignity.

Saddam was a dictator. He knew full well that he ruled by force and may eventually fall by force, and that he would recieve exactly the same treatment he afforded his victims. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The only justification for murder that any (sane) legal system allows is self-defense.  Capital punishment is merely excusing murder on the basis of the character of the victim; if someone kills a rapist, or a drug dealer, we prosecute them as if they killed a saint.  Justice is, and should be, blind on the character of the victim.

For all I can read, you're almost celebrating the martyrdom, rather than decrepid decline (as a life sentence would be) of Saddam.  What dignity was offered to Saddam (taunted to the gallows and hung before completing his final prayer), or to William Wallace (hung, drawn and quartered - eviscarated, disembowelled and his head placed on a stick atop London Bridge alongside those of his 4 brothers)? Or Che Guevara, shot repeatedly in the legs before being executed by soldiers who were fighting over who had the right to kill him? Let's not forget how these people died, rather than colour our opinion by how they lived.  Are you advocating capital punishment for the sake of the punishee?

[Nuclear1]

So you would request rape against the rapists?

Also Braveheart, Che Guevara, etc... are we supposed to idolize the people being killed? Is Saddam supposed to be idolized for him being killed?

No, because raping someone is inhumane.  Most forms of capital punishment are swift and relatively painless, particularly lethal injection, which the US employs as the sole method in the thirty-eight states that still practice it (with some exceptions, namely Nebraska and some states that offer electrocution, hanging, and firing squad as alternates to lethal injection).

As for the second paragraph, it's not as though we glorify those people who are killed, it's that we glorify them and their cause simultaneously.  You might not remember someone who was thrown in prison for the rest of their lives and left to rot in there (like Sir Walter Raleigh), but you certainly would remember someone who screamed "FREEDOM!" as they had their head chopped off.  There are some exceptions, of course (Nelson Mandella, anyone?) but the majority of people who are seen as martyrs are those who are killed for their cause, not thrown in jail.

And for once, I agree with you Rictor.  Kudos on that post.

[karajorma]

aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords  the victim some measure of dignity.

Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.

What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.

[aldo_14]

No, because raping someone is inhumane.  Most forms of capital punishment are swift and relatively painless, particularly lethal injection, which the US employs as the sole method in the thirty-eight states that still practice it (with some exceptions, namely Nebraska and some states that offer electrocution, hanging, and firing squad as alternates to lethal injection).

I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used.  It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.

Of course, lethal injection uses a paralyzing drug - so it'd be impossible for the inmate to scream, etc, if suffering excrutiating pain.  My understanding is that Sodium thiopental is used to overdose the inmate - however, thiopental is short living (it's not used in surgery beyong induction for this reason, apparently) and should be (but is not) tailored to the 'patient'. Additionally, the paralytical agent - Pancuronium bromide - can counteract and negate thiopental if improperly administered (and it's worth nothing that AFAIK the executioner is not trained in anaesthesia).

 It then follows that the inmate suffocates through paralysation, whilst enduring intense burning pain from the administration of the potassium chloride.

A University of Miami study (admittedly in cooperation with an attorney representing Death Row inmates) discovered that 88% of executed inmates have less Thiopental in their blood than would be used for anaesthitising a patient.

[Nuclear1]

Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.

What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.

You can't judge it that way.  As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account.  The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned. 

So really, what's better:  a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all? 

I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used.  It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.

It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law.  A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people.  So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment. 

[Ghostavo]

Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.

What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.

You can't judge it that way.  As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account.  The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned.

Just so you know how odd this argument feels, it's the equivalent of asking a nearby guard to shoot you because when you get out, the possibility of rape and overcrowded streets scare you to death (ironicly and literally).

Prison rape is not supposed to happen, if it happens there is something wrong with that prison's system. The other two also mean there is something wrong. We don't legislate law that takes into account events that happen outside the law. It would be like legislating the proper way to conduct a drug dealing operation.

So really, what's better:  a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all? 

I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used.  It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.

It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law.  A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people.  So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment. 

But the citizen's life is never given as part of that social contract. The government cannot take it away as it wishes.

[aldo_14]

Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.

What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.

You can't judge it that way.  As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account.  The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned. 

So really, what's better:  a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all? 

So you're advocating capital punishment as a lesser sentence?

I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used.  It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.

It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law.  A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people.  So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment. 

Whether the state appoportions itself the right is the fundamental issue here.   You're drawing a strange distinction here, because clearly there is a question as to what right the state has to enforce cruel and inhumane punishments.

