Saddam hanged (12/29 - 10 p.m. EST)

[digihd]

There are still some supporters of saddam.The day of the hanging will be very ugly alot of riots etc.

[Mexicanuck]

I can't let this one go by without comment.

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Like in vermont where a far-left judge sentenced a rapist of a 6 year old girl to 60 days in prison.

I'm guessing you are referring to Judge Cashman. The offender, Mark Hulett, had an IQ of 80 and a mental age of 12-14 years. He would be sentenced to an adult prison. Prior to sentencing, Cashman learned that the offender would not receive sexual offender treatment in jail because he had already been assessed to be at low risk to reoffend.

To ensure that Hulett would receive treatment, Cashman sentenced him to 60days to 10 years. He was to be released from prison after 60 days with a parole condition that he complete sexual offender treatment that would be provided outside of the prison. A condition of the sentence was that if he failed to complete the treatment, he would face life imprisonment.

Subsequent to the sentencing, the correctional service agreed to provide the treatment within the facility and the sentence was changed to 3 years to 10 years with treatment to be provided while in custody. While some might argue that sentencing a mentally handicapped offender to that duration in jail, where he may well be victimized as a "skinner", it appears to be consistent with Judge Cashman's history.

Judge Cashman was appointed by Republican Governor Richard Snelling. According the Associated Press he was anything but "far-left".

Edward Cashman should be the darling of conservatives: The churchgoing Vietnam vet is a former prosecutor; his two sons have served in the military. As a judge he is best known for his hard-line stands: A decade ago he jailed for 41 days the parents of a prime suspect in a rape case because they refused to cooperate with prosecutors.

and

Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex-Orleans, who has served on the Joint Judicial Retention Committee, the Judicial Nominating Board and the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a county prosecutor, said Wednesday the criticism that Cashman is "a lenient judge and should be thrown out of office goes contrary to his judicial philosophy and career.

"Over the years, if there's been criticism of Judge Cashman, it has been he has been overly harsh on offenders when it comes to sentences and conditions of probation," said Illuzzi.

So, on what basis do you consider him to be "a far-left judge"? Or do you just use "far-left" aa a catch-all pejorative?

[westmanguy]

Am I the only person on this secular progressive driven earth who believes in Judgement, fair punishment, and evil is punished, good is rewarded! There is a moral code, and their is punishments. This is my problem with Canada and most of Western Europe (exception of UK), "restorative" justice.

I fear for the state of world...

It has nothing to do with danger.

Can YOU speak for the Iraqi people? I can't.

How do you know whether or not they would like to see this cruel dictator brought to justice.

I believe it will won't have an effect either way. The people of Iraq knew the US came there to throw out the dictatorship and try to build a stable society (stable society is the troubling part).

Now the Iraqi's know that the US is bringing justice, as they promised, to this cruel and harsh dicatator.

It doesn't matter about the society's opinion on Hussein's justice.

The society's opinion should and hasn't effected judging and rulings.

They look at the facts, then they come to a fair judgement.

Look, for example:

I believe OJ and M. Jackson were guilty of there felons.
BUT, I realize the evidence wasn't there or properly put forward. My opinion is they are guilty, but the judge and jury realized it wasn't able to do this because of the facts put forward.

So to that one point Mexicanuck, no, the threat or opinion of a society should not conclude justice.

Once again, "soceital consequences".

Society should not rule justice.

Especially when the society is fed biast media from left-wing news sources.

Its fact and conviction, pure and simple.

Peace out.

[JohnnyCanuck]

westmanguy, your views are not a shock given the tenor of your posts in various threads. However, you are turning a thread about the execution of Saddam Hussein into a variety of debates: the journalistic integrity of FHNC, the death penalty, and the US justice system.

The only one of which is relevant is the death penalty so I will comment directly on your views. The simplest and truest fact is that even the most progressively just and fair justice systems convict innocent people. Fact. In Canada, the names just roll off our tongues way too comfortably (Milgaard, Marshall, Sophenow, Fox ....). And we do a much better job than the US on the matter of fair trials and the calibre of those who sit as judges. Actual Innocence (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer) and Ultimate Punishment (Turow) should be mandatory reading for anyone prior to a death penalty debate.

