FMS-Blog : The Wildly Whimsical, Mostly Musical WebLog
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Death Penalty
On the day that Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, has been executed after being found guilty of a string of crimes against humanity, I feel it necessary to speak out against the use of the death penalty.
There is no denying or defending the actions of Saddam Hussein - he ruled Iraq over five decades with an iron fist and walked over anyone who stood in his way. His decisions to go to war first with Iran then with Kuwait resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and he was known to be equally brutal to his own citizens, famously gassing 5,000 Kurdish villagers in March 1988. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hussein was a thoroughly unpleasant individual who has caused no end of suffering to many thousands of people.
Having said all this, what I believe is important about his execution today (and about the executions of many more people carried out each year around the world, including in 'civilised' nations such as the USA) is the message that such an action sends out: that putting an end to someone's life is justifiable; that killing someone is acceptable if you have a good enough reason to do so. As a pacifist, this goes against everything I believe precisely for this reason: most people who commit an act of pre-arranged killing believe they have some justification for their actions. When a government stands up against murder and yet also carries out the death penalty they are sending out contradictory messages, on the one hand saying that life is sacred and should be respected as such, and on the other that bringing about someone's death can be justified if that person's crimes are grave enough, and usually if the public are supportive of the action.
Our own government in the UK went even further than this today, issuing the following statement:
So, on the one hand Saddam being "held to account" for his actions is welcomed but on the other we've made it clear that we do not support the death penalty, all the while respecting Iraq's decision to carry out the execution. Iraq, that is a country that is currently occupied by British forces. That all seems rather confusing and for once I think the Vatican got it right in their own statement about Saddam's death:
I can't think of many occasions when I've whole heartedly agreed with the church but in this case I think they've hit the nail on the head.
There is no denying or defending the actions of Saddam Hussein - he ruled Iraq over five decades with an iron fist and walked over anyone who stood in his way. His decisions to go to war first with Iran then with Kuwait resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and he was known to be equally brutal to his own citizens, famously gassing 5,000 Kurdish villagers in March 1988. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hussein was a thoroughly unpleasant individual who has caused no end of suffering to many thousands of people.
Having said all this, what I believe is important about his execution today (and about the executions of many more people carried out each year around the world, including in 'civilised' nations such as the USA) is the message that such an action sends out: that putting an end to someone's life is justifiable; that killing someone is acceptable if you have a good enough reason to do so. As a pacifist, this goes against everything I believe precisely for this reason: most people who commit an act of pre-arranged killing believe they have some justification for their actions. When a government stands up against murder and yet also carries out the death penalty they are sending out contradictory messages, on the one hand saying that life is sacred and should be respected as such, and on the other that bringing about someone's death can be justified if that person's crimes are grave enough, and usually if the public are supportive of the action.
Our own government in the UK went even further than this today, issuing the following statement:
"I welcome the fact that Saddam Hussein has been tried by an Iraqi court for at least some of the appalling crimes he committed against the Iraqi people. He has now been held to account.
The British government does not support the use of the death penalty, in Iraq or anywhere else. We advocate an end to the death penalty worldwide, regardless of the individual or the crime.
We have made our position very clear to the Iraqi authorities, but we respect their decision as that of a sovereign nation."
So, on the one hand Saddam being "held to account" for his actions is welcomed but on the other we've made it clear that we do not support the death penalty, all the while respecting Iraq's decision to carry out the execution. Iraq, that is a country that is currently occupied by British forces. That all seems rather confusing and for once I think the Vatican got it right in their own statement about Saddam's death:
"A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes...
The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence.
In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation."
I can't think of many occasions when I've whole heartedly agreed with the church but in this case I think they've hit the nail on the head.
