ThePurpleCobra 0 Report post Posted December 26, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_...ddam_s_sentence Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JR Boucicaut 3804 Report post Posted December 26, 2006 Actually the term is "hanged.":) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UMWhockey 0 Report post Posted December 26, 2006 someone might think this is some male enhancement thread or something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Booth 0 Report post Posted December 26, 2006 depends what he is being hanged by i spose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty22 834 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Looks like we could learn a little something from the Iraqi judicial system- when is the last time it took under 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chadd 916 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Looks like we could learn a little something from the Iraqi judicial system- when is the last time it took under 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death?How many innocent men have been on death row more than 30 days (or ten years) before new evidence exonerated them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jason Harris 31 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Looks like we could learn a little something from the Iraqi judicial system- when is the last time it took under 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death?How many innocent men have been on death row more than 30 days (or ten years) before new evidence exonerated them?I understand that some would say any innocents would be too many, but I read an article a few months ago that suggested DNA testing was confirming sentences, rather than exonerating. The number of reversals was slightly more than 1%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chadd 916 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Looks like we could learn a little something from the Iraqi judicial system- when is the last time it took under 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death?How many innocent men have been on death row more than 30 days (or ten years) before new evidence exonerated them?I understand that some would say any innocents would be too many, but I read an article a few months ago that suggested DNA testing was confirming sentences, rather than exonerating. The number of reversals was slightly more than 1%."that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". -Benjamin FranklinI'm not against the death penalty, I just think that some investigators and prosecutors are more interested in winning than in doing the right thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zanman187 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 The death penalty is useless. It is easy to see that it does not work as a detterent against murder, it sadly only re enforces the eye for an eye mentality. The amount of death row inmates found to be innocent after new evidence was introduced is appaling, it shows how inept the legal system can be at times. Lets just think about all the unlucky innocent death row inmates who were not lucky enough to have new evidence introduced to the court before they were put to death. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick67 1 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 In Saddams case, there shouldn't be any form of execution, it would tarnish his memory alot more to be left rotting in a prison than giving him a shot of becoming a martyr... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jason Harris 31 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 I don't agree with Ben. 100 to 1 is crazy.I just researched the following statistics. Beginning in 1966, there have been 759,393 murders in the US (an average of 18,985 per year for 40 years) and 3,100,498 rapes (an average of 77,512 per year for 40 years). I'm quite confident some of these rapes were heinous enough to lead to forfeiture of life, so let's say that at least 10,000 crimes have been committed yearly in which the perpertrators should be given the maximum sentence by society, making an allowance for first degree murders versus second. In a slighly smaller time frame (1976, when executions were again allowed), 1,029 exucutions have occured. There have probably been 400,000+ crimes in which the criminal should have been given the maximum punishment, yet that punishment has occured only 1029 times over 30 years.That's 400 to 1. Even Ben wouldn't like that. I saw a great quote in which the gentleman said that just as we award those in society with the highest accolades (Nobel Peace price, et al) for the highest acheivement, we need to have the moral backbone to mete out the highest punishment to those who commit the most heinous crimes. I understand we need to make sure we are punishing the right person but, at that point, we need to enact that punishment swiftly. Again, people are being murdered, and people need to be punished for committing those murders.The amount of death row inmates found to be innocent after new evidence was introduced is appaling, it shows how inept the legal system can be at times.That's not quite accurate. Even with overzealous (and/or racist) prosecutors, I've seen statistics stating that DNA testing on older Death Row cases has confirmed nearly 99% of the sentences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gman 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 The death penalty is useless. It is easy to see that it does not work as a detterent against murder,The death penalty is the only deterant to murder. I guarantee that there is a 0% recidivism (sp) rate among murderers who are put to death. That being said, we have to be sure we have the right person. Timothy McVeigh admitted his crime and was put to death 'relatively" swiftly. If we have absolute proof that someone committed the crime, then there is no reason to keep them around on the public dollar. I agree with appeals if there are questions or if there is a possibility of new technology exhonerating someone. At the same time, though, if the new technology upholds a prior conviction, then the death penalty should be carried out that day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick67 1 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Just for comparison, how long do people (in the US) convicted for rape usually get? Our legislation is way to soft on the offenders IMO, people here get 2-4 weeks if it's a standalone rape + they get a blemished prison attest. It's a bloody disgrace we don't punish harder. There was a story in the news 2 years ago about a 15 year old girl that got raped for 6 hours in a row by 8-9 different immigrants. She got here life destroyed, the worst sentance was 2½years+ beeing deported from the country after serving the sentance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chadd 916 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 This is starting to get more than a bit off the topic of Saddam. I don't think anyone could justify his actions over the years and the world will certainly be a better place without him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gman 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 the worst sentance was 2½years+ beeing deported from the country after serving the sentance.If that happened here we would make sure they got a court room that spoke only their language. Their attorneys would be allowed to argue that there are cultural differences that make it okay to do what they did. Then we would give them free housing on the OUTSIDE (not guilty due to misunderstood cultural differences)as well as free healthcare for the 30 extended family members each of them brought with them to the country. Then we would set up classrooms in the schools to teach in their native language, pushing aside English speaking kids. They would get free meals at school, discounted or free utilities, and did I mention free health care. Finally we would give them instant social security cards that trump any need for a green card and let them vote and run for office. At least your legislation does SOMETHING.This is starting to get more than a bit off the topic of Saddam. I don't think anyone could justify his actions over the years and the world will certainly be a better place without him. You are right on both accounts. Sorry for the rant... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chikinpotpie 137 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 This is the best way to get rid of the star witness for the war crimes trial of George W Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mack 44 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 This is going to end well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gman 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 This is the best way to get rid of the star witness for the war crimes trial of George W Bush.That is the juciest hunk of bait I have seen in a very long time. Amazingly for me, I'll pass. Someone else can swallow the hook. Nice troll though :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chikinpotpie 137 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Thought that I would put out the gasoline and wait for someone with the match. Its a slow day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Juice_Slowjamz 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 No way Saddam did all that shit. OJ did some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chikinpotpie 137 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 He tried to kill my father, son!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JR Boucicaut 3804 Report post Posted December 27, 2006 Black Bush! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kosydar 0 Report post Posted December 28, 2006 Oil? Who said anything about oil? Bitch you cookin? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chadd 916 Report post Posted December 28, 2006 Black Bush! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mack 44 Report post Posted December 28, 2006 This reminds me that I forgot to pick up my issue of Club yesterday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
