CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Saddam Hussein: Hanging or firing squad?

Saddam Hussein: Hanging or firing squad?

Started by swiftcobra15 · · 👁 6 views · 76 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants swiftcobra15Betty Fox2Chris Peterson53Kenneth Hernandez5hollowtrucker77neonhound32Susan Carter3mistybisonTaylor Campbell4Douglas CooperJesse Wright8Brian Parker4Harold Turner2AJerry Martin19lonegardenerAustin Roberts8electricsailor13crimsonhound80steelsurfer42Jonathan Brooks8rustymaker5David Harris22Elizabeth Ruiz65 …
lonegardener lonegardener Regular
347 messages
joined Apr 2010
#41 ·
Austin Roberts8 said:I'm actually in favor of the death penalty, not against it. A psycho doesn't care about what the law says because they're a psycho. And like I said regarding him, punishment isn't the point. The penalty should serve as an example to others. Plus, if even a psycho sees what's coming for them, maybe they'll actually seek help. Whatever they've done, it's good for them to have that subconscious knowledge that they'll face execution or whatever for their actions. Also, that death penalty should provide some sense of closure for those families. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

You're being a little incoherent here. Is the death penalty meant to be an example to others, a punishment for the criminal, or satisfaction for the victims (or their families)? Or is it a mix of all three?

Regarding setting an example: I’ve already mentioned this. If someone doesn't care about killing 25 children because of the sheer depravity of the act, a threat of the death penalty isn't going to phase them. So, using "setting an example" as a justification for capital punishment in its current form is simply a nonsensical argument. Maybe if we were executing people for petty crimes, like stealing gum at a convenience store, then it could serve as an "example."

As for punishing him: what is the actual utility of having him carry that subconscious knowledge that he'll be killed for his crime? Usually, encouraging remorse serves to rehabilitate someone—to change them or teach them something. But if you're planning on killing them anyway, what purpose does triggering remorse serve? It feels like pointless LARPing; it's honestly quite childish. It's how kids love to suffocate in their own sense of self-righteousness when another kid gets the "deserved" punishment.

When it comes to providing satisfaction to the victims—empirical evidence shows that revenge just generates more revenge and nothing else. We should be fighting against this strange, dangerous urge for vengeful gratification rather than indulging it to soothe ourselves. It is incredibly easy to lose oneself in vengeful self-righteousness. Most vigilantes truly believe their thirst for satisfaction is justified, even though, objectively speaking, it rarely is. A vigilante is only different from a criminal based on the question of "who started it"—which is itself one of those many childish tropes. No one started it; the first amino acid started it. Or better yet, the Big Bang started it. 😈
Austin Roberts8 Austin Roberts8 Member
34 messages
joined Nov 2006
#42 ·
Fine, I’ll play your game. If you want to answer my points with nothing but a bunch of circular, useless questions, let's go. What exactly is "justice" to you? Who gets to decide? Who’s sitting in judgment? Is that judge actually fair or objective? And what’s the point of punishment anyway—is it about retribution, rehabilitation, or just a way to scare others into staying in line?
You completely missed the point of the example I gave. If the death penalty were an actual institutional reality, there would be some kind of psychological deterrent in place for everyone—including the occasional psycho. You’re obsessing over the actions of one psycho as if we have fifty of them running around every single day committing mass murders together. That’s a terrible argument because you're generalizing based on an event that happens once in a blue moon.
I’ve said it five thousand times already: you CANNOT punish him. The scale of his crimes is simply beyond the scope of any legal punishment. His death isn't a sentence; it's just removing a sick individual from the face of the earth.
I’m not even going to touch that last part because you clearly read it in some sociology textbook that sounds great on paper but fails miserably in the real world. And describing revenge as this infinite cycle is just pure stupidity. If you kill my sister, I kill you, and that’s that—it’s over.
As for your first question, the answer is that it depends. Depending on how massive the crime was, it could be all three of those things or just one. It all comes down to the scale of what they did.
lonegardener lonegardener Regular
347 messages
joined Apr 2010
#43 ·
Austin Roberts8 said:I guess I’ll return the favor and answer you in your own style: with endless questions and circular arguments that lead nowhere. What even is justice to you? Who gets to define it? Who sits in judgment? And is that judge actually fair or objective? Is the whole point of punishment to penalize the individual, to rehabilitate them, or is it just a deterrent to make sure it doesn't happen again?