No doubt there are many places where 'the will of people' would justify chopping off the arms of thieves, and stoning adulterers; there are basic rights of decency, humanity, and fairness that must transcend the momentary whims of the population (the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example).  The question is not 'do the people want this?', but 'is this right?'.  Do we offer people the option to have sex offenders tortured and then castrated?  To allow the victim to beat up their robber with a baseball bat?  Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?

[Nuclear1]

I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used.  It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.

It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law.  A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people.  So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment. 

No doubt there are many places where 'the will of people' would justify chopping off the arms of thieves, and stoning adulterers; there are basic rights of decency, humanity, and fairness that must transcend the momentary whims of the population (the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example).  The question is not 'do the people want this?', but 'is this right?'.  Do we offer people the option to have sex offenders tortured and then castrated?  To allow the victim to beat up their robber with a baseball bat? 

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Constitution already provides for the death penalty as being legitimate, so long as due process of law preceeds the punishment.  In some cases, the trial may be less-than legit (Saddam's, for instance), and in such a case, no American court should ever pass a sentence on a criminal.

The Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now, seeing as the Amendments wouldn't necessarily conflict with each other, why would the Constitution provide for the taking of one's life with due process of law, but outlaw this as a cruel and unusual punishment?

Because it isn't one.

I agree with you that castrating sex offenders or chopping off a person's arms are less than humane, and would be "cruel and unusual."  However, no US capital punishment still enforced inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment, as death often occurs within a few seconds or minutes of the paralytic injection taking effect.  The contrast, of course, would be chopping one's arm off and allowing him to bleed to death, or shattering one's ribcage with a baseball bat.

Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?

This sentence is interesting, because isn't the entire justice system a form of revenge, to punish a criminal for what he's done to another?

[aldo_14]

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Constitution already provides for the death penalty as being legitimate, so long as due process of law preceeds the punishment.  In some cases, the trial may be less-than legit (Saddam's, for instance), and in such a case, no American court should ever pass a sentence on a criminal.

The Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now, seeing as the Amendments wouldn't necessarily conflict with each other, why would the Constitution provide for the taking of one's life with due process of law, but outlaw this as a cruel and unusual punishment?

Because it isn't one.

This is not an arguement about what is in the Constitution, but what should be.  It's not so long since an electric chair that melted the eyeballs of those in it was considered a fine punishment... in some places it still is, of course.

Saying that the Constitution - a centuries old document - says something is not cruel and unusual is sufficient justification is plain wrong; society, morality has been shown to change throughout history. The US Bill of Rights was, I believe, written at a period where the genocide of the Native American race was 'ok'.  You can only evaluate state executions through a modern perspective, not citing the text an (effectively) ancient document which itself (in the case of the Eighth Amendment text) is taken from the English Bill of Rights of 1669.  And the UK has, of course, abolished capital punishment yet kept said text.

I agree with you that castrating sex offenders or chopping off a person's arms are less than humane, and would be "cruel and unusual."  However, no US capital punishment still enforced inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment, as death often occurs within a few seconds or minutes of the paralytic injection taking effect.  The contrast, of course, would be chopping one's arm off and allowing him to bleed to death, or shattering one's ribcage with a baseball bat.

Actually, that's wrong (RE: lethal injection) - the average time for a lethal injection to kill is 7-11 minutes.  Also, if the anaesthetic fails (as seems to be likely, given the prior 88% figure), it's an extremely painful death.  Finally, in at least one case it has taken around 35 minutes for the prisoner to die.  Worth re-noting that the paralytic agent means those 7+ minutes could be spend in excrutiating, horrific burning pain and we wouldn't know, though.

Of course, we still consider a murder a heinous crime when the victim has a painless death, so I'd say the inherent cruelty is in the act of killing - not the method, or the type of victim you choose.

Finally, surely you'll note my point - that what is cruel or (perhaps more relevantly) a 'just' punishment is very much a matter of personal viewpoint when it comes to inflicting corporal punishment?  There are people - a great many - who'd view the death sentence as being just punishment for rape; what is the demarcation we place, between crimes that kill and crimes that 'merely' destroy lives?

Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?

This sentence is interesting, because isn't the entire justice system a form of revenge, to punish a criminal for what he's done to another?

No.  Justice is different from revenge - it has to be.  Revenge is, simply, uncontrolled rage; the basest human instincts of violence.  Revenge offers neither a fair nor just punishment.

[karajorma]

You can't judge it that way.  As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account.  The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned. 

So really, what's better:  a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all?

My life is precisely that, mine. No one else should have the right to decide I should be spared the horror of living it if I am mentally competent enough to say that no matter how bad it is I wish to continue.

If you start down that road of saying other people can say "But his life will be ****. Let's end it" Then you remove my choice in the matter. How is that any different from a serial killer for who murders say junkies and prostitutes and uses the argument that he was putting them out of their misery?