http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq
“It basically says to people, `Look, you conducted a trial and gave Saddam justice that he didn’t give to others. But then, when it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing,’” the president said.
“It makes it harder for me to make the case to the American people that this is a government that does want to unify the country and move forward,” Bush said. “And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.”
I’m getting really tired of people wussing out on their real stance on the death penalty. If they (and by “they” I mean “we”) weren’t executing Saddam for revenge, why were we doing it? What–deterrence? “Don’t become a US-backed tyrant/mass-murderer, because we’ll hang your ass.” Bullshit. We weren’t doing it for deterrence. Would-be tyrants are not going to be worried about the gallows. Sure, Saddam was scared of being assassinated, but he wasn’t worried about going to trial and getting a death sentence when he committed all his crimes.
Shit, the main reason most people endorse the death penalty is for their sense of revenge. It’s the exercise of power that matters to them.
Bush’s comments show that he is weak. Go whole hog, damnit. Be proud, Bush. Remember that Saddam tried to kill your daddy? I bet you do.
Bush’s comments on Saddam’s execution are parallel to all the Bush supporters who scraped off the “Bush/Cheney ‘04″ stickers from their car bumpers. Both reflecting backpedaling.
Sphere: Related Content
16 Jan 2007 MC Spanky McGee
Well, Spanks, this is straight out of my first-year crim law class. Ask yourself if any of these apply to Saddam’s murder. There’s certainly an argument for #5…and I figger that #5 would be the justification of choice for the administration. However, a life sentence would arguably serve equally as well for #5.
7 justifications for punishment
1. Pre-empt private vengeance
2. Retribution—not revenge; very rational calculation under criminal law; socially criminal behavior can be rewarded, ignored or punished; punishment is only option that makes sense; punishment can range from mild to severe
#s 3-7 are aimed at prevention of future crime
3. General deterrence—don’t engage in Action A, because state will punish you (speed limit); some mechanisms of social deterrence do not involve criminal law; works best when applied without prejudice—the more exceptions there are, the worse GD works:
• Criminal law mechanisms—swifter punishment, increased punishment, increased likelihood of apprehension
• Social mechanisms—more publicity, make act less socially acceptable, industry governance (make cars that won’t exceed speed limit), social expectations
4. Specific deterrence—directed at one particular individual; commit a crime, taste bad medicine, don’t commit crime again
5. Incapacitation—take criminal out of circulation, they can’t commit crimes in society
6. Rehabilitation (reform)—attempt to give criminal better tools to deal with society in a legal fashion
7. Educational/moral influence—designed to convince the public that certain behaviors are bad
THEY’RE TRYING TO BUILD A PRISON…for you and me-he-heeeeeeeeeee….
I know why they killed Saddam…moral influence. That’s what we spread throughout the world…moral influence.
Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary.
Wow, Bro. We started off in law school land, migrated to SOAD, and then to *Lebowski*.
Maybe you have been partying with “The Samba.”