Saddam and Death
You could say that I am agnostic with respect to the death penalty. The absolute finality of the punishment, coupled with the fallen nature of man, casts a queasy pale on the symmetry of justice necessary to justify the act.
If my opposition to abortion fits any narrative, it is that we ought not give government the opportunity to select beginning and end times for human life. The essence of liberty is the protection of life, before we get to any questions of speech of religious expression. A governmentally imposed death sentence runs counter to this narrative, rather bluntly, it turns out.
There are those who argue that claims to innocence, at least in our country, are largely unfounded. Statistically, this claim is not without merit. However, in light of the egregious ethical transgressions surrounding the infamous Duke Lacrosse case, and considering that my own father sits in prison for a crime he did not commit, it would seem a courageous act of cognitive dissonance for me to embrace this kind of thinking.
In Christian circles, there are those who argue that God will impose His justice through (or in spite of) any governmentally imposed punishment. Of course, this argument could be used to justify drop-kicking toddlers off a cliff. This is the sort of thinking that leads to genocide.
So, in principle, I must object to the death penalty as a matter of policy. It seems to be going to way of the dod in our country, and that is probably a good thing...
But then there's Saddam.
There is no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein deserved to die. There is no question in my mind as to whether his hanging was just, or whether the earth is a better place with him beneath it. I wouldn't care if Saddam had crafted a compendium of coloring books, translated the Koran into Portuguese, or had a jailhouse conversion to Christianity. He needed to die. It's refereshing, frankly.
The death penalty works in the sense that it salves the wounds left by the most horrific crimes. Public ambivalence toward the practice dissipates in the face of the most grisly murder cases, a sure sign that there is, at minimum, a visceral morality at work in the act. If my wife were murdered, and I could readily identify the murderer, I am not sure I would wait for the state of Minnesota to mete out justice, if you know what I mean.
In a sense, then, the death penatly is a sort of impracticable fantasy. While it may be the "right" thing to do, it is wrong for our government to do it. Our nation has attempted to assuage the conflict by reserving the penalty for the most egregious cases. This is a cop-out. If a person is was murdered, they remian dead whether they were a man or child, whether they were raped first or not.
From an ethical standpoint, perhaps we must sacrifice the catharsis of eliminating a tyrant in exchange for the consonance that comes from keeping life and death decisions out of governmental hands. Liberty requires sacrifice, and perhaps deferring the ultimate justice to our Lord is a casualty of our fallen nature.
But I'm still glad the son of a bitch is dead, aren't you?
If my opposition to abortion fits any narrative, it is that we ought not give government the opportunity to select beginning and end times for human life. The essence of liberty is the protection of life, before we get to any questions of speech of religious expression. A governmentally imposed death sentence runs counter to this narrative, rather bluntly, it turns out.
There are those who argue that claims to innocence, at least in our country, are largely unfounded. Statistically, this claim is not without merit. However, in light of the egregious ethical transgressions surrounding the infamous Duke Lacrosse case, and considering that my own father sits in prison for a crime he did not commit, it would seem a courageous act of cognitive dissonance for me to embrace this kind of thinking.
In Christian circles, there are those who argue that God will impose His justice through (or in spite of) any governmentally imposed punishment. Of course, this argument could be used to justify drop-kicking toddlers off a cliff. This is the sort of thinking that leads to genocide.
So, in principle, I must object to the death penalty as a matter of policy. It seems to be going to way of the dod in our country, and that is probably a good thing...
But then there's Saddam.
There is no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein deserved to die. There is no question in my mind as to whether his hanging was just, or whether the earth is a better place with him beneath it. I wouldn't care if Saddam had crafted a compendium of coloring books, translated the Koran into Portuguese, or had a jailhouse conversion to Christianity. He needed to die. It's refereshing, frankly.
The death penalty works in the sense that it salves the wounds left by the most horrific crimes. Public ambivalence toward the practice dissipates in the face of the most grisly murder cases, a sure sign that there is, at minimum, a visceral morality at work in the act. If my wife were murdered, and I could readily identify the murderer, I am not sure I would wait for the state of Minnesota to mete out justice, if you know what I mean.
In a sense, then, the death penatly is a sort of impracticable fantasy. While it may be the "right" thing to do, it is wrong for our government to do it. Our nation has attempted to assuage the conflict by reserving the penalty for the most egregious cases. This is a cop-out. If a person is was murdered, they remian dead whether they were a man or child, whether they were raped first or not.
From an ethical standpoint, perhaps we must sacrifice the catharsis of eliminating a tyrant in exchange for the consonance that comes from keeping life and death decisions out of governmental hands. Liberty requires sacrifice, and perhaps deferring the ultimate justice to our Lord is a casualty of our fallen nature.
But I'm still glad the son of a bitch is dead, aren't you?
posted by Kevin Sawyer | 10:35 AM 
8 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Yes. But then again, I'm an evil "pro-life but also pro-death-penalty" hypocrite.
I didn't really have an opinion on it...I don't know that I am "happy" or "glad" he is dead. But I don't miss him or feel real pity about it either.
To be quite honest, I did feel bad when I heard that he was killed. In a sense I felt like it was a blemish on the new government of Iraq. I don't blame them for doing it and I am in the same camp that Kevin is where I know he worked to deserve that treatment, but in the end it saddened me. I think a part of it was that men can become so corrupt and so evil that they do things to deserve such treatment. Maybe a part of me felt as though he got off a bit to easily for all the pain he caused. I think mostly though it was the continuation of the thought that the only punishment in the Middle East is death and that death is a solution, maybe even the only solution, that works for that culture. I guess I would have like for them to say that he would rot in a prison until God rendered judgement on the man and that the killing would be stopped. I don't think its going to happen any time soon but I can dream can't I
I think the bigger problem was the taunting. It actually made Saddam look good and his executioners look childish. When even Fox is noting that the taunts made Saddam look good in comparison, you can safely say that this "could have been handled better."
Thought I'd drop in over here.
I oppose the death penalty because the laws are impure, as stated elsewhere...
I oppose it also because it removes the possibility for retribution to be paid to the victims.
Of course, I agree that mass murder has a different color to it, and the Old Testament precedents apply.
So, do I think Saddam should have died? Yes.
Do I think the way it was done was best? No.
Do I believe that a satisfactory method exists? No.
Were those who executed him justified? No.
jurisnaturalist
You do have a very good way with words, even if they don't really form any linear logical path. You have some good points, but then in places you jump from one thing to another. How exactly does "live and let live" lead to genocide?
Steven,
I disagree that there is no logic linear path in my words, but that aside, I did not articulate well what I was trying to say (and I didn't proofread).
My point was that, if Christians are to argue against the death penalty on the grounds that God will execute justice, then this is itself an argument for lawlessness. Therefore, one might as well allow for the drop kicking of toddlers, or acquiesce to genocide, with the thinking that God is control anyway.
My points is the call to have God implement justice tends to be selective, and that the argument must run deeper than whether government ought to act to enfrorce justice.
Not sure what you are asking about "live and let live" though.
Post a Comment
<< Home