To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Saddam sentenced to death

edited November 2006 in General
:omg:
I don't know if its just me, but we never hear about ppl being sentenced to death anymore. I think we should bring it back. The only thing is... if someone is wrongly sentenced... thas bad. I know what you're probably thinking should one death equal two but still. How do you punish someone who kills 148 ppl?? slap them on the wrist?? tell them that their a bad boy?? Send them to jail:omg: ??? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't give a F.

Comments

  • edited November 2006
    The ironic part is that Saddam is close to death as it is (he's 69). He's just relaxing and delaying his death penalty until he dies but I heard he asked to be shot down military style and not hung like a common theif.

    About the death penalty, I think they should allow it but ONLY when the case is crystal clear. If there is even 1% of ambiguity about whether someone is guilty, he should not be sentenced to the death penalty. But if someone goes into a bank and kills 4 people and then gets caught, he deserves it.

    What do you guys think about the death penalty Im kinda curious now
  • edited November 2006
    Killing Sadaam accomplishes what exactly?
  • edited November 2006
    I dont think he should die. When he was in control of Iraq, he was IN CONTROL. Now the country is fucked up and he can't do shit about it. America only got Saddam because they couldn't find Bin Laden.......

    EDIT: I know he has had lots of Iraqi's killed......but still. It's a hard decision but i say no, because all his followers WILL continue terrorist attacks on the US and UK....
  • edited November 2006
    I do not think that the death penalty accomplishes anything. I am under the impression that the justice system is there to insure that law breakers re-pay sociaty for whatever crime they have committed. How is some one who is executed going to re-pay sociaty? They can't.

    And the arguement that the death penalty is an effective preventative sentence is bunk as well... because if it were effective then there would be a decrease in the amount of crime right? The USA has a higher murder rate then Canada (approx 43 murders per 100'000 in USA, compared to Canada which is about 14 per 100'000 *SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000).

    There are also the usual slew of moral issues surrounding the death penalty aswell.

    I propose that criminals (particularly murderers) should re-pay their debt to sociaty through unpaid labour, or other work.

    Shutting criminals in jail, for any length of time, should not be used as a deterrent. Free food, Free cable TV, recreation facilities, free accomidations, Full medical and dental benifits, and free access to various educational programs does not sound like punishment.

    I dunno, thats just my opinion, and it probubly has its flaws. But The death penalty doesn't work, and neither does the current system.
  • edited November 2006
    Not so much a topic of death, but more with Hussein and it's quite funny too, heard this conversation going on in a radio talk show...

    Why is Saddam Hussein the only president or leader we know that can be addressed by his first name? =)
  • edited November 2006
    I guess its a part of the infamy that comes along with what certain leaders do. Hitler, Osama, Stalin, mutherfuckin GEORGE W. By the time these guys realize the legacy they are leaving (if ever) its too late and the world is better off without them. in short terms: good riddance
  • edited November 2006
    Finally! They should have put 2 in the chest and 1 in the head when they first found him.

    Maybe Collegedude doesn't care if he's killed or not, but millions of free Iraqis would love the honour of pulling the trigger. You might feel differently if Saddam took your father in the middle of the night and had him killed.
  • edited November 2006
    RIP Nasdaqs father
















    jk
  • edited November 2006
    my great grandfather was killed n chopped up but that wasnt from suddam that was during the revolution in iran... these ppl do deserve to die but honestly its like too late now, they already lived it up and did all the damage they wanted
  • edited November 2006
    From listening to the news and reading articles online, Saddam stood no chance in the court room. The trail was just a formality, there was no way he would have got off. Bush and his administration have spent billions of dollars in this war in Iraq. Once they caught him there was no way they were going to let him off free. America played a huge role in this trail, that is why the death of saddam has been announced so close to the elections. Bush wants to be remembered as a president that accomplished something (which is not the case at all). I am personally feel that the trail and the treatment of saddam was unfair and not just at all.
  • edited November 2006
    um.. i'm just curious.. where was Suddam tried? correct me if i'm wrong because as far as i know there are only a couple of states that have the death penalty.. texas being one of them..

    you're right.. killing Suddam wouldn't accomplish anything.. but atleast it gives people the satisfaction of knowing that we no longer need to waste money and resources to keep this killer alive and serve as a means to an end for those who lost a loved one because of him..

    the death penalty should be around.. some people are better off dead than alive..
  • edited November 2006
    he was tried in Iraq... it doesnt matter wat states have the death penalty cuz the US has no right to trie (i dunno the word) him, it either happens in international court or in the country he performed his actions
  • edited November 2006
    Saddam being hung will definately bring immense relief to a lot of ppl. But doesn't it seem like it's not enough. He's not going to feel any pain. He probably doesn't even regret anything he's done. Is it wrong that i want him to suffer like he made others suffer? :|
  • edited November 2006
    thanks for clarifying falco.. =) no it isn't wrong of you bhambra.. he should suffer for what he did..
  • edited November 2006
    siuying said:
    um.. i'm just curious.. where was Suddam tried? correct me if i'm wrong because as far as i know there are only a couple of states that have the death penalty.. texas being one of them..
    The US has the death penalty in a lot more than a couple of states. 38 states in the US currently, officially have the death penalty sanctioned but not all of them use it.

    The US also has the death penalty on a federal level; for example, if you were to kill a federal employee (i.e., federal employee of the F.B.I., a member of congress, the general attorney, etc.) Perhaps the best example of an execution on a federal level is that of Timothy McVeigh when he did the Oklahoma City bombing and was sentenced to death following his conviction of killing 8 federal employees; keep in mind he killed well over 150 people but was sentenced to death following the conviction of the murder of 8 federal employees.

    The death penalty is also not used just for murder, as with everything in the states, the crimes committed that result in the death penalty vary by jurisdiction and include, in some jurisdictions; aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, drug trafficking on a massive scale, treason, plane hijacking and many others. The death penalty in the US is also sanctioned by the military.

    Although the main reason for sentencing capital punishment is murder, there are many other convictions that carry the death penalty.

    And, as falco said, Saddam was tried in Iraq.

    He was tried under the Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, a special body created in Iraq to try Iraqi's accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, etc.
  • edited November 2006
    johnny said:
    I dont think he should die. When he was in control of Iraq, he was IN CONTROL. Now the country is fucked up and he can't do shit about it. America only got Saddam because they couldn't find Bin Laden.......

    EDIT: I know he has had lots of Iraqi's killed......but still. It's a hard decision but i say no, because all his followers WILL continue terrorist attacks on the US and UK....
    Ok, first of all it doesn't matter how in control he was of the country, Saddam committed crimes, crimes against humanity and not to mention the crimes he committed against his own people. I have listened to the chilling testimonies of some of his staff and I see nothing less then the sentence of the death penalty for him.

    Even if he did run a country well, he committed these crimes and justice requires that he be properly sentenced for the crimes he committed. No matter how great a person, justice prevails.

    Not to mention that Bin Laden is not in Iraq, but most likely somewhere else, and when they found Saddam they were not searching for Bin Laden, I mean maybe the US was, but in a different part or a different country, and you actually think that the US would spend all of that money and use all of that intelligence just to find Saddam in a hole in the middle of no where just because "they can't find Bin Laden". I'm sure the US is spending just as much if not more resources on finding Bin Laden, but he is just better at hiding.

Leave a Comment