Perhaps they can remember the victims...

Ban Ki-Moon, the new U.N. Secretary General has kicked off his new term by saying he would not criticize the death penalty for the ex-Butcher of Baghdad even though the United Nations' policy stands firmly against the death penalty. 

Ki-Moon said,

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people.  We should never forget the victims of his crimes."

Whereas, the special representative from Iraq to the U.N. said the U.N. is opposed to the death penalty even in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide “based on the principle of respect for the right to life.” 

If the U.N., and anybody else opposed to the death penalty truly respected the right to life, they would in fact support the death penalty. 

Yes, there's always tragic instances where an innocent person could be mistakenly put to death for a crime they didn't committ.  But the evidence for those who have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty, are let out and will kill again is overwhelming.

So if we're truly interested in saving (in Saddam's case), hundreds of thousands of lives, and the talk of respecting the right to life is not merely talk, then the U.N. in particular ought to reconsider their policy on the death penalty, especially with blatant disregard of life as evidenced by Saddam Hussein and his ilk.

Comments

[Meg]

I don't think the death penalty is about revenge or murder. It is the law of the land, and people who murder know that before they do the act. Some people enjoy prison and it becomes a home to them. I think after 20 years in prison you wouldn't know how to act on the outside. But I don't think that by sending someone to death you are breeding violence or revenge. Or honoring or dishonoring the victims. If you bring the victims into the punishment then you skew the judicial system. It is supposed to be there without emotion. I am sure there are some victims that wish they offender got death even though they got life and vise versa, but that is why victims don't have a say as to the sentencing and they shouldn't.

Nothing will bring justice when a loved on is murdered...not sending them to prison or death.

[Zach]

I'm against the death penalty, I think for one its a cop out for the accused, as well as a cop out for those who seek justice. I don't think that Saddam would ever have "gotten out" to kill again. Nor should any person who is sentenced to life for murder ever be let out. Let them be productive in a prison. The "right to life" isn't necessarily something I agree with, but it is a principled matter in which we must understand the types of revenge we believe is right to enact. Although you correctly identified one of the main contentions with the death penalty (what if its the wrong person?), and many would leave it at that, there are others as well (such as the appeals process costs the taxpayers more to kill someone as it does to keep them in prison their entire lives). My major contention with the death penalty is that violence breeds violence. We should never, ever condone that type of behavior, and killing a murderer is still killing. Its not like they're facing us with a gun and we have to choose us or them, we have them locked up, making license plates. Furthermore, anyone who believes that the death of a murderer is justice for the family is living in a grossly deranged world where people need therapy not "revenge."

[amishav]

Saddam's manner of death was too good for him. He deserved far worse. Those who criticise his execution are apologists for mass murder and genocide. Period.