The whole point of punishment should be rehabilitation. But let’s be honest—given how messy things have become in modern society, I can certainly wrap my head around harsher measures if they serve to protect the community at large. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need this kind of punishment. If someone refuses to reform, you’d just exile them. It’s pretty simple: if you refuse to respect the rules that everyone else agreed upon, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the community. The problem is that in America today, there isn't exactly a "nowhere" left to send an unrepentant offender. That lack of space is exactly why we're stuck with these grim institutions we call prisons.

Austin Roberts8 said:You completely missed the point of the example I gave everyone else. If the death penalty were an institutional reality, there would be a psychological deterrent built into the minds of most people—including psychos. You're fixating on the actions of a psycho as if we have fifty of them out there every single day, teaming up to murder fifty people.

By chance, you were actually the first one to bring that argument up; but it seems like you just don't like how easily it can be thrown right back at you, like a boomerang. 🙂
Even with the death penalty on the books here in the States, it’s pretty clear that it doesn't stop every psycho from committing horrific acts. If anything, I get the impression these tragedies happen more frequently here than they do in Europe. Often, a psycho will even take their own life right after the crime. Do you honestly believe the threat of an execution means anything to someone like that?

I was looking through a list of death row inmates just the other day, and I came across some truly disturbing cases. There was one guy who robbed a bank—he didn't actually intend to kill anyone—but when the police started chasing him, he just started firing blindly behind him while running. In the process, he ended up killing an officer. It’s hard to wrap your head around someone that much of a psycho; you really have to wonder if the death penalty is the only "appropriate" way to handle a monster like that.

Austin Roberts8 said:Punishment simply isn't an option here; his crimes are so massive they defy any standard scale of justice. His death is the only way—just removing one psycho from the face of the earth.

You might want to consider where that line of thinking actually leads. I’m sorry if my bluntness comes off as offensive, but I just wanted to be upfront with you.

Austin Roberts8 said:I’m not even going to touch that last point. It sounds like something straight out of a sociology textbook—looks great on paper, sure, but we both know it doesn't work that way in the real world. And honestly, describing revenge as this endless "cyclical loop" is just nonsense. If someone kills my sister, I take them out, and that's the end of it. Period. There is no infinite cycle; it's over.

Oh, I disagree. It definitely happens. In those scenarios, my brother might kill you and your kids, then one of them survives, grows up, and goes on to hunt down my brother's grandkids, and so on. Blood feuds have been passed down through generations for ages. A rational person sees that cycle for what it is and refuses to give in to the urge for revenge.
steelsurfer42 steelsurfer42 Member
15 messages
joined Nov 2006
#44 ·
First off, let’s talk about punishment. You’ve got rehabilitation on one end and deterrence on the other—two extremes. But in the real world? We usually end up stuck somewhere in the middle, and more often than not, we fail at both.
Then there’s Saddam Hussein. Like a bunch of you have already pointed out, the death penalty for him just doesn't make sense. It’s not like it makes life better for anyone else, but it’ll definitely inspire some psycho to go out and blow something up. Plus, Saddam Hussein might just walk away with martyr status.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who the US government decides to hold onto. What actually matters is what the masses think.
And finally, regarding the trial. It’s blindingly obvious that this was largely a tool for the Republican pre-election campaign. Maybe they'll back down on the death penalty now.
lonegardener lonegardener Regular
347 messages
joined Apr 2010
#45 ·
Austin Roberts8 said:I still don't get what side you're actually on. You just tear down everything I say without offering an alternative.

Don't be so defensive. I'm not attacking you personally; I'm just trying to shake up your perspective a little. Not too hard, though—I wouldn't want you to hate me. 🙂

Besides, I’m not sure what "alternative" you think is missing. It already exists in America and throughout most of Europe. The only outlier is that the US still maintains the death penalty, if we aren't counting various dictatorships or religious quasi-states and similar monstrosities.😬

Anyway, take a look at this map.

Even slavery persisted in the US for centuries after the rest of the civilized world had moved on.

Austin Roberts8 said:Should I go out and screw your sister just so you can be reasonable? See, even a question like that sets you off, let alone if I actually did it. If that didn't bother you at all, then I have nothing left to say.

You meant to say "rape," right? Just saying someone got screwed isn't a crime. 😈

Look, I definitely distinguish between seeking revenge a year later with a cool head and an immediate, visceral reaction. If I saw someone kill my family and I caught them within a few hours, I'd probably kill them without a second thought. That kind of reaction is far less horrific than a calculated vendetta fueled by years of nurtured hatred. And that is essentially what the death penalty is, because people sit on death row for a very long time before their sentence is carried out.

