So they killed saddam. The whole thing resembled a mob lynching someone, rather than carrying out justice. As far as justice, it was as remote from justice as it could have been.
Both in spirit and meaning and also on the surface.
Saddam was responsible for death and suffering of perhaps a million iranian, countless kurds,
tens of thousands of Shiats, and perhaps numerous sunnis. Every body suffered to some extent,
but people of Iraq are in such desperate time that, it's quite likely that they consider, Saddam's era a particularly "good one".
His execution served no purpose but quenching the thirst for another death.
He also took with himself the secrets that could expose powers to be to his grave..
His death would create more bloodshed and more pain.
Which brings up an interesting question, can a decent society administer death penalty, carried out by state and still stay a decent society ?
I used to support death penalty and "eye for an eye" argument, I am beginning to lean on an anti-death penalty argument.
I say instead of condemning a criminal to death, the society has to condemn him to "life".
A society operates by collaboration between all people, first of all, A crime should not be viewed in total isolation from the conditions that prepared the ground for that crime.
second the state must be deprived from the authority to perpetrate violence.
There are a lot of other considerations, but books can be written on the subject and I want to go to bed.
Saddam died, but I can tell the name of a couple more guys that perhaps were more deserving of being hanged that him. They died in peace, with their loved ones around them.
This world is inherently unjust. Any attempt of achieving justice can at best only be partially successful.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر