It is not necessary to execute Huntley. He can be locked up for life.

But I'm inclined to believe it is necessary to execute Saddam, and it has nothing to do with Iraqis being "barbarians". While Saddam lives, he will constitute a serious symbolic and material threat to a peaceful and liberal Iraq. (Would Hitler have received a life sentence at Nuremberg?)

Better for whom indeed - in any case where the re-offending rate amongst murderers who get away with it is greater than 1.01%, then letting all 100 go free will lead to the death of a greater number of innocents than convicting the lot would.

The saying works if you are, instinctively, right-wing - if you believe that the specific rights of the individual are a trump card against the rights of society in general, no matter what is on each side of the scales.

More specifically, it is one aspect of a widespread belief that harm done by a state is much more morally significant than good done by a state. Something of a dilemma for libertarian tories then, but it is likely to be a no-brainer for either rich liberals living a long way from the effects of (this particular sort of) crime, or for people in ordinary communities living with it day to day.

Whilst those accused of committing a single murder could be wrongly executed,surely for multiple murderers a trial for each separate offences would reduce the risk.If that would be too difficult or expensive perhaps specific number could be selected.The problem seems to be a single trial for all offences.
The comparison of Huntley with Saddam is not a true one,given the opportunity, Huntley would have been Uday.
Blair and Straw have laid themselves open to the accusation of executing Saddam for political reasons and trampling on human rights.The best course is to leave Saddam to the Iraqis.

Hang on a minute. Why can't I be against the death penalty, but in favour of the right of a democracy to decide this issue?

Many US states have the death penalty - that doesn't mean that I think they are barbarians. I repect their right to make a different choice. In the same way, if we decide that Saddam must be tried by the people of Iraq, then we must accept that he must be subject to the laws and penalties that they choose (if they are chosen democratically).

I would not want to see Ian Huntley hang, and am prepared to use my vote to say so. I would not want to see Saddam hang, however I don't have a vote in Iraq.

What's wrong with that?

Stephen, I might have misinterpreted what you wrote, but you seemed to be implying that California (in contrast to Texas) is not a death-penalty state. In fact, we here in California do have recourse to the death penalty. And I'm very glad we do, for reasons you gave eloquently in your essay.

Mr. Pollard, perhaps I don't understand. If your objection is, as you state, merely practical, that "better that ninety nine guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be killed," then surely there is no issue here. For with Saddam, moreso than in the vast majority of cases, there is no issue of an innocent man being killed. Or perhaps that is your argument-- that the death penalty could be accepted by you if only in cases where guilt is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is of course in most cases becomes a practical rather than a moral objection. But certainly I can imagine someone, such as the Prime Minister, claiming that while there is always enough doubt about common criminals to prevent the death penalty from being moral, there is no such doubt about Saddam.

Certainly in the American system the death penalty is used but rarely, and there has yet to have been a case of wrongful execution shown. (I am unsure about the case of Japan; of course surely there have been wrongful executions in less free countries.) In fact, the very gravity of the situation has led to extraordinary efforts on the part of independent campaigners as well to search to prove the innocence of those suspected of being wrongfully convicted. DNA evidence too is a great tool for avoiding convicting the guilty.

Better for our souls.

I do not support the killing of Saddam Hussein. Why be as barbaric as him? It is always our children's world that we are creating. They need to know that even under the most despicable circumstances, charity will always be in our hearts -- and charity in this case means life emprisonment. Oh, there are always good excuses for executing someone. The Romans had 'em when they executed Jesus. Does that make what they did right?

The argument that we are leaving the Iraqis to perform an act of barbarism we would not do ourselves begs the question. It assumes the death penalty is immoral, which is what you wish to demonstrate in the first place. It cannot be done by circular argument. But why should the Iraqi people's choice be naturally barbaric while letting Saddam live out his life, leaving his victims in the full knowledge that he is receiving health care and food far beyond their dreams be humane? If the idea of a death penalty gives you such unease, can there be no unease in Iraqi minds?

You correctly reason that "there are no sensible grounds on which one can argue that it is morally right to execute Saddam but not Ian Huntley" and after saying that "as I watched the wonderful pictures of Saddam’s humiliation, I could not – nor can I still – think of a single reason why he should not be executed." Put the two together and consider what the inference must be.

Re my apparent suggestion that California does not have the death penalty: badly written on my part, I'm afraid. I realise on re-reading that it looks as if I am saying that Texas, unlike California, has the death penalty, which is not what I meant since that would, of course, be nonsense.
Still, I don't think it would be right to alter the post to make that clear, as that's what appeared in the paper. I'll just have to look stupid.

