I think, in our haste to blur every standard that has ever existed or just plain gets in the way of our own views... we have forgotten what "justice" actually is.

Justice does include restitution, when restitution is possible.  However, there are some crimes that restitution is simply impossible.  So does that mean that we simply ignore them?

That is the whole reason these crimes are deemed more heinous than others.  But they also make it harder to see the justice in punishing them to the fullest extent justice demands.

So we are left with a blurring line between "justice" and "revenge".  The fact is, the line between justice and revenge is even further apart than those where restitution (at least in part) is possible.

Revenge is taking "an eye for an eye" to make the victims feel better.  Whether it is carried out by the victims or not.  It is done to satisfy the demands of individuals.

On the other hand, true justice means to satisfy the demands of the humanity itself.  When a person's actions are so inhuman that their very existance defies humanity.  To allow them to live defies humanity itself.

To acknowledge Hussein's crimes, but then fall short of meeting the demands of justice isn't mercy, it is allowing humanity to lower itself to the point where Justice is no longer recognized.

 

 

 

It may not be considered justice, but it was the right thing to do. Keeping this man alive would have been a mistake.

But in the eyes of the man laws it is justice - justice as toted by the local laws has been meted out by the justice system in place - it is justice.

jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.

But don't call it justice. Justice would in some way restore to these families what they have lost. And this doesn't even begin to do that.

It may not in the eyes of the victims be retribution or the retribution they wanted, but hey have had justcice.

ret·ri·bu·tion (rět'rə-byōō'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.
3. Theology Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

Jennifer, How is the killing of another EVER rightful or lawful? You need to bend the definition of justice pretty badly to call it justice. You need to go all the way down to the 5th or 6th definitions to find a definition that begins to fit...and even there, I personally find it questionable. Is it "just" to administer a humane execution to a man who brutalized thousands? "Retribution" actually WOULD be a better word than "justice". But I hope I do not live to see the day when I consider the killing of another to be just.

Sorry Gid, but I gotta go with Jen on this one. Line #5 followed by line #10 sums it up best:

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.

Gid, you don't believe in self defense? The necessity of war? If so, isn't it just a sliding scale from that point on?

What I found most ironic is that the British government refused to back the death penalty for Saddam. Basically, they are quite happy to vaporize hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people yet when it comes to the Butcher of Baghdad... 'oh we oppose the death penalty!'

Yeah well the British suck, thats why we OWN their country.

Sorry Gid, but you make it sound like this is something every believes when in reality it is just what you and some others want to believe. You talk as though you actually know this does not make the family of victims feel better. You talk as if everyone agrees with you and you can prove it.

Justice is not about bringing back the dead, giving back what was taken from the others or turning back the clock and making everything how it was before the crime. Justice is about making sure that he/she who committed the crime is proven guilty (if he/she is guilty)and is punished according to the laws that exist. Justice is about proving the person is innocent (if the person is really innocent) and setting them free.

Call it what you want, the man killed too many and enjoyed every single one. Every dog has it's day and while we will never give what everyone deserves, it's nice to know that we don't ignore all of them.

I find it kinda interesting that both you and cacto seem to agree that Saddam's death was pointless yet both of you have opposite reasons for it. You think it is not human to kill another person while cacto thinks it's human nature. But the only real thing I get from both of you is that somehow it was OK for Saddam to have killed so many, without a single regret, including women and children, but he did not deserve death because it was either "inhumane" or "why kill him for doing something thats part of human nature".

But in the end, it does not matter what you think, for that matter it does not matter what anyone who does not live under Iraqi law thinks cause it is not our country who did it. It was done under their laws and it is what they believe in just like how some states here in the US believe in Capital Punishment.

You don't think it's justice? Fine, it will not change a thing either way. Saddam is gone and that's that. Those who think it was just will enjoy and those who oppoed it can do just that, oppose.

I gotta wonder though, would you and cacto feel the same if we found Osama, put him on trial, found him guilty and executed him. Cause as far as I'm concerned, that would be something I would pay $100 on pay-per-view to see.

drmiller, Actually, I believe "justice" in the context of line #5 would be far, far more cruel. Like leaving him alone in a room with families of his victims. I still believe "retribution" is a better definition.

You're kidding right? He'd "still" end up dead!

But the only real thing I get from both of you is that somehow it was OK for Saddam to have killed so many, without a single regret, including women and children, but he did not deserve death because it was either "inhumane" or "why kill him for doing something thats part of human nature".

Don't worry, we all know you struggle from reading comprehension. I don't have any real problem with executing him - we all know he's guilty, so there's no doubt to stain his execution - I just don't think it's just or even comes close to retribution. We're a creative species. We could inflict unimaginable horrors on him and then, with our medical technologies, resurrect him from near-dead and do it all over again.

Killing him by hanging is simply convenient.

Cactoblasta:

To be honest I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I would argue that Hussein's actions were extremely human, and quite typical of our kind. He merely went about the pursuit of his desires in a more aggressive fashion than is currently popular. A century ago he would have been a hero. Two centuries ago he would have been a humanist.

If his kind of scum is the "typical" human being, why is his kind of criminal so rare? Yes, humans are capable of horrendous acts, so why do you stereotype us all, based on the actions of so few?

If his kind of scum is the "typical" human being, why is his kind of criminal so rare? Yes, humans are capable of horrendous acts, so why do you stereotype us all, based on the actions of so few?

Hussein wasn't tried for being a bad man. He was convicted for being a terrible and vicious ruler responsible for the shadow deaths of his citizens and the gassing of the Kurds (I think we can all agree the specific charges were merely placesetters for the main game). If you look at the rulers whose names have survived history they are almost without exception as ruthless and evil as Hussein. Even the ones we laud knew where the thumbscrews were kept.

It might be nice to think that somehow despots are only rarely vicious and brutal, but I don't think that's a viewpoint supported by the records we have available to us.

Hussein wasn't tried for being a bad man.

Really?

He was convicted for being a terrible and vicious ruler responsible for the shadow deaths of his citizens and the gassing of the Kurds (I think we can all agree the specific charges were merely placesetters for the main game).

So being a terrible and vicious ruler does not make him a bad man? I guess you must be right about my reading comprehension.