The simple fact is that a society that has the death penalty murders innocent people. Inevitably. Rubin Carter is hardly an isolated incident of the wrongly convicted in America. Therefore, when an innocent man or woman is executed, the society that put him to death has murdered. Since so many cite the bible (an eye for an eye ...) as the justification for the death penalty, how does societal murder jibe with "you shall not murder"?

Not to mention that the death penalty racially and intellectually discriminates and has been disproven as a deterrent to violent crime. I do not understand how can anyone after consideration truly defend such a dishonourable punishment?

I normally keep my death penalty view to myself, but your rant, as insluated from balance as it was, motivated me.

Now, do I have any doubt that Hussein is guilty? No. But, that's not a line that can ever be drawn. Those jurors who sat in judgement of Rubin Carter and David Milgaard and everyone else ever wrongly convicted were certain that they were guilty.

On principle, he should not be executed. The death penalty simply should not be applied. However, the debate in this case needs to be practical. The execution of Saddam Hussein is profoundly impractical. It will further incite violence in the region. It will further destabilize efforts to build a consensus government. And most importantly, one cannot gloss over the complicity of the US in Saddam's atrocities. None of the tinpot dictators that the US propped up over the years (Sukarno, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, The Shah) have anywhere near the blood on American hands that Saddam does. If you execute Saddam, how is that remotely just when a great number of his atrocious deeds were tolerated by America because, in their eyes, he wasn't quite as bad as the Iranians?

[Nuje]

Just for kicks, let's see if George W. Bush "deserves" to be hanged, according to westmanguy's rules:

Ok, Saddam deserves to be hanged.

Its a punishment that fits the crime.

I believe in fair judgement.

He killed hundreds of thousands of people under his dicatorship.

GWB: Ditto - just ask the Afgani, Iraqi, and a few other countries....

For that he deserves death.

(If you say, so, westmanguy....just don't let the US Secret Service hear you.)

If the person is proved to be a REAL danger to the society and world, this thread NEEDS to be eliminated.

GWB: Similarly - I think MANY people here in the West and in other parts of the world would concur that Bush is a REAL danger to "the society and world".

I believe in the death penalty.

Then, like JohnnyCanuck points out, you also, by extension, believe in wrongful execution....the societal murder of innocents. Isn't that is a "real danger to the society"? If so, what would be the appropriate penalty for that?

Hanging is humilating way to die.

You well crap yourself when your hanged, to my knowledge.

Anyways my feelings.

......so as to to humiliate and further enrage a group of people who need little further provocation to exact revenge on the perpetrators (the Western world). Probably not a great idea!

[HT gearhead]

Quote:
"I believe in the death penalty."


Then, like JohnnyCanuck points out, you also, by extension, believe in wrongful execution....the societal murder of innocents.

I just gotta ask. Huh?
[scratching head]

By your logic does that mean if you believe in life imprisonment you also believe in wrongful life sentences too?

While I understand your point of view on the rest you lost me on that one. Personally I believe in the death penalty but only in extreme cases like Saddam ,Hitler types when there is absolutely positively no doubt whatsoever about their guilt. I think Paul Bernardo would have been a good candidate for the gallows here. As for Saddam's martyrdom there will be backlash no matter what happens to him. Jihad is a way of life for some no matter what the cause of the day is at the moment.

[westmanguy]

I totally agree.

It has to be totally conclusive.

The facts have to be there, and there has to be a 100% guilty knowledge.

If the facts aren't there then you can throw them in prison but death shouldn't be used.

See I believe in the death penalty for people who are a threat to world (Hitler, Saddam, Osama), and a general threat to society (murders who have violent pasts, and people who repeat, and are shown to be dangerous).

For example if someone wants revenge on an injustice that they want served and shoots the person, but this was something they did and they have no past or tendencies to act in this fashion, they don't deserve death.

Like, if someone raped one of my family members, and I was enraged and killed them, well I wouldn't deserve death because this was the only time I have taken part in a terrible act like this.

What I am trying to get at is, THREAT, every murderer is some threat, but a person who is proven to be a pretty big threat to society and the world should have the option of death.

But believe me, I think life without parole is great. People would go insane if they knew they were NEVER getting out and had to stare at a wall all day.

IMO life without parole is harsher then death. Death is almost the easy way out.

But if they have commited terrible, threat to humanity acts, they need to be eliminated.

My thoughts.

And I wish Canada (generally speaking, more power to the provinces please!), would allow each province the individual ruling on that.

Here is a question: What would Canada do if we had a person who set off bombs and killed 100 + people.

Do you think Canada would stick by "no death penalty", I think if the circumstances are right Canada would fold on that issue and would make emergency legeslation to put someone to for example killed 100 + people to death.

We may say we have no death penalty, but with the right circumstance public opinion will change and legeslation will change.

[JohnnyCanuck]

westmanguy, the whole point is how can you ever have 100% guilty knowledge. To the two juries that convicted Rubin Carter, I am sure that they werw 100% sure. To the jury that convicted Milgaard, they were 100% sure. The same with Marshall, Fox, Sophenow, etc.

So, how can you say it's OK to execute this person who you're 100% sure of without being guaranteed that at some point a mistake will be made and an innocent man or woman will be murdered by the state? Death can never be an "option" because it will be applied to someone who was innocent. There is no way to avoid it.

As far as Canada ever having the death penalty again? Never. First, public opinion in Canada will never be so strongly for it as to warrant the political risk it would be for any government of the day. More importantly, the Charter guarantees freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. It is pretty clear that our Supreme Court is in lockstep with virtually every other civilized Western country, save the United States, in considering the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment.

I think the view Canadians hold of our values and beliefs are closer to England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Hong Kong, Belgium, Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ireland, Hungary, Monaco, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, and Switzerland than they are to the US on social issues like this. Always have been. In fact, only five fully developed countries have the death penalty (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and the U.S.). Why would you ever think that Canada would move towards this particular social value when it is an anathema to so much of the rest of the world. Even if so, it would never pass a constitutional challenge.

You are so quick to say people should be killed by Canadian society. Why the bloodlust? You wouldn't feel this way if someone close to you was charged with a grievous crime, especially if you felt them innocent. Read Scott Turow's book, amazing work from a laywer who once prosecuted a death penalty case and was internally torn by the issue. Even though I was never pro-death penalty, Turow's book is a riveting analysis of the issue. Or, if you want to truly be frightened about the justice system in a pro-death penalty country like the US, read Actual Innocence. Do yourself a favour ... it's an important issue and your view is bound to be affected by some research. At least your knowledge of the issue will be affected.

[westmanguy]

No, if there is a mass murderer who kills over 100 people, you don't believe in eliminating the treat.

If some Canadian citizen set off a terrible attack to building and killed 100+ or thousands you think the people will stand by no death penalty? If Canada ever had an attack the scale of 9/11 and we caught them, I would think that issue would be out on the table.

People who are that huge of a threat have to be considered for death.

Oh, your talking about Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

What about war? Is it wrong to kill the enemy during WWIII.
Its all hypocritical, if we were ever involved in a massive war, out goes the Charter.

I believe people who are proven to be threats have to be eliminated.

On the innocent issue.

Ask yourself, this question:

Whats more important:

Letting 1000 convicts go free from the death penalty to see 1 innocent man freed

OR

Putting 1000 convicts to the death penalty to see 1 innocent man sent to the death penalty.

Its sad, but I'd rather have 1000 people who are threats to the world and society be put to death and sacrifice 1 innocent man.

Whats your take?

[JohnnyCanuck]

Actually, the maxim is "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent be punished." And I absolutely and unequivocally agree with it. It is one of the most basic tenets of our justice system (in fact, of all the justice systems based on the English model). I absolutely agree with the premise. Society has absolutely no right to imprison an innocent person, let alone put them to death. If the price for that is that a guilty person is occasionally set free, I can live with that.

Can you live with your neighbour, or cousin, or uncle, or father, or sister being sentenced to life in prison or death for a crime they didn't commit? You may say it's hypothetical, but Guy Paul Morin was someone's neighbour and cousin and uncle and son.

Your comment about war is completely specious. War is not murder. Our basic rights and freedoms will not be tossed aside simply because we are at war. It's just completly inane to suggest that somehow Canadians will become OK with state sanctioned murder because we are at war? In case you haven't you noticed, we are at war right now. I give Canadians a lot more credit than you do.

