Jump to content

U.S. officials: Hussein to hang this weekend


DJEagles

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/28/hussein/index.html

This is happening very quickly. I pity anyone who is Iraq after this happens this weekend, as I am sure violence will continue to escalate. It continues to amaze me how much this world of ours has gotten crazy over the past 6 - 7 years.

I hope 2007 brings some semblance of peace to us all, and hopefully a world without Hussein is a small start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the U. S. could learn from Iraq, and execute people on death row quickly. It would have two benefits. One, we taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for their food, medical expenses, and other stuff like that. Second, there would be a whole lot less crime if we would kill those murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is, it's about time he's executed. I believe in the Bible, which says "if a man sheds blood, then his blood shall be shed by men." Nothing more really needs to be said here.

Must only read the Bible of Moses.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

I don't oppose the death penalty but don't use the Bible as a guidline for doing so when the Son of God himself, says otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, knew that would come up. Depending on your view, you could see it as a fair trade-off. A few innocent men die but who knows how many lives are saved by the death penalty. How many murderers get out of prison and kill again? That can't happen with the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, knew that would come up. Depending on your view, you could see it as a fair trade-off. A few innocent men die but who knows how many lives are saved by the death penalty. How many murderers get out of prison and kill again? That can't happen with the death penalty.

So what you are saying is it is ok to murder innocent people and not be held accountable? I'm glad you're not running for office.

Not saying I am anti-death penalty, but taking that veiw (at least stating it the way you did) looks harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punish killing by killing, real nice morals there.

Ah, knew that would come up. Depending on your view, you could see it as a fair trade-off. A few innocent men die but who knows how many lives are saved by the death penalty. How many murderers get out of prison and kill again? That can't happen with the death penalty.

If you actually believe the latter part of that post, you have a problem. They are totally separate issues. A standard penalty for murder is life in jail. If this is adhered to, no murderer will ever be released from prison and kill again, because they would be in prison for the rest of their life. Make sense? What you see to be saying is because some idiot has viewed it acceptable for "life in prison" to actually mean something else other than life in prison, it's OK to use the death penalty because no-one will be released from prison early to kill again. Well, if the phrase "life" was used correctly, there would be no early releases from prison for murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punish killing by killing, real nice morals there.

and what would you propose be done with the man? life in prison? that's a fair punishment considering all the damage he caused. the only suitable punishment for a person like that is death. Nothing else would suffice given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then what would you propose be done with thim?

Depends how far out of the human rights barrier you wish to stray. ;) Going by current common standards, though, actual life in a maximum security prison would be sufficient, as long as it's not one of the country-club jails.

mark, techinically in the us, life in prison isnt actually life in prison. Its usually about 25 years....

about the only time you've got real life in prison is consecutive sentences, without possibility of parole.

That's my point. Why call it "life" when it's not? It seems to me that a "life" term is used simply to make the sentence seem more severe as it's subconsciously implied that "life" means life, as opposed to the judge saying "25 years". I don't buy the whole "25 to life" sentence either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mark, techinically in the us, life in prison isnt actually life in prison. Its usually about 25 years....

about the only time you've got real life in prison is consecutive sentences, without possibility of parole.

It's because we live in America, where EVERYTHING is negotiable, even by the scum of society. Also, the reason that you don't see consecutive sentences and without possibility for parole is because the judicial sect is built on the system of precidence. A crime is only punishable by a punishment within certain guidelines. Because of this there are many loopholes, so life in prison is not life in prison. You can't just go out of the boundaries when making a ruling, which works in a lot of cases, because if someone dispicable commits an offense, like shoplifting, they can't get 25 to life, just because they may or may not be the scum of the earth.

Also, how often does a murderer get out of jail after 15 years, and kill again? Most of them value their freedom too much after a stint in the pokey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...