Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

I’m not sure though that the NYT editorial is really suggesting that we don’t execute Saddam. I read it as more suggesting that a comprehensive, in-depth, impartial trial would have some value. Frankly, though, I didn’t follow the trial closely enough to have an informed opinion on this.

If the death penalty doesnt deter anyone in America, why do you think it would deter anyone else?

***** “On balance, under the totality of the circumstances, I find it hard to conclude that executing Saddam would be a miscarriage of justice.” *****

Agreed.

My own view on this is that there’s a difference in kind—and not just in degree—when the guilty party is not merely guilty of murder, but is rather guilty of genocide.

I’m opposed to the death penalty when it comes to what I’d call ordinary criminal justice. I just don’t think it’s justifiable, because a self-defense need is not present, and I don’t think the sensible conditions laid out by Cardinal Dulles are satisfied when criminals are executed in the present.

But when the guilty party has used state power, and his victims are so numerous as to permit his crimes to be accurately labeled “genocide”, I think a self-defense need kicks in on the part of the species itself. After all, Hitler could have escaped prison (busted out of jail by, say, a neo-Nazi regime). And his survival to a ripe old age in prison could have lead other would-be genocidal dictators to conclude that Hitler in some sense “got away with it” and so, too, could they. The human race has a right, in my view, to defend itself against genocide. This right to self defense justifies capital punishment in the case of Saddam Hussein.

In this case the death of Saddam prevents him from ever being Saddam again. His demise may not deter others, but it will most assuredly deter him. No more rationale is needed.

"no one can give death, not even the State”...if the Cardinal really said this, then he is not thinking straight. Even given the abolition of capital punishment--arrest and imprisonment of offenders would not be possible absent the state’s authority to shoot fleeing prisoners, etc. Nor would the state be able to defend itself against insurrection or foreign invasion.

should there be some sort of retrial? the un and eu says that the trial was flawed and as far as i followed it, it was a farce. now, of course i would never go along with anything saddam did but in fairness, this trial has to be seen as having been fair in the eyes of the international community

Isn’t a Christian on slippery ground justifying the killing of anyone ... even Saddam?

I realize that the RC Church has moved far beyond the parables of Jesus in an effort to create guidelines for the faithful ... along with many other doctrinal add-ons and revisions ... but JC (if indeed the words are his) was crystal clear when it comes to killing. He was all about being non-judgmental and forgiving.

There is of course the argument that the teachings of Jesus were directed to the individual believer, not the state. But then he took pains to distance himself from the state - “render onto Caesar”. Doesn’t this imply that the Christian believer, and by extension the church, should step aside from offering pro or con opinion on affairs of state and tribunal that have to do with the killing of a person, however guilty-as-charged?

There is no doubt that Saddam was guilty of heinous crimes. However this trial was deeply flawed and marred by numerous irregularities. Some people even contend it was rigged, a political exercise dressed up in legal regalia. For that reason alone, I would have preferred incarceration over the death penalty.

The “EU and the UN say the trial was flawed..”.  This is another way of saying, the trial was not perfect.  Is anything perfect?  Their words are Jabberwocky statements. I prefer the clarity or #2 above,"Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things...” What a beautiful phrase, the right order of things. One senses an attempt to do the right thing, not just pronounce from a self-appointed seat of superior judgementalism.

This issue (death penalty) tends to raise confusion and doubt among the faithful.  Sometimes I wonder whether the “Church” is more completely opposed to the ‘death panalty’ (an average of 20 years of appeals, 13 vicious murderers are executed a year in the US) than it is tepidly opposed to partial birth abortion (1,500 murdered each month). 

I still have a copy of the Catechism edition just previous to the confusing and contradictory modernist innovation.  Traditionally, the Church did not oppose capital punishment, especially not on spurious grounds that a locked up murderer could not murder again.  That is silly. 

From Genesis:

Who sheds man’s blood,
By man shall his blood be shed,
For God made man in His image. 

The former pope was wrong to kiss the Q’ran (although when I was attached to a NATO unit, I dutifully saluted while the British anthem was played on parade - but that’s different) and his bureaucrats were wrong in this asinine capital punishment innovation.

Kerry:"This is another way of saying, the trial was not perfect. Is anything perfect? Their words are Jabberwocky statements.”

My read would be that the EU andUN are being overly polotic in saying the trial was a farce. U.S. lawyers, who volunteered time to help rebuild the Iraqi justice system, said the process would take years (NPR interview from last year). So this trial happened way too soon, or should have been at the Hauge so it would at least seem like the U.S. wasn’t pulling the strings.

But it’s all spilt milk now, and too late to gripe.

To T. Shaw:
Picking and choosing from the Old Testemant is nice but… the Old is overridden by the New. So I wouldn’t really hold up Genesis as a ruler for just punishment.

And finally for Mr. Bainbridge… as Saddam was in U.S. custody his chance of escape was very low to non-existant. So with all the rules lawyering you attempt with various Roman Catholic teaching, it comes back to JP II. The penal system, ours, is sufficient to hold him and make sure he would never escape. But again, too late now, he’s dead. All you statements just amount to an attempt to wash your hands of the deal. Good try.