The problem with capital punishment lies exactly in that sense of self-righteousness. There isn't a rational person alive who wouldn't view cold-blooded murder committed for personal gain as a heinous crime. Yet here we see an example of cold-blooded murder being viewed as justified, socially beneficial, or even necessary.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#46 ·
The focus on Saddam Hussein has shifted from being a legal matter to being more about pure propaganda. Saddam Hussein is just one man—meanwhile, yesterday alone, 150 people were killed in a single location in Baghdad. Anyone who actually wants to tackle the real crisis should be focusing their attention on those 150 lives instead...
lonegardener lonegardener Regular
347 messages
joined Apr 2010
#47 ·
Austin Roberts8 said:The majority opinion isn't an actual argument. If society decides something is okay or isn't, that doesn't mean I have to go along with it. I don't agree with RH, and I do agree with China. That’s all there is to it.

I hear you, but you were actually the one who previously claimed that "society determines what is justifiable."

Since you're the one choosing which society to align yourself with, it turns out you're still the one deciding what's justifiable after all. Isn't that right? 😉
Austin Roberts8 Austin Roberts8 Member
34 messages
joined Nov 2006
#48 ·
Yeah, but only in their own heads. Once you and I get together with a few others who actually think for themselves, we’re a group. That whole "majority is always right" thing is just a stupid argument—it's basically a fallacy. In reality, the majority is just this massive, inert blob that thinks it acts as one unit, when really it's just a couple of capable individuals within that crowd calling the shots while everyone else just goes along with it.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#49 ·
lonegardener said:The whole thing with Saddam Hussein feels less like a legal debate now and more like pure propaganda. He was one man, but yesterday, 150 people lost their lives in a single strike in Baghdad. If anyone wants to obsess over his trial, they should start by thinking about those 150 souls instead...

👍

He represents one oppressive regime that was ultimately toppled by another equally repressive one.
And honestly, looking at Iraq right now, the death toll is far higher than it ever was during Saddam Hussein's era.
It just feels like an endless cycle of violence.

The Iraqi people have lost everything. The Americans got cheap oil, while everything else has turned into a total farce.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#50 ·



And now, the people of Iraq will finally live in peace and prosperity. 😁


rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#51 ·
Arrogant Americans, just as they always do, completely blew it. And now we’re stuck dealing with all this endless debate over irregular trials and sentencing, talking about inhumane proceedings and how Saddam Hussein somehow maintains his dignity, turning him into some kind of martyr or hero... It would have been so much cleaner if they had just ended it right there in the bunker, honestly, saving us from this entire farce and everything twisted that's sprouting from it in the aftermath.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#52 ·
That individual wasn't caught hiding out in some bunker.

A US soldier claims the capture of Saddam Hussein was staged.

A former US Marine involved in the apprehension of the man now presented as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein* has stated that the public version of his capture was fabricated.
Former Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who is of Lebanese descent, told the Saudi newspaper al-Medina that the capture actually took place on Friday, December 12, 2003—not a day later, as the US military originally reported. "I was part of a twenty-man unit, including eight men of Arab descent. We spent three days hunting for Saddam..."

Honestly, listening to these reports, it’s hard for me to believe that US intelligence agencies didn't just script the whole thing to look that way. It seems unlikely they would just hand over the entire execution process to the Iraqis like that.

I was listening to the local news radio today—one of those segments where they take callers—and they were discussing whether we even need the death penalty here in the 21st century. I am constantly surprised by how primitive some people can be. I forget the specifics, but roughly 75% of the callers were in favor of capital punishment, or even something more extreme; some even supported it "as long as we make sure" we don't execute the wrong person. 🤣

If I had my way, I'd give all of them exactly what they think they want. 😁

Just kidding... that's probably just my own cynicism talking. It always catches me off guard how some people can genuinely wish death upon others.
David Harris22 David Harris22 Newcomer
1 message
joined Jan 2007
#53 ·
I don't think it matters who actually got hanged
what really matters is what that hanging symbolizes
and that’s Saddam Hussein
as for that 99% majority, they're just proving my point
plus, doing it by hanging right during a major holiday
it doesn't get much more twisted than that😕
all of this is just fueling even more global chaos
and there's no end in sight🙏
Elizabeth Ruiz65 Elizabeth Ruiz65 Active Member
66 messages
joined Jan 2008
#54 ·
jeez said:I don't think the specific identity of those being hanged matters much here.
The point is what they represent,
and that’s Saddam.
As for that 99 percent majority everyone talks about, there you have it.
It was carried out by hanging, right during the holidays, too.
It’s hard to imagine a more twisted perversion than that.😕
All of this just feeds into an even greater sense of global chaos,
and there’s no end in sight.🙏


