Death Penalty

Like it or not, Saddam wasn't given a fair trial by most anybodies' standards who believe in the modern justice system, and most of all, America's standards. I've yet to meet any person who hasn't realized that fact; the trial was too short, his lawyers were assassinated, the crime he was being punished for was of foreign jurisdiction... too many holes.

I'm not saying your claims aren't valid, but using Saddam (and any other case that you're not familiar with) as an example isn't a terribly strong argument... find a new argument, Saddam's situation's too sticky and you're not well informed enough to employ it as one.

You guys need to come up with better arguments; your posts barely passes off as a descriptive opinion of what you find to be a just alternative to our current judicial system... I'm inclined to ask after every single one of your posts to "elaborate further" because as it stands now.

Actually, you're even vague in the way you set your standards; so if you just end their life, your life should cease to end? It's not that the death penalty wouldn't be an efficient and effective way to deal with crime, it's just too difficult a system to uphold with minimal problems... moral/ethical among others, and in America, if you violate those things, you deserve to be bombed, or so they teach you in school.

After reading something I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.

According to something I read in a Catholic textbook about the Bible, it is a mortal sin to kill. I knew this but the next thing got me. It also said that this included the death penalty.


I interpreted this differently when I read the Ten Commanments. It says though shalt not kill. Ok, I take this to mean, for the fun of it, or when invading a country. For self defense I think that it is let go.

I was pro death penalty before reading this but after that I don't know. I still think that someone who has killed needs to be killed but with what that says above I am not as sure about it.


The Coalition Provisional Authority voted to create the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST), consisting of five Iraqi judges, on December 9, 2003, to try Saddam Hussein and his aides for charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.[1]
Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003.[2] Hussein remained in custody by U.S. forces at Camp Cropper in Baghdad, along with eleven senior Ba'athist officials. Particular attention would be paid to alleged activities in violent campaigns against the Kurds in the north during the Iran-Iraq War, against the Shiites in the south in 1991 and 1999 to put down revolts, and in Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on 8 July in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam asserted in his defense that he had been unlawfully overthrown, and was still the president of Iraq.
The first trial began before the Iraqi Special Tribunal on October 19, 2005. In this case Hussein and seven other defendants were tried for allegations of crimes against humanity with regard to events that took place after a failed assassination attempt in Dujail in 1982 by members of the Islamic Dawa Party (see also human rights abuses in Iraq). On November 5, 2006, Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging. On December 26, Saddam's appeal was rejected and the death sentence upheld. No further appeals were taken and Saddam was ordered executed within 30 days of that date. The date and place of the execution was secret until the sentence was carried out.[3]
A second and separate trial began August 21, 2006 [12], trying Saddam and six co-defendants for genocide during the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. Saddam may also have been tried in absentia for events dating to the Iran-Iraq War and the Invasion of Kuwait, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. With his death all other more important charges have been dropped.

If you read that yes I agree his trial was unfair. Especially about his appeal getting shut down since I don't know of any case besides this one that the person's appeal from death row was shut down. I still believe he should have been killed, just not in the way. I think that not matter how heinous one's crime's are he or she should have a fair trial, which did not happen here.

Why would you interpret "thou shall not kill" to mean anything else other than "thou shall not kill"?

I discourage blind faith, but that was a tad off beat...

I have to admit, that does look a bit like interpreting the Bible to suit your own ends, Norbie, which is something that you shouldn't really do, in my opinion.

On 28-Sep-2007 Fwank said:

Why would you interpret "thou shall not kill" to mean anything else other than "thou shall not kill"?

I discourage blind faith, but that was a tad off beat...

Well the reason I am still kind of pro dp and interprit thou shalt not kill that way is because of Isreal. In the Bible they win their promised land by warfare.

On 07-Aug-2007 norbie007 said:

Death Peanalty, are you for or against it.

I am for the death penalty. The reason I am for it is that Americans spend over $100,000 each year on one inmate. It is much cheaper to give them the death sentence than to sentence them to life in prison. $100,000 is more than many Americans make in a year. I am not quite sure about the income of people in other countries. We pay too much much in taxes allready and don't need to spend more on inmates. If there is a credible witness to someone that has murdered I think that they should be tried and if found guilty executed.

I also think that those sentenced to death and are on death row should not sit there for over 20 years but should be executed much faster, at least within a year.

What are your thoughts on this?

To be honest I am against the death penalty, everyone has a right to life, i mean mudering someone else is bad but it doesnt deserve the death sentence, but i believe leting them rot in prison is better than giving them the death penalty, besides here in Australia theres no death penalty only life.

On 28-Sep-2007 Fwank said:

Why would you interpret "thou shall not kill" to mean anything else other than "thou shall not kill"?

I discourage blind faith, but that was a tad off beat...

The actual commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", which means something rather different to "Thou shalt not kill".

On 16-Oct-2007 Hints Master said:

The death penalty is a great way to get rid of the criminals while saving the money that is coming out of our pockets to support these criminals.

Go read the rules.

Next time, no warning.

Edit: sorry oddball, you should know the rules by now... don't bother quoting a huge post just to agree with them... and try not to say stuff like "I've only read the first page" next time.

« Last edited by Fwank on Oct 20th 2007 »

On 08-Oct-2007 Catharsis said:

The actual commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", which means something rather different to "Thou shalt not kill".

Well I just read it in the Bible and it said "Though shalt not kill." Then again, almost every different Bible has a change in text so It could very well have been "Though shalt not murder."

To me self defense is not murder. Though the dp might fall under that.

Still though. Take Hitler for example. He is widely accepted as the evilest, most evil (whatever) figure in history. If he had been captured, would you have been for him being put to death or not? I know I would have.

sworder1: Deleted. Read the WHOLE topic before posting here.

EDIT: Cybertron: Posted deleted also. You've been told enough times now to elaborate on your opinions with more than just a single setence. If you carry on like this, I'm going to start deleting your posts on sight.

« Last edited by Shadow_Lord on Nov 24th 2007 »