As one who (for the most part) opposes the death penalty I found myself saying “right on” to the news from Iraq today:
Iraq hanged 13 insurgents Thursday, marking the first time militants have been executed in the country since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein nearly three years ago, the government said.The Cabinet announcement listed the name of only one of those hanged, Shukair Farid, a former policeman in the northern city of Mosul, who allegedly confessed that he had worked with Syrian foreign fighters to enlist fellow Iraqis to carry out assassinations against police and civilians.
Who knows – maybe this will act as a deterrent to the collection of religious serial killers and unemployed fascist thugs still quaintly known as “insurgents” by the mainstream media. It’s certainly worth a try.
Well done, Iraqis. You’ve already adopted the most barbaric aspect of American democracy. Keep up the good work, guys!
BTW, Roger, when exactly do you oppose the death penalty? Were you against it before you were for it?
Flip-flopper…
Well, you can call me a flip-flopper or you can look up what I said, which is that I oppose the DP except in political situations.
You said that you don’t mind the death penalty “in the case of political mass murderers like Saddam Hussein.”
What puts the insurgents in that category — specifically, what’s makes them “political”? What makes them more political than a disgruntled shoe peddler who decides one day that he’s had enough of the American occupation and kills a dozen of his fellow countrymen?
Where do you draw the line?
Mrbones:
If you don’t like the death penalty, so be it, but barbaric is hardly the proper adjective. Although the death penalty was practiced by barbarians, it has also been a feature of all the most civilized societies throughout history. Even today, in most places where the death penalty is not practiced, it was not put to a democratic vote; the “elites” outlawed it against the people’s wishes.
The mark of advancing cilvilization is not the abolition of the death penalty, but carrying it out in a legally prescribed manner only after a fair judgement has been rendered that the individual committed a capital crime.
In a democracy, it’s up to the electorate to decide whether there will be a death penalty on the books or not… and also to decide what crimes should and should not be capital crimes. (The connection is tenuous, perhaps — we elect the legislators that enact laws, and they, at least theoretically, are accountable to us. But ultimately the responsibility still rests with the voters.)
The death penalty is not ‘absolutely’ wrong; I sometimes wonder whether such an absolute exists. There are strong arguments for and against the death penalty, depending on circumstances. The Iraqis — or, rather, the representatives they have elected — have clearly decided in favor of the death penalty. I see that as their decision; I don’t think it’s up to me to criticize them for it. (Nor would I criticize them if, in a few years, they went to the polls and banned the death penalty in Iraq. The democratic process has to work itself out.)
For myself, I certainly have no problem using the death penalty against terrorists, particularly those with blood on their hands. Those who tear at the very fabric of civilized society have no right to be protected by that society… whereas society does need to be protected from them. For me, that’s reason enough.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Maybe the DP won’t be seen as a punishment to the jihadis. Maybe it is not a deterrent to them, but they see it as a shortcut to martyrdom. Bring ‘em on.
C, if “barbaric” isn’t the proper adjective, what is? Yes, the death penalty has, at times, been — as you put it — a feature of all the most civilized societies throughout history.
But, also as you noted, it no longer is. It’s abolished completely in Canada, Europe, Australia and parts of South Africa and South America (where it’s only used in “exceptional” situations).
So who does that put the U.S. in league with? Well, China and the most backward Sharia-practicing of African countries, for starters.
As for as “elites” making laws that go against the will of the people — well, we’re better off without segregation, aren’t we?
When the pro-capital punishment crowd comes up with a reason that killing a man is better than prison without the possibility of parole (aside from the economics), we’ll have a real conversation.
In any case, this development in Iraq should not be seen as a step forward.
I’m against the death penalty in nearly all situations, including here. But I’ll get more worked up over some executions then others.
The execution of terrorists by a government currently combatting rampant terrorism is low on my list of outrages. The Iraqi goverment has more important things to worry about then best practices for this group of killers.
“In any case, this development in Iraq should not be seen as a step forward.”
Sure, if you take the smarmy American leftist position that any technique that might actually work should be avoided at all costs. After all, if we solve any problem, we will not be able to blather about them later.
Vanity lecturing on the morality of the death penalty by people that are willing to stand idly by while genocide occurs–somehow fails to move me one iota.
Not that I’m a big proponent of so called “international law”, but said laws currently say that individuals caught doing certain things out of uniform are subject to military execution, with proper military procedures of the capturing military. Somehow I fail to become overly worked up about people that meet this criteria being executed after a more rigorous civil trial. Or is “international law” only to be touted when it can be used to bash the U.S.
I’m just sorry that the first hanging wasn’t Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali.
I’m opposed to the death penalty except for trolls.
Mr. Bones said:
“When the pro-capital punishment crowd comes up with a reason that killing a man is better than prison without the possibility of parole (aside from the economics), we’ll have a real conversation.”
It keeps the individual from killing prison guards (which has happened in the past). It also prevents the person from killing anyone else when bleeding-hearts attempt to get them released for writing children’s books through ghost editors. Moreover, if applied judiciously, and with certainty in EVERY case, as well as with as much rapidity as the appeals process will allow, acts as a deterrent (i.e., it is the CERTAINTY of punishment, rather than the SEVERITY of punishment that most criminals cite as their motive for refraining from criminal acts).
“I’m opposed to the death penalty except for trolls.”
FREEDOM of SPEECH!!! and DEATH to TROLLS!!!
hey Charlie.
i LIKE it!!!
heh.
this Internet thing might catch on.
Here’s a thought game for the anti death penalty crowd. Suppose we abolish the death penalty but leave the current three-strikes mandatory imprisonment laws on the books.
If someone is committing a robbery that is their third strike what is to stop them from killing all the witnesses in an attempt to not be caught? There would be no additional penalty for his actions instead there is a potential upside in that he won’t be caught or convicted.
Also, if you’re already in jail for life then what would be the penalty for becoming the in-house enforcer? Beat up a guard, kill another inmate, be a general pain and we’ll… what?
I love the argument against the death penalty that points out how many people on death row get exonerated through DNA testing.
Okay. Frying innocent people is wrong.
But you know, at a guess, the proportion of people getting life without parole for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong skin color is probably just about the same as for those getting the death penalty for equally specious reasons.
One thing for sure, if I’m innocent and convicted of murder, I’ll want to get the death penalty so someone will give a damn about making sure the State got it right.
Seems to me that neither side pays enough attention to the concept of justice (which is often slippery) and instead would rather speak in absolutes (which always make the speaker feel superior).
Saddam: Hang him high.
John Wayne Gacey: Death was too good for him.
The easy cases should be easy. And the hard cases should be hard.
In our society, it’s harder for us to let the State kill a human than it is to let the State lock one up and throw away the key. Therefore, I’m for the death penalty, simply because we’ve become lazy in our pursuit of justice.
Arguments for the DP?
It is the only 100% effective cure for recidivism.
Exactly. I’ll drop my relunctant support for the death penalty the day that I’m convinced that “life in prison” is irrevocable–including all necessary questions of funding. Given human nature, I’m not holding my breathe.
A good start would be for the NYT to stop wondering aloud why we are locking up so many people in this era of relatively low crime.