The Soapboxx
Monday, November 06, 2006
Saddam's Been Given The Death Penalty, And He Wants David Beckham To Take It
Earlier this week Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity by the Iraq Special Tribunal, and sentenced to death.
Immediately, of course, a huge fuss kicked up with everyone and their Auntie suddenly stamping their feet and saying, "Okay, so he might have been a despot who murdered tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of people, but by God killing him is just so not right. Think of the children."
It's a complicated case with a lot of history, but will now almost certainly come down to a lengthy debate on both the fairness of the trial itself and whether hanging Saddam is the best way to go forward. I'm wondering: best for whom?
As far as I can tell there are two main oppositions to the death penalty. The first is that in many cases it's nigh-on impossible to be one hundred per cent certain that we have the right person. The rightly-feared 'wrong conviction.' In these examples, putting somebody to death is irreversible, whereas sticking somebody in jail can always be reversed, even if it's years later. Fair enough, except that why do we grant the legal system the authority to determine if somebody is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and then put an asterisk next to the punishment box?
The second opposition is one of morality. That we, as a civilised, modern society, don't think that 'an eye for an eye...' or any perspective resembling that is at all appropriate. That by sentencing a murderer to death we are committing murder ourselves, and are therefore equally as guilty. That we all have a 'right to life.' Again, in many senses that also seems fairly agreeable, but at the end of the day, is it our call?
This, to me, remains the key point, and is particularly relevant in this example. Saddam is guilty of the crimes under which he has been tried. This isn't some shady murder cases where there is always going to be a smidgen of doubt; Saddam has had a hand in genocide. He's no O.J. Simpson. The glove does fit.
So that's the first argument of opposition out of the way; this could never be seen as a 'wrong conviction'. It's right.
So we're left with an issue of morality which, when you get down to it, and like it or not, is absolutely a personal choice. It's your perspective. It might also be the legal perspective of your country, like it is in the UK, but then so is Vernon Kaye's right to a career in television, and nobody really agrees with that.
The blatant hypocrisy with punishment governed by morality in the legal system is that it flies very much in the face of the well-observed (if not outwardly legislated) adage that the court can never be personal. The case is heard, evidence is presented, witnesses are called, and everything is very serious, triple-checked and absolutely based on fact. One of the jurors didn't like the accused because he confessed he never read the Bible? Doesn't matter, ignore it. Another wasn't too happy that he listened to death metal and quite clearly rarely washed? If it's not relevant to the case, throw it out. The guy in the box is a notorious Devil-worshiper and fornicator with tattoos, facial piercings and everything? Look the other way.
Yet, when it comes to the sentence, suddenly all these things are vitally important. Because a moral objection to the death penalty is not only a fundamentally personal decision, I'd dare to suggest that it isn't even your decision, at all.
So what to do: let the victim, or the victim's family, decide the sentence? There's madness in that route, I'm sure, but I think that to some extent they should be heard. And what do the Kurds and Kuwaitis think about it all? Perhaps not all that surprisingly, they're happy with Saddam's sentence.
The Americans are too, of course, but they would be, as they've got something that's quite possibly unprovable to prove. And some important mid-terms to influence. So we can ignore that. Who isn't in favour? Pretty much everyone else... who wasn't involved. It does seem to be a reasonable constant that people who aren't directly affected by a given crime tend to be more criminal-favourable (and victim-unfriendly) in their attitude towards the level of punishment that is warranted. Things often become very different when something crops up in your backyard, and while a governing attitude that's fundamentally in that direction is not desirable, there's definitely some room for thought somewhere down the middle.
The victim should be considered, is the bottom line. What they want should be made known. This doesn't mean that what they (or their families) desire becomes law, but they should be heard. It should go on record. The judge should absolutely consider it before delivering his verdict. It is important. If we're going to let morals determine outcomes, then surely it is only fair if the morality of all sides is considered? And on a case by case basis, if needs be. Not in a general sense.
I think those in favour of the death penalty would probably be far more accommodating if some kind of guarantee could be made regarding the harshness of a prison sentence. If we're really going to make the punishment fit the crime, then stick Saddam in a box and turn out the lights. Civil rights? If his prison conditions went on to become anything less than relative luxury I'll think twice before invading Kuwait myself.
Saddam and his legal team have, I believe, 30 days to appeal against this sentence. I think there's a very good chance that the weight of international opposition against the death penalty will see that it might well be overturned. Then again, it may not matter, as coming up next he's set to undergo additional trials for his involvement in genocide, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait and other crimes in war and against humanity. It's a tall order to imagine he'll successfully appeal against everything.
After the Dujail verdict was announced, Saddam stood up in court and, by all accounts, shouted, "Long live the Iraqi people." Let's face it, mate: probably not in your case.
Immediately, of course, a huge fuss kicked up with everyone and their Auntie suddenly stamping their feet and saying, "Okay, so he might have been a despot who murdered tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of people, but by God killing him is just so not right. Think of the children."
It's a complicated case with a lot of history, but will now almost certainly come down to a lengthy debate on both the fairness of the trial itself and whether hanging Saddam is the best way to go forward. I'm wondering: best for whom?