It is certainly an interesting thesis, and on the whole I would agree that the Ian Huntley deserves the same punishment as Saddam. However, I would not suggest this to be the death penalty because I simply do not see what executing somebody achieves. I am a person who believes that when we punish criminals it should not be for reasons of vengeance, but for rehabilitation. Executing either Saddam or Ian Huntley will not give them the opportunity to reflect on the crimes they have committed, which is surely the worst punishment that any human being can face.

The death penalty for the vilest of murders is not only just but also the most civilised option. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility. I have not always thought so. In my youth, I was exercised by the 99/1 ratio. Like Stephen, I have changed my mind.

There is nothing 'civilised' or 'humane' in the deliberate sentencing of a murderer for the rest of his natural life, stretching into decades ahead with the only prospect of release that of the coffin that will carry him out of the prison gates.

To my mind that is a 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Or are we, after 50 years (in Huntley's case) to become so moved by the thought of a geriatric in a cell and then release a bewildered, inadequate and frightened man back into a changed world for the final days, weeks or years of a wasted life?

Whether Huntley fits the bill for the death sentence is another matter but there are some murders, so deliberate, cruel and wanton that the only proper response from a society that calls itself civilised is to exercise the ultimate punishment.

Serial killers, child killers and others fit the bill. Brady and Myra Hindley spring to mind. SIngle acts of killing in a fit of passion do not.

Which also brings to question how the 30 odd years hounding of Hindley in jail marked us as a more civilised society than the one that executed Ruth Ellis?

One might ask the question of why it's alright to allow the Iraqis to make their own decision to execute Saddam but not to allow an Iraqi to make his own decision about being a tyrant. Meaning: we'll draw on western values in the second case, but ignore them in the first because it's convenient for all the reasons commentators have discussed above.
Peter Hitchens' last book argues effectively in favour of the death penalty on the grounds that a civilised state should be prepared to kill in defence of its citizens, because there is nothing comparatively humane about life imprisonment, and because in any case, the number of hangings of innocent men in the history of modern British policing is, insofar as we are aware, one or nil, depending upon your opinion of Derek Bentley. (I'm not counting Timothy Evans in this list as opinion seems to have shifted towards his guilt over the death of his wife or child). Before abolition, death was often commuted to life, which was a shorter term than it is now, more often than people give credit for: hanging tended to proceed only in the most egregious cases.
For all of this, I'm still, narrowly, against - purely from relief at what might have been done to the innocent Irishmen imprisoned for so long for the Birmingham and Guildford bombings. Would that it had been Saddam in their place.

Stephen, your presentation of a "standard argument" against the death penalty is entirely bogus.

Whoever said the 99 guilty men should go free - apart from you?

Opponents of the death penalty simply argue they shouldn't be killed.

Cetainly, if the death penalty is reserved for criminals who are the worst of the worst, as it is in the States, then Ian Huntley would qualify for it. Polls in Europe and Britain show that the majority of people would favor the reimposition of capital punishment. A nonbinding vote in part of Mexico recently showed the same thing. The problem in these places is a lack of democracy. The political elites won't devolve authority to the local levels. Not so in the U.S., at least on this issue. Michigan became the first part of the English-speaking world to abolish capital punishment when it attained statehood in 1837. The prohibition is enshrined in its state constitution. But if Michiganians had a change of heart, there would be nothing stopping them from adopting a constitutional amendment and joining the 38 states that do maintain a death row.

Polls in Europe and Britain show that the majority of people would favor the reimposition of capital punishment.

Do you have any figures for that, Polymath?

I have heard that figures fluctuate greatly depending on whether there has been some terrible crime in the news recently or not. A quick search on the mori site gives:

http://www.mori.com/digest/2002/c020823.shtml

which suggests that things are not so clear cut. This is one of those things where the question you ask largely determines the repsonse. Although a clear majorty think the death penalty can sometimes be justified, of all the crimes listed, only for the murder of a child are a majority in favour of the death penalty.

An earlier poll (http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/notw-011214.shtml , Q4-10) gives different numbers, with no majority in favour for any of the crimes listed.

So this isn't a cut and dried case of lack of democracy, but lack of a lasting consensus opinion in favour.