[QuickSilver]

I have a problem with "ten guilty men going free than one innocent being punished theory". So the 10 people that get off then murder, rape, torture someones daughter, son, uncle, aunt, etc. I think the weight of the crime that those ten men get off has to weighed. I am thinking in extreme cases. I have no view on Capital punishment really. It is one of those arguments that can never be won by either side.

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

And I wish Canada (generally speaking, more power to the provinces please!), would allow each province the individual ruling on that.

No doubt you understand that this would be contrary to the Canadian constitution. Matters of criminal law are in federal jurisdiction and matters of civil law are in provincial jurisdiction.

Here is a question: What would Canada do if we had a person who set off bombs and killed 100 + people.

Do you think Canada would stick by "no death penalty", I think if the circumstances are right Canada would fold on that issue and would make emergency legeslation to put someone to for example killed 100 + people to death.

You write of this as if it were hypothetical. Surely you recall the Air India bombing that killed 329 people. (There were actually two of them on the same day, but only one detonated as planned.) Until September 11, 2001 it was the most deadly terrorist act in history. It was widely believed to have been committed by Canadians.

Despite the extent of the carnage, there was no outcry in Canada, from the public, from politicians, from law enforcement officials or from any other noticable group for "emergency legislation".

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Its sad, but I'd rather have 1000 people who are threats to the world and society be put to death and sacrifice 1 innocent man.

Whats your take?

There is a need for individuals to be protected against the improper exercise of the power of the state. That is the basis for criminal test of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But even that test doesn't provide sufficient protection as evidenced by the "3Ms" (Marshall, Milgaard, and Morin) and others.

Death, like extinction, is forever. Where there will be errors, I would rather that the errors be reversable.

If there is insufficient evidence to convict 1000 of your "threats to the world", they should not be convicted. And if there is sufficient evidence to incorrectly convict one innocent person, that person should have the same opportunities as Marshall, Milgaard and Morin to be subsequently exonorated.

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

The facts have to be there, and there has to be a 100% guilty knowledge.

If the facts aren't there then you can throw them in prison but death shouldn't be used.

And should the process of conviction be fair before a person is sentenced, especially sentenced to death?

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is the UN body of five experts of fair trial, including an Iranian. The Working Group scrutinized the trial proceedings, reviewed hundreds of documents, and even issued a preliminary decision telling the United States and its occupation government what it had to improve in a preliminary judgment in 2005. This group declared the trial unfair and a violation of international law.

In November, the group issued a statement that included the following:

"In its second and final Opinion (N° 31/2006), rendered on 1 September 2006, the Working Group concluded that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Hussein is arbitrary, being in contravention of Article 14 -- on the right to fair trial -- of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a binding international treaty, to which both Iraq and the United States are parties. The Opinion set out a series of grave procedural flaws, such as, amongst others, the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal, which heard the case, the lack of respect for his right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, the restrictions on his right to access to defence lawyers and on the possibility to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf."

The full September 1, 2006 report can be found at:

http://international-lawyers.org/Doc...20Decision.pdf

[Mexicanuck]

Whew, where to start?

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Am I the only person on this secular progressive driven earth who believes in Judgement, fair punishment, and evil is punished, good is rewarded! There is a moral code, and their is punishments. This is my problem with Canada and most of Western Europe (exception of UK), "restorative" justice.

Well, even the Pope is opposed to capital punishment, so you definitely appear to be in a minority on that one, even though few would characterize this pope as being secular or progressive.

I fear for the state of world...

It has nothing to do with danger.

Huh?

Can YOU speak for the Iraqi people? I can't.

How do you know whether or not they would like to see this cruel dictator brought to justice.

Justice is based on a combination of fair process and fair sentencing. Even the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the former has not taken place in the Hussein trial. And the vast majority of developed nations have rejected capital punishment.

I believe it will won't have an effect either way. The people of Iraq knew the US came there to throw out the dictatorship and try to build a stable society (stable society is the troubling part).

Now the Iraqi's know that the US is bringing justice, as they promised, to this cruel and harsh dicatator.

No doubt some Iraqis believed that, as did some non-Iraqis. Others believe the motives were far less admirable. The US has installed and supported dictators around the world. The US has worked to destabilize societies around the world. And what they have brought to Iraq so far has not been justice.

Especially when the society is fed biast media from left-wing news sources.

Is this another one of your throw away lines like representing Cashman as a "far-left judge"?