As far as I can tell there are two main oppositions to the death penalty. The first is that in many cases it's nigh-on impossible to be one hundred per cent certain that we have the right person. The rightly-feared 'wrong conviction.' In these examples, putting somebody to death is irreversible, whereas sticking somebody in jail can always be reversed, even if it's years later. Fair enough, except that why do we grant the legal system the authority to determine if somebody is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and then put an asterisk next to the punishment box?
The second opposition is one of morality. That we, as a civilised, modern society, don't think that 'an eye for an eye...' or any perspective resembling that is at all appropriate. That by sentencing a murderer to death we are committing murder ourselves, and are therefore equally as guilty. That we all have a 'right to life.' Again, in many senses that also seems fairly agreeable, but at the end of the day, is it our call?
This, to me, remains the key point, and is particularly relevant in this example. Saddam is guilty of the crimes under which he has been tried. This isn't some shady murder cases where there is always going to be a smidgen of doubt; Saddam has had a hand in genocide. He's no O.J. Simpson. The glove does fit.
So that's the first argument of opposition out of the way; this could never be seen as a 'wrong conviction'. It's right.
So we're left with an issue of morality which, when you get down to it, and like it or not, is absolutely a personal choice. It's your perspective. It might also be the legal perspective of your country, like it is in the UK, but then so is Vernon Kaye's right to a career in television, and nobody really agrees with that.
The blatant hypocrisy with punishment governed by morality in the legal system is that it flies very much in the face of the well-observed (if not outwardly legislated) adage that the court can never be personal. The case is heard, evidence is presented, witnesses are called, and everything is very serious, triple-checked and absolutely based on fact. One of the jurors didn't like the accused because he confessed he never read the Bible? Doesn't matter, ignore it. Another wasn't too happy that he listened to death metal and quite clearly rarely washed? If it's not relevant to the case, throw it out. The guy in the box is a notorious Devil-worshiper and fornicator with tattoos, facial piercings and everything? Look the other way.
Yet, when it comes to the sentence, suddenly all these things are vitally important. Because a moral objection to the death penalty is not only a fundamentally personal decision, I'd dare to suggest that it isn't even your decision, at all.
So what to do: let the victim, or the victim's family, decide the sentence? There's madness in that route, I'm sure, but I think that to some extent they should be heard. And what do the Kurds and Kuwaitis think about it all? Perhaps not all that surprisingly, they're happy with Saddam's sentence.
The Americans are too, of course, but they would be, as they've got something that's quite possibly unprovable to prove. And some important mid-terms to influence. So we can ignore that. Who isn't in favour? Pretty much everyone else... who wasn't involved. It does seem to be a reasonable constant that people who aren't directly affected by a given crime tend to be more criminal-favourable (and victim-unfriendly) in their attitude towards the level of punishment that is warranted. Things often become very different when something crops up in your backyard, and while a governing attitude that's fundamentally in that direction is not desirable, there's definitely some room for thought somewhere down the middle.
The victim should be considered, is the bottom line. What they want should be made known. This doesn't mean that what they (or their families) desire becomes law, but they should be heard. It should go on record. The judge should absolutely consider it before delivering his verdict. It is important. If we're going to let morals determine outcomes, then surely it is only fair if the morality of all sides is considered? And on a case by case basis, if needs be. Not in a general sense.
I think those in favour of the death penalty would probably be far more accommodating if some kind of guarantee could be made regarding the harshness of a prison sentence. If we're really going to make the punishment fit the crime, then stick Saddam in a box and turn out the lights. Civil rights? If his prison conditions went on to become anything less than relative luxury I'll think twice before invading Kuwait myself.
Saddam and his legal team have, I believe, 30 days to appeal against this sentence. I think there's a very good chance that the weight of international opposition against the death penalty will see that it might well be overturned. Then again, it may not matter, as coming up next he's set to undergo additional trials for his involvement in genocide, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait and other crimes in war and against humanity. It's a tall order to imagine he'll successfully appeal against everything.
After the Dujail verdict was announced, Saddam stood up in court and, by all accounts, shouted, "Long live the Iraqi people." Let's face it, mate: probably not in your case.
Comments:
I have to say that it seems unlikely to me that his sentance will be overturned. I guess we'll see. I'll be more than happy to see it reduced to life imprisonment, but that's just me... ;)
# posted by 
: 12:54 PM
: 12:54 PM
I watched the sentencing live on Sunday. It was both fascinating and shocking. The dialogue being in Iraqi and the English dubbing following a few seconds later intially it was hard to follow.
Even without knowing what was being said it was possible to see the second he was told that he was to be hung. You could see it hit him like a ton of bricks. It only lasted a split-second and once he had recovered his composure he was back to his usual defiance and finger wagging.
But just for that split-second you saw a frightened old man being told he was going to die in 30days.
Despite him being a genocidal tyrant responsible for the deaths of millions. In that millisecond of weakness he showed I couldn't help but feel sorry for him.
Even without knowing what was being said it was possible to see the second he was told that he was to be hung. You could see it hit him like a ton of bricks. It only lasted a split-second and once he had recovered his composure he was back to his usual defiance and finger wagging.
But just for that split-second you saw a frightened old man being told he was going to die in 30days.
Despite him being a genocidal tyrant responsible for the deaths of millions. In that millisecond of weakness he showed I couldn't help but feel sorry for him.
# posted by : 4:18 PM
: 4:18 PMRecent Posts
Archives
