What a totally disgusting, barbaric and inhumane act. I genuinely feel sickened. Incredible that the US can preach about justice and human rights to the world when this shit happens.

Never, ever justification for state executions.

I don't want to seem insensitive and regardless of the merits of the indictment, but it is one less American.

Yes there is. Saddam Hussein springs to mind.

+1

Hopefully some good comes of it and more people join and donate to Amnesty International.

Talk to anyone from central or south America who had the audacity to be left of centre. The Americans are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

Quite disturbing reading The Guardian's ten reasons to doubt his guilt.

Is executing someone so much worse than decreeing that they have to spent the rest of their life - perhaps 50 years or more - locked up in a concrete box?

Er, YES.

For a start, once you have executed someone its really REALLY hard to bring them back to life in the event that a miscarriage of justice is discovered, and it does happen.

Secondly, its illogical to say, you are bad you killed someone, so we are going to kill you, its kind of erodes the states moral highground

Thirdly, its expensive, with the legal process as it is it costs way more to kill someone than to lock them up.

Fourthly, it doenst work, its not a deterent, the stats are out there.

Fifthly, In the case of the US its not applies equally, if you are poor and black then your chances of being excecuted are much much higher. Thats a scary thought for a "justice system"

You can argue the toss about some of those and say that changes to the application of the penaly would "fix" them, but Id say points one and two are hard to get around. The state has no place in killing people, if killing is wrong, then killing killers is equally wrong.

All of the reasons why he shouldn't have been executed would have been argued before the courts in all of his appeals and, it would appear, the best legal brains in the US have determined that there is no reason for any of his appeals to have succeeded. End of.

Feel free to debate the appropriateness of the death penalty but also accept that he was arrested, charged and convicted, has had every avenue of appeal open to him and the original conviction remains. Unless you have pored over all the evidence and are able to provide an informed decision about whether the original conviction was appropriate, you have no real authority to debate the merits of the conviction.

How can one be sure of this given what happened with that Texan judge who denied a hearing because it was time for her to go home?

Which was why I said no more than being disturbed at the points raised.

.

Both immoral and illogical (killing is bad, so we are going to kill you). and often unjust.


Granted, Many people released after a miscarriage of justice struggle to adjust to life outside, but at least they get the opportunity, and more often than not a big payout, and they can enjoy contact with family and friends again.

The dead, not so much.

If the justice system was 100% infallible theres might be an argument to make for a death sentance, (although I wouldnt make it on moral grounds alone), but as that is never going to happen as long as human beings are involved then really the death sentence is going to go on punishing far more than just the guilty parties.

Does it not seem rather odd to punish the mother and father and siblings of those found guilty of capital crimes, in addition to the perpetrator? An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind. Killing a killer wont bring the victim back to life and it doesnt stop it happening to others.

Anyway, "enough of my yakkin'" Im sure there are more then enough better thought out and expressed views on this subject on the interweb than I will manage, complete with associated links to the cost and crime stats in death penalty and no death penalty states, but in my mind the death penalty is clearly morally and logically flawed.

One can't just as, without knowing what happened, one can't say that s/he got it wrong. I do, of course, have to defer to your greater knowledge in this particular matter. I am sure you will accept that it weakens your position massively if the judge didn't grant a hearing due to wanting to go home but because, after a careful consideration of all of the facts, a hearing was not justified. I know which one I believe is more likely.

I said nothing about you. I was pointing out the naivety that can be inferred from those that are screaming, "Injustice" simply on the basis of what has been posted online

We don't have the death penalty in Canada or the UK so I’m not sure why anyone should give a toss about Americans killing each other, the state or otherwise. They just love to kill. Look at the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi of Afghani civilians, many women and children they have murdered over the last ten years. Or the repeated violations of other countries airspace with their crowdedly drone machines to murder people with no legal due process. Lets face it, Americans just like to kill people, if killing each other can fulfill that blood lust to some degree, so be it. Not our problem.

What about Mr. Hussein then? No doubt he did what he did, particularly at Halabja and Anfal. So that totally removes your "What if they are innocent" argument.

Where does the morality of the State begin and end? Should the State become involved in what goes on in your bedroom and decide what should, and should not, be allowed?

Hanging Mr. Hussein, I suggest, cost way less than keeping him alive but in jail until he died of natural causes. Don't forget, you can't execute them until they are convicted and, I suggest, the cost of obtaining the conviction is the same irrespective of the punishment. You will need a better argument than that.

Mr. Hussein will not kill anyone ever again. I'd say that worked. Maybe not a deterrent, but not all sentences are an appropriate deterrent, if they were, no crime would ever be committed which, quite clearly, isn't the case.

Is that because the crimes that have the death penalty are committed by poor, black people in a greater proportion that non blacks, or are you arguing that the legal system in the US is institutionally racist?

Legally or morally? If legally, it is not wrong as the law states it is appropriate, otherwise, those that do the killing would also be executed, even if they are white and wealthy.

If it is morally wrong, who determines that? The Church, your next door neighbour, the host of a chat show? One can infer that the States that still have the death penalty are populated by a majority of those that believe such a law is appropriate, otherwise, it wouldn't have such a law. If one wishes to commit a crime for which the punishment by that State is death, one had better commit it somewhere else.