Is punishment to Sadam Hussain is justified as per established principles of natural justice?
926760
The established principles of Natural Justice are: 1) An accused can not be punished unheard. 2) A person can not be judge of his own action. 3) An accused can not be punished more than once for the same offence. 4) A person can not be compelled to be a witness against himself. All these principles have been very scrupulously followed in case of Saddam Hussein under full gaze of the entire world. The extra-liberal western democracies were keeping a vigil on the methods adopted during trial of the accused. He has been awarded the punishment as he has been accused of an offence which is rarest of the rare kind and proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the punishment is fully justified. His crime is a crime against mankind, even Allah will be pleased at his hanging.
187408
It is the obligation of all things in this universe to balance itself, there is no choice in the matter.  If you were to rape and or kill my daughter, you wouldn't have to wait for the government to come and bring balance, I would do it myself.  I'm not advocating vigilante justice, but if all the father's in this country would do what I would do, I bet the rape, molestation and murder of our children would end.\nBible says, thou shall not Murder - killing someone is different, there are lots of good reasons to kill someone (once again I'm not saying we should all go out and kill)
943848
Revenge is premeditated and therefore wrong. A justifiable murder, say in the defence against extreme violence towards oneself or one's family should be looked on leniently.
439080
murders are everywhere, under the name of god or allah or christ or yahweh or war or peace. to me there is no justified crime, its all murder.
785652
Normally a crime would have to be heinous enough and the individual remorseless enough that rehabilitatoin is more than unlikely for the death penalty to be applied in sentencing.    If a person behaves in a manner so severly to the detriment of society, sometimes it is necessary to snuff those fockers out.   it maintains an equilibrium.    severe, even life extinguishing, punishment assures a proper balance in conduct of the entire herd.    \ncases have to qualify for the death penalty, and I think those that qualify must warrant such a punishment.   its logical, even reasonable.
818079
No one (OK only a very few people) can take an apologist stand for this man, he was a street thug who rose to power and, like so many before him, abused that power to retain it.  There are no mitigating factors here and, although I view everything I hear from Iraq with a huge amount of cynicism, I do not doubt his guilt.\n\nThere are two things that bother me however the first is my general opposition to the death penalty, I see the need for retribution in some cases but I fail to see how this is achieved by multiplying the number of coffins involved.  The second thing is that we, and by that I describe both the USA and the UK, promoted and supported this man for years, we nearly wet ourselves with joy when he began to make war on Iran where he did incalculable damage and wrought havoc while we capered gleefully at his behaviour.\n\nWe encouraged him in what he became and are, to a degree, culpable in his maintenance of power and I just find it distasteful that we should all be so pleased at the prospect of another death.
504026
Of course. If you cooperate in unjust laws, you are cooperating in an injustice. When Hitler made it legal to discriminate against the Jews, seize their property and posessions, hound them to death, are you suggesting that a just person should have obeyed those laws? Should a citizen of South Africa have worked to support the laws enforcing apartheid, or to destroy them?\nBecause something is endorsed by law, that does not make it legal, as the Nurenberg trials proved.
580762
There is a fine line between justice and revenge, but it's a clear line.\n\nWhen somebody is wronged, it is not the responsibility of the one who was wronged to execute justice.  Someone else should do that.  When you take revenge for yourself you are likely to do it in anger, which can cloud your judgment.\n\nThis is why we have the justice system in place.  It is why a judge must recuse (disqualify) himself from a case if he is involved in it.  Justice is, indeed, blind.  Revenge is, in turn, hazy.
256162
Very interesting question indeed!  I believe that the knee-jerk reaction to this question would be "no", however, when thinking about it more broadly--I guess ultimately the answer is "yes".  Perhaps this is the basis of "justified war" that religious organizations speak about.  A good example from recent history would be the horrific events of Nazi Germany, Rwanda & currently in Darfur & Congo.  Since  genocide was (is) happening, violence may be necessary--and then acceptable to put an end to the problem.
1152654
Yes, it can be justified. We are trying to get rid of people who feel it is right to blow up civilians who are not the ones making decisions that they might disagree with. These are the same people that blow up college students sitting in cafes in Israel. If these people targeted military only, it would be a bit different, but they don't. I think GWB is doing the right thing by staying the course and trying everything he can to finish the job. I feel bad that we are losing soldiers, but unfortunately it happens.