Point taken, Ben. I can well understand how the favorable numbers shoot upward if the poll is taken while some particularly heinous crime is front page above the fold. But don't dismiss too readily my assertion about grass roots democracy or the lack thereof. Let the issue be decided regionally. If a majority of the people of Yorkshire (wich I sort of regard as the Texas of England) wanted to impose capital punishment or let themselves carry concealed firearms subject to certain qualifications (no criminal convictions or mental conefinements, say) they'd be out of luck. Why should this be if there is a clear concensus on the affirmative side?

Stephen,
You reached early, and then passed over far too peremptorily, the key point. We accept the right - need - of 'society' to kill, both to preserve the society (your war example, ET AL) and individual life (self-defence).
The issue then, is simply whether capital punshment 'works'. Both in the punishment/deterrence - add revenge if you will have it - sense; and in the broader constructs of a civil society.
There is a valid argument that it doesn't. Work that is.
The real issue is that opponents of capital punishment, if they are to be consistent, have to oppose ALL taking of life by the society/individuals.
So police should never carry guns, far les ever use them therecan be no defence forces. The taking of life in any circumstances has tio be unacceptable.
I am always puzzled by tne veiw that the taking of some poor solider's - almost certainly, innocent - life is acceptable/ moral; indeed, mandatory. But that takiing the life of a Huntley/Saddam somehow demands the societry.

I am a Texan. So it probably is no surprise that I have always supported the use of the death penalty on the moral grounds that some crimes demand the ultimate punishment. But unlike the image that is portrayed of Texans worldwide, I get no great thrill, no great satisfaction out of killing a man - even one who deserves to die.

I think the reason Texas actually kills so many of its prisoners who have been condemned to die is that we value basic honesty. Many other states and nations have passed the sentence of the death penalty in court, but fail to actually carry through on the sentence.

There is something inherently dishonest about passing the sentence of death, and then failing to carry out that sentence. Its like trying to have your cake and eat it, too - please the victims by passing sentence, then please the human rights politicos by failing to carry it out.

Its the same principle of simple man's honesty that Bush relied on when he disavowed Kyoto. Many nations signed on, but no nations were actually seriously trying to enforce the treaty. Also, the American Congress voted against ratification 95-0. So rather than "play" at supporting the treaty, a simple man's honesty compelled the sacking of the treaty. Only then could a REAL attempt at enforceable agreement be made, if that was even desirable.

Same with the War in Iraq. Bush says we are coming. We came. Simple, straight forward, and utterly shocking to the diplomatic sophisticates of elite society and politics. Well, in America, and especially in Texas, we want to say what we do, and do what we say. We don't see it as arrogance. We see it as honesty. Witness what honesty will accomplish in Lybia's sudden compliance.

And honestly, I can respect a consistent argument. And I respect you, Mr. Pollard, for deciding that consistency demands you change your position. I certainly have changed many of my positions over the years because new information, or simple maturity demanded I honestly admit I had been wrong.

So I applaud your honest change of heart on this issue. And like war, I hope the death penalty is used rarely, but effectively when required. No death penalty supporter should gloat over your change of heart, because it is never pleasant to wield the sword of justice. But it is necessary.

Stephen,

While I support your basic point, I have to object to the rather large excluded middle in your claim that "Either capital punishment is immoral or it isn't". Better to state that "Either capital punishment is absolutely immoral (in which case we must object to it being applied to Saddam) or it is conditionally immoral (in which case we should consider under which cases it might be moral to apply it).

It does no good to your argument to ignore the moral arguments against capital punishment - after all, part of our objection to Saddams continuing to breathe is based on his enthusiasm in applying capital punishment.

Imitation is the sincerest form of television.

Please allow me to leave my links on your page
Married Women Cheating Wives
Swingers Clubs
Swingers Couples Swinging
Swinger Couples ads
Penis Growth Pills
Sorry for disturbing
Regards

WHen there is no doubt there should be no problem with the death penalty. No one who has ever suffered the death penalty has ever repeated their early crimes. Measuring that doubt is the tricky part.

A very belated response. I am one of those whom Stephen Pollard would term "wrong-headed" but "consistent", since I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.

The principal ground on which I oppose it is simple: I believe it to be wrong. Indeed, I believe it not merely to be wrong but intrinsically evil. An execution is an inescapably morally ugly event which dishonours the society in which it is permitted, or indeed encouraged, to occur.

It appears that few people share this moral intuition, and must be persuaded - if possible - by utilitarian arguments. The most basic is that which affirms the ever-present possibility of executing an innocent person. Death is irreversible. Since human beings and their institutions are imperfect and infallible this must continue to be so, even though developments in forensic science may render the possibility of such an error greatly less probable.

I suppose the issue of deterrence is not one of great interest to most supporters of the death penalty, since there is not the slightest solid evidence that it has a uniquely deterrent effect over and above that of non-capital sanctions such as life without parole, or very long, specific tariffs. That it has some deterrent effect we must assume to be so, since it would seem to be intuitively true that any reasonably severe sanction must possess some. A comparison of murder rates in the abolitionist and retentionist states in the U.S. indicates that there is no obvious correlation between the use of the death penalty and lower murder rates; indeed, many of the most violent and murderous states are firmly and proactively retentionist. It would seem that most supporters of the death penalty are more interested in what they would regard as its appropriateness (or proportionality), and they are prepared to affirm that murder is the one crime whose punishment must in some way resemble it (since we do not rape rapists, mug muggers burgle burglars or defraud fraudsters).

Abolitionists like myself are troubled by the inevitable element of violence that an execution entails. This violence may be masked by the procedure adopted (as in lethal injection), but it must be frankly acknowledged that it is simply not possible to reduce a healthy adult human being to a lifeless clod within the space of a few minutes without inflicting immense violence to the body. There would appear to be no such thing as a truly painless execution. Even if it were possible to eliminate all physical distress, the emotional anguish of knowing that you are about to be killed must be considerable. (Recently evidence has come to light that suggests that lethal injection is not at all painless; even if it were, it is still the lengthiest of modern execution methods.) In the developed world we have generally eliminated sanctions that involve physical violence. Why should the death penalty remain the solitary exception?

Is it fair to ask anyone to be an executioner? What, indeed, is the likely motivation and general moral character of someone who is prepared to kill another human being against whom he (or, presumably, in these PC times, she) has no personal grievance? An execution is among the most premeditated of killings, and executioners' memoirs suggest that it must of professional necessity become cold-blooded. Executioners have generally been reviled and held in abomination. How would you feel knowing that your next-door neighbour was an executioner? How would you feel if your parents, husband, wife or children either were or expressed a desire to become executioners? If we cannot feel easy about their being executioners, why should we consent to anyone else's being one?

I am afraid I suspect a strong motive of vicarious sadism in many supporters of the death penalty. Perhaps they are unaware of, or unwilling to confront, this sadism. Nevertheless, I believe it to be there. There are few spectacles more ugly to behold than cruel people indulging their sadistic impulses under cover of high moral principle. Saddam and Huntley are despicable individuals, but their wickedness should not make us embrace the barbarity of capital punishment. Rather, we should set the widest possible gulf between their behaviour and ours.

If you're going to do Saddam or Huntley, the Pope ought to go too. His stance on condoms in the largely Catholic Africa has condemned countless Christians to a slow dealth. With 15 million AIDS orphens in the world (not all down to the Pope of course), it's time to think about institutionalised murder, not just that of Huntley and Hussain.

美女视频录像
激情自拍录像
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费激情电影
免费色情电影
免费性交电影
免费性爱电影
三级片
美女视频录像
人体艺术图辑
黄色网站
色情
色情网站
成人网站
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
黄色网站
激情小电影
激情小电影
艺术激情享受
激情小电影
日本强奸电影
郎裸体图库
林心如拍黄的图片
性生活片电影在线
性感丝袜美女图片
玉蒲团之玉女心经
十八淫书
色兔妹妹图片
全球十大禁片bt下载
性交裸体图
亚洲成人淫民网
妹妹厕所走光图片
视频聊天
成人电影
黄色电影
激情电影
色情电影
性交电影
性爱电影
免费电影网
免费在线电影
看免费电影
免费电影网站
最新韩国电影
两性生活
性教育片
免费电影神话
最新电影无极
免费激情电影
免费黄色电影
最新电影下载
成人性爱电影
美女图片
美女走光
美腿图片
三级片
强奸电影
美女祼体图片
黄色电影下载
免费色情电影
性感美女图片
漂亮妹妹图片
做爱图片
美少女
幼女图片
舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照
偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片
美女被强歼小说
巨乳小电影免费下载
美女厕所偷窥
视频mm自拍艳舞
仙人洞美女
一个馒头引发的血案
神雕侠侣
少妇
美女 美女图
明星露点写真
裸体写真 明星裸体写真
人体艺术写真
美臀
女人图片 性感美女图片
女性乳房 女性乳房写真
女人屁股 女性屁股 偷拍
偷拍女人的图片
18 贴 图 台湾 成人
男同性恋写真图片
午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影
台湾网络小说 台湾网络电影
小龙女与尹志平
图片性闻
美女洗澡小游戏 美女洗澡偷拍电影
艳舞
成人图库
女明星图片
丁字裤
免费电影在线看
免费电视连续剧收看
美臀 翘臀 图片
少妇展穴
色影无忌
三级片
性感美女床上自拍
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费成人电影
免费色情电影
免费黄色电影
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费色情电影
床第间的正点自拍
露点图片
女性最易献身时刻
自拍DV
偷拍录象
美女诱惑写真自拍短片
人体艺术另类
成人小说
黄色网站
成人论坛
成人图片
走光
三级片
视频录像激情视频
18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui
性感美女床上自拍
色情影音-激情写真media情色
激动电影-18dy
18dy-激动电影
免费小电影
性电影
免费成人电影下载
免费电影在线观看
宽带电影
经典电影下载
免费恐怖电影
免费影片下载
免费影院
最新大片
十八电影网
美女写真
人体艺术
日本av电影
情色电影
同志电影下载
激情视频下载
明星露点图片
写真电影
阴部图片
乳房图片
人体写真
美国大片
免费成人影片
在线看电影
成人网站
乳房 图 奸淫
极品嫩穴图片
美女插穴
黄色小说
在线激情电影
性教育电影
两性电影
看电影的网站
免费看电影
免费在线电影
免费电影下载

captainstabbin karin sample* captainstabbin madison* milf movie online* milf movie pantie* round and brown melodee* roundass* al internall movies* alexa allinternal* dasani ass* ssbbw* orgy party girls* orgy pixxx they*

性交裸体图少女裸体女性裸体美女视频录像激情自拍录像三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费激情电影免费色情电影免费性交电影免费性爱电影三级片美女视频录像人体艺术图辑黄色网站色情色情网站成人网站三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片三级片黄色网站激情小电影激情小电影艺术激情享受激情小电影日本强奸电影郎裸体图库林心如拍黄的图片性生活片电影在线性感丝袜美女图片玉蒲团之玉女心经十八淫书色兔妹妹图片全球十大禁片bt下载性交裸体图亚洲成人淫民网妹妹厕所走光图片视频聊天成人电影黄色电影激情电影色情电影性交电影性爱电影日本av电影情色电影同志电影下载激情视频下载明星露点图片写真电影阴部图片乳房图片明星裸照性爱视频偷拍图片台湾成人视频聊天网美女做爱图 美女裸体图片美女美穴清晰大图性感美女视频性爱处女的图片 图女人成人手淫免
免费电影网免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站最新韩国电影两性生活性教育片免费电影神话最新电影无极免费激情电影免费黄色电影最新电影下载成人性爱电影美女图片美女走光美腿图片三级片强奸电影美女祼体图片黄色电影下载免费色情电影性感美女图片漂亮妹妹图片做爱图片美少女幼女图片舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片美女被强歼小说巨乳小电影免费下载美女厕所偷窥视频mm自拍艳舞仙人洞美女一个馒头引发的血案神雕侠侣少妇美女 美女图明星露点写真裸体写真 明星裸体写真人体艺术写真美臀女人图片 性感美女图片女性乳房 女性乳房写真女人屁股 女性屁股 偷拍三级片性感美女床上自拍三级片免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费成人电影免费色情电影免费黄色电影免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费色情电影偷拍女人的图片18 贴 图 台湾 成人男同性恋写真图片午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影台湾网络小说 台湾网络电影小龙女与尹志平图片性闻美女洗澡小游戏 美女洗澡偷拍电影艳舞成人图库女明星图片丁字裤免费电影在线看免费电视连续剧收看美臀 翘臀 图片少妇展穴 色影无忌 床第间的正点自拍露点图片女性最易献身时刻自拍DV偷拍录象美女诱惑写真自拍短片人体艺术另类成人小说黄色网站成人论坛成人图片走光三级片视频录像激情视频18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui性感美女床上自拍色情影音-激情写真media情色激动电影-18dy 18dy-激动电影免费小电影性电影免费成人电影下载免费电影在线观看宽带电影经典电影下载免费恐怖电影免费影片下载免费影院最新大片十八电影网美女写真人体艺术人体写真美国大片免费成人影片在线看电影成人网站乳房 图 奸淫极品嫩穴图片美女插穴黄色小说在线激情电影性教育电影两性电影看电影的网站免费看电影免费在线电影免费电影下载