So, it “would not be possible otherwise to defend society” if Saddam hadn’t been executed?

Kinda of a stretch, Doc.  I don’t
think you can give religious assent to the Papal opinion at all.

Funny, but the Church condemns both the death penalty and the war in Iraq, but that doesn’t stop the moral theocon midgets on the right on bit. But as soon as the Pope condemns birth control or homosexuals, you’ll hear them toast the Pope from coast to coast. Sounds like true cafeteria Catholics to me!

For the left, Saddam’s hanging is—like everything else that comes down the pike—just one more Bush-bashing opportunity. For the rest of us—especially the Iraqis who suffered the tyrant’s jackboot first hand—his execution re-establishes the right order of things:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2006/12/when_it_comes_t.html

There are some on the right and center who have issues with the trial and execution also, not just leftists.

As even the timing on the Islamic calendar confirms with its metaphoric allusion to the sacrifice of Abraham - this was symbolic. A trophy. A symbolic execution on the back of a trial that was badly flawed.

The current administration likes symbolism - whether it’s a deck of cards representing the baddies, or the offing of Musab al Zarqawi or other tangible, non-literate tokens that “we’re makin’ progress”.

Progress by that measure is simply window dressing. We all know what is going on in Iraq at street level. The reality of what is going down is the polar opposite of what Bush envisaged when he went in. This execution is yet more posturing and symbolism in the face of a crisis that has taken on its own momentum.

Even if additional troops stabilize the country in the short-term, the game is far from over in Iraq and it won’t be the Americans calling the shots, no matter what they manage to broker over the short haul. We could very well be looking at a Shia dominated Islamic Republic that forms an axis with Iran. A scenario that could potentially be a lot more menacing for US interests in the region than Saddam and his bunch of Ba’athist cowboys.

As the old saying goes ... be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

As an atheist, I may be a little unclear on much of Christian dogma, but I’m pretty sure JC was against executions.

Is there a name for people who believe in “Christianity,” but not in the teachings of Christ?

alphie: “Is there a name for people who believe in “Christianity,” but not in the teachings of Christ?”

Yeah, they’re called modernists.

Jesus Christ was specifically asked about an execution once, and what did he say about it?

But feel free to ignore the only time Jesus Christ was asked about executions if you want. I’m sure you are right.

I’m not sure if they should have executed Saddam at all, but if they insisted, then their timing was inappropriate. The killing wasn’t absolutely vital to Iraq’s security as you contend, and therefore is unchristian.

Firstly, the risk of Saddam’s escape was minimal. A prisoner of such high profile would be under constant surveillance. At the same time, the chance of his baathist buddies bailing him out is equally small. If the administration has been doing its job, then baath party loyalists would have a whole lot more to worry about (i.e. the us army) than wasting time and resources busting a disgraced figurehead out of a maximum security prison. At this point Saddam’s leadership isn’t rellivant to their cause.

Secondly, executing anyone on the “suspicion” or “anticipation” of attempting a future crime (such as escape) is just reprehensible, especially when the likelihood of that person committing a crime is minimal.

Thirdly, the timing of the execution was terrible. How can we expect any decent Muslim to “celebrate” anyone’s execution on the first day of Ramadan? If anything, Saddam’s execution stoked the flames of anti-American sentiment raging throughout the mid-east. Remember, these are the people who’s “hearts and minds” we are supposed to be winning.

Finally, the argument that the death penalty would deter future dictators/insurgents is insane. When there are people out there willing to suicide themselves in the name of jihad, do you honestly think they would stop to ponder that, in unlikely event of their capture, they MIGHT be hung? Of course they wouldn’t.

I’m convinced that you mean well by advocating the execution, because I agree it certainly “feels” like the right thing to do. But when you take into consideration the ability of our military to detain Saddam and his irrelevance to the ongoing sectarian war, the execution (especially at this point in time) is meaningless, vindictive, and most certainly unjust in the eyes of Christ.

Saddam was executed before he could spill the beans on other massacres. Who was involved? Who sold him the chemical and biological weapons?

what we need in iraq is a victory parade, a victory banner proclaiming “mission accomplished (again)”, and a comb by yah singing with the iraqis before we peace the fawk out.

Oh, please!

Had there been any authentic concern for “justice” in this debacle, Saddam Hussein’s executiion would have been postponed until after he was tried for gassing 5000 Kurds.

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/12/dead-men-tell-no-tales.html

Rather, given the origin of the gas, it was necessary to silence him swiftly.

What did Jesus say about executions, Hi Yoo?

This thread makes a strong argument against allowing comments. Too many people substituted ad hominem attacks and knee jerk talking points for reasoned argument. I’ve closed it and deleted/banned the worst offenders as I reminder that I demand a minimal level of civility and community whether comments are directed at me or others who have commented. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I pay for this microphone.