Dignity for the Condemned Murderer

Why does the decades-long butcher Saddam Hussein deserve dignity and humane treatment in his execution? Did he ever offer that to his tens of thousands of victims? He received justice, something he never afforded to his victims, and that's all he's owed. There is no need for solemn faces and stern, turgid words of solemnity; rather, it's an occasion for joy and celebration, for the murdering tyrant has been given his reward.

My way would've been kneeling in the headlights in the middle of the desert, no hood, right next to the shallow grave he was forced to dig himself. A shot to the back of the head, kick his worthless husk in, dead or not, and throw some lime and dirt on it, hoping the carrion animals would do their work on his stinking shell. No martyr's homecoming in Tikrit, no grave marker, no shrine for future generations to visit and gawk at, no record at all that he was placed anywhere. That's fitting punishment for such scum.

Or poison gas. Or a firing squad. Or be raped by soldiers and videotaped, and then have it sent to his relatives, as Saddam had his people do not to his enemies, but his subordinates, to force and extort their loyalty. Or any of the numerous forms of torture he allowed to be conducted by his sons, the depraved and wonderfully dead bastards.

Mussolini was hanged by his heels in the streets, for all of his beloved subjects to gawk at, for them to view the wages of despotism. Or little Nikolai Ceausescu, shot in the head with his wife in the courtyard of their hallowed bastion against the populace they terrorized--he got exactly what he deserved albeit years too late. Hopefully next up will be Kim Jong-il, and any number of other current murdering despots.

I find little compelling and convincing argument in the need for dignity and decorum in the execution of the despot. How else communicate to all those with delusions of their own glorious future the fate that awaits the abusive ruler, sooner or later? What better way to reinstate the rule of law than to exact highly public corporate revenge upon the person who carried out capricious, violent acts against those he ostensibly led? Yeah, Saddam should've been denounced and mocked and taunted on the gallows; it's the greatest thing in the world that the last things he heard was not praise, not silence, not spiritual comfort, but rather the glorious victorious gloating of those whom he persecuted so brutally for so long.

If I were in charge, he'd be in stocks in a main square for as long as it took for every single person who wanted to to come by, spit in his face, and yell their insults, obscenities, and curses directly into his ears, as long as they chose to do so. Ideally, this would take place over weeks, even months, nonstop, with Saddamn brought out every single day for 8 hours for his punishment. No days off. Then back to prison for a meal, a shower, and sleep, to know that he faced it again the next day, and the next and the next and so on. I would hope that knowledge and the experience would drive him into madness, his last and only true defense against the knowledge of his impending certain execution. Now that would be justice.

So far I've kept this bit to only the despots, those true tyrants who abuse power and authority. But what of the common criminal?

I'm all for stocks for minor crimes against the public, that and the so-called victimless crims. Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling should've spent a few weeks in stocks, so their victims could tell him all about how their greed and arrogance had changed their lives. No striking or throwing of objects, but a good spitting and insults and invective, that would be some highly positive justice. The convicted receives an extremely unpleasant and drawn-out punishment, while the offended public is offered a direct and personal part in the process.

Yeah, I'm all for removing a hand for theft. I would think that theft would decrease if this were the unswerving penalty. And no painless surgical removal, just a slow sleep and then wake up with one sleeve longer than the other, but public and immediate removal by choppy-chop. Now that's true deterrent for the rest of society, and more than enough public punishment for the offending party. Rehabilitation? That's something for you, Criminal, to arrange on your own, if you choose to do so or not. If you choose to continue to steal, then it'll be your other hand next time--your choice.

What of that convicted murderer--his worthless name is irrelevant--a few weeks back, and the shrill reports of the so publicly dignified politicians, thinkers, and corrections personnel who noted that his lethal injection took over 35 minutes, over twice the usual 17 minutes from beginning of the procedure to pronouncement of death? I don't see the news here--it took a convicted murdered 35-odd minutes to die in his scheduled execution. So what if he suffered? So what if he experienced difficulty breathing, and felt the acute symptoms of his heart beginning to shut down from the lethal drugs? This worthless scum murdered--intentionally set out to and then carried out the killing of another person--a man in cold blood in 1979, over 27 years ago, and we're worrying about how he feels as his time for punishment finally, FINALLY arrives, so far removed from teh crime that even the descendants of the victime may be dead by now? What about the pain and suffering of the victim, the sheer horror at having your life taken? What about the pain and suffering of fatherless children, a widow, the loss of income, the cataclysmic changes in the lives affected? Where is the offense in making a criminal suffer something even approaching what he inflicted on not just one murder victim, but on the dozens if not hundreds of others affected by the act? I think this is more than fair, although it should have taken about 18 months for this sentence to have been carried out, not over ten times that.

The deterrent of punishment is effective only when it's tied directly to the offense, and a death sentence carried out 27 years after sentencing completely invalidates deterrence. What if we promise the Russians or Chinese that we will retaliate within 7 to 15 years of any nuclear strike upon our country, just so we can be sure that all procedures are properly followed? Is that a valid approach to deterrence? Clearly not, and the same applies to the current threat of violent crime and the failure of the system to provide swift and directly relatable punishment.

Now, I'm not advocating torture. I do not say that convicted murderers should be branded, dipped in acid, strung out on the rack, or have drills run through their limbs, any of that. That just woudln't be fair, and more than a tad barbaric. What would be fair would be for convicted murderers to die in the same manner as that of their victims. That would be absolutely fair--a simple return of the action(s) initiated by the criminal. So rape, strangling, bludgeoning, torture, all of that, that would be an ideal punishment for the murderer convicted of doing so. An even stronger aspect of such punishment would be the anticipation of the convicted, awaiting the sentence, having the opportunity to go through everything the victim(s) experienced, the only consolation, if that could be considered consolation, being the knowledge that there truly would be no escape whatsoever.

And that last thing I'd offer is that family of the victims could take part in the punishment. Is this revenge? Yes, of course it is. Does it lend civility and dignity to the state? Well, I don't really know, and I don't care. Would it provide healing, or at least a basis for healing? Sure it would, in those who would choose to take part. Now, raping a convicted murderer who raped a relative of mine, I can't say I'd sign up for that. But looking right into his eyes as I garrot a murderer who strangled a relative, sure, I'd be grateful to a state that would allow me that privilege. I'm sure there are more than enough like-minded citizens who would volunteer for such duty.

Is this dignified? No, not really, at least not in the overly cautious culture of political correctness and the elusive and ever-expanding roster of Human Rights (the right to have television, the right to have a cell phone, the right to spit in your face if I don't like what you stand for). But then again, I'm not saying that all of this should necessarily be televised or be in public. There are many aspects of this that would have to be very tightly controlled and monitored, of course. But what would it do for public safety to see, or at least know with absolute certainty that justice is indeed swift, and in complete and utter keeping with the nature of the crime? That would establish deterrent. I would have to think that overall crime rates would be much lower than they are now. And the only people having to fear the judicial system would be the criminal.

Be ready, because when they ask me to take charge, the changes are going to come fast.