347771
Well, this is a matter of philosophy, and thus expect as many answers as there will be people answering.\n\nPersonally, I wouldn't think of it as a "punishment". See, you punish someone to let him know he has done something bad, and shouldn't do this any more - he should be a better person. If he's dead, he can't change himself to be better.\n\nOn the other hand, there are situations where we can't change someone, and thus we have to protect the rest of the society from that person. Death is, undisputably, a 100% effective measure against reoffending (and the only one so effective I heard about). It's like dealing with a rabid dog: we can't help it, and putting it to death is the only way to ensure it will harm no one. \n\nIMHO, it isn't about revenge. Or rather, it shouldn't be - and thus the act should be performed in as humanitarian way as possible.\n\nAnd never, ever should it be taken lightly. In cause of any mistake, you have no way of changing the fact the man is alrady dead...
747872
Yes i believe it is justified for i believe that if someone takes a life they deserve to have their life taken. To think of all the rapists, murders, and etc. people their are in the world, it is not right to have them remain alive if all they do in the world is take the people we love from the world.\n\nIt costs an average of $20,000 to imprison someone for 1 year,\nto think that a person guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to 25 years in prison... thats approx. 500k \n\nSo unless u think its okay to forgive someone for their sins they commited, for the lives they have taken and the lives they have ruined. then dont enforce the death penalty. \n\nBut i believe in the death penalty because i believe that is the only real justice that is even justified in this world... because all the murders and rapists out there are still alive and will be out in about a decade to commit the same crimes.
951161
You make it sound like he just got his sentence - for those out there who are not familiar with the case, he was sentenced to death in 1988 - when he was 18, and was due to be hanged under Islamic law for murdering taxi driver Jamshed Khan.\nThe death sentence was changed to life imprisonment on the order of Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf and he has been freed. Khan was just 18 when he left West Yorkshire in December 1988 to visit relatives in Pakistan. He was taking a break from serving as a soldier in the Territorial Army. He had always protested his innocence, insisting he acted in self defence...Khan alleged that the driver tried to sexually assault him - he pulled out a gun and the weapon went off while they struggled, before driving the taxi to police himself and admitting the incident.\nIn 1996 Hussain was acquitted at the Lahore High Court. A week later it was declared that some of the alleged offences came within the jurisdiction of Islamic law and his case was referred to the Federal Sharia Court, which reversed the decision of the High Court and served Hussain with the death penalty.\n\n  I wonder though, Ladymoonlight...on account of your record with prose of past questions and answers - would you just be as disgusted if he was caucasian and hailed from Caerdydd - well...you'd be disgusted for sure - but for the same reason?
99008
yes, that is exactly how it should be, but not only for the death penalty. if a man rapes a woman, he should be raped in return, and castrated. Eye for an Eye people.
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
933200
Only if they are personally repsonsible - which is unlikely. You cannot impose collective punishments, particularly for historical events - to do so would be as unjust as the original crime. It would be no more justified than arresting every black man in a town because one black man committed murder 30 years earlier.\n\nIt should also be borne in mind that it was not only white men that indulged in slavery - many slaves were captured and sold into slavery by rival tribes or by arabs. Slavery at the time was not generally recognised as wrong - attitudes and recognition of basic human rights have come a long way in the last 200 years. No slave trader would have considered that they were doing anything wrong (as indeed they weren't on a strictly legal basis). If any slave traders should be punished, it should be those who continued after slavery was made illegal.\n\nTony Blair's intention to use the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery in the UK to express regret at slavery is about right (I guess he had to get something right eventually). There is no need to apologise because the people who should be apologising are dead, as are the people who should be apologised to and the slavery industry was not recognised at the time as anything other than a legitimate business, taken in the context of the times. It is only now with hindsight that we see how truly awful slavery was and in that respect an expression of regret to the descendants of those affected by slavery seems about right.\n\nNeither racism nor sexism are by any means exclusively the failings of white men.
322474
In the example, various degrees of misconduct cannot always be quantified. Generally, validation and justification of a viable nature, are both required. These are for the purpose of running and proliferating healthy societies, and also for ensuring clean individual conscience and morals. Any ONE ensures BOTH!