Imagine if they had hung him right before all those fireworks,
cheers, and celebrations—it would look like instead of New Year's Eve,
people were actually celebrating his death.😁

Even if I'm exaggerating, there might be some truth to it...
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#55 ·
I’ve brought this up before, but I’m firmly against the DEATH PENALTY,
and honestly, even for a monster like Saddam Hussein. If anything, I think Bush is a far worse criminal, yet he gets off scot-free...
The US has already caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam ever did, and I shudder to think how many more lives will be lost down this road.😢
And that cell phone footage? It’s absolutely gut-wrenching... everything about it—the video, the way he was executed, the death penalty itself, and just the sheer number of innocent people dying every single day...
HORRIFIC
It all boils down to oil, manipulating religions, playing people against each other, and that endless cycle of money and oil.👎
Damn these wars!!
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#56 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:That individual wasn't caught hiding out in some bunker.

A US soldier claims the capture of Saddam Hussein was staged.

A former US Marine involved in the apprehension of the man now presented as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein* has stated that the public version of his capture was fabricated.
Former Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who is of Lebanese descent, told the Saudi newspaper al-Medina that the capture actually took place on Friday, December 12, 2003—not a day later, as the US military originally reported. "I was part of a twenty-man unit, including eight men of Arab descent. We spent three days hunting for Saddam..."

Honestly, listening to these reports, it’s hard for me to believe that US intelligence agencies didn't just script the whole thing to look that way. It seems unlikely they would just hand over the entire execution process to the Iraqis like that.

I was listening to the local news radio today—one of those segments where they take callers—and they were discussing whether we even need the death penalty here in the 21st century. I am constantly surprised by how primitive some people can be. I forget the specifics, but roughly 75% of the callers were in favor of capital punishment, or even something more extreme; some even supported it "as long as we make sure" we don't execute the wrong person. 🤣

If I had my way, I'd give all of them exactly what they think they want. 😁

Just kidding... that's probably just my own cynicism talking. It always catches me off guard how some people can genuinely wish death upon others.

😕
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#57 ·
swiftcobra15 said:
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Let's just hope Bush doesn't run for office again—if he did, they'd probably just find some new "bin Laden" to hang on command. Then again, you never know... maybe Jeb Bush will throw his hat in the ring.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#58 ·
swiftcobra15 said:

I assume we should only be executing actual people? 😕

Either you missed my point, or I'm just a terrible storyteller—it seems we're both a bit lost here. 😁
If that’s really how I phrased it, then it's actually pretty funny: I had a caller on the show once who said she was "definitely for the death penalty, provided we're careful not to kill the wrong person"—meaning, obviously, only punish the guilty.
Knowing the facts as they stand, I find that sentiment almost tragically absurd.

Look, if there's still some confusion about what I meant by "wrong," I was referring to the wrongfully accused—those sentenced to death by mistake... which, from everything I've seen and researched, happens far more often than people care to admit in this country today.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#59 ·







But even that constitutes a crime.







Every single execution is inherently flawed, meaning an innocent person is eventually killed by mistake.
In my view, we shouldn't be taking lives, regardless of how guilty someone might be or what they deserve.
It is heartbreaking when an innocent soul is lost, but letting a guilty person escape justice is also a failure of our system—it’s a crime in its own right.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#60 ·
(Fine, but I didn't say it wasn't a crime)

By the way, I think the Los Angeles Times ran a story yesterday about yet another death sentence handed down in Japan—sentences have apparently been on the rise lately, supposedly due to an uptick in crime (though there's always more to the story behind any trend). It’s worth noting that Japan actually maintains one of the lowest street crime rates in the world, and that hasn't changed recently.
(So, in my view, there isn't a connection there—certainly nothing chronologically linked to the increase in capital punishment)

There was also this striking detail in the report: when responding to the defendant's appeal, the judge basically told him something along these lines:

"I am sorry (!), but your deed was so brutal that you must accept responsibility for it."
Essentially, the plea for clemency was denied with those exact sentiments.

Cases like this—not just involving the death penalty, but similar instances too—really suggest to me that something is fundamentally broken at the core of our global society. (And honestly, this topic doesn't get nearly enough attention in this PDF compared to other threads; I used to have this illusion that philosophy should be tackling this head-on as a matter of course. But it seems hard to conclude whether these foundational irregularities, or this fundamentally flawed state of affairs, constitute a specific "ailment"—it's almost as if philosophy has bypassed the issue entirely. To me, this was clearly reflected in that thread originally titled "Why or why on earth?", which was eventually renamed to the rather dry "problem glad")

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads