carsten

I think your analogy with Idi Amin is not a good one. If Idi had been tried he would have been executed. That is why his former subjects are not frightened of a return. Saddam could conceivably be put back into power and that perception of a return would affect Shiites.

As to whether the possibility of a martyrdom would lead to a worse outcome I have no idea. Remember that in general terms I am also opposed to capital punishment, but the decision was never mine and I can see why so many Iraqis wanted him dead. To me his life is less sacred than that of most other people.

That is why I would prefer discussion on more deserving cases.

But Idi Amin was not tried - well - in absentia perhaps.

The is no way even a free Saddam would regain power - have his 1/4 Sunni Iraqis rule the whole. Could never happen.

The analogy with Idi Amin is a very relevant one. Although a more exact analogy would be if Saddam was sent into exile and maintained on a pension (to a formerly friendly state - the US perhaps) to see out his days. How did the Ugandans live with themselves, knowing Idi was living free and in comfort a short plane flight away? They obviously did - which is another reason it was not necessary to execute Saddam - it achieved nothing - except martyrdom

carsten

Your focus on Saddam as martyr is an empty bag, a shell only. Even the Iraqi government dismisses the idea. The number of people willing to hold Saddam Hussein up as a martyr are not only few but, base opportunist who would hold road kill up as a righteous death if it got their name in the paper. Saddam Hussein didn't just kill Shia or Kurdish Iraqis, he killed a great many Sunni Iraqi also. He didn't do it in secret either. He hung them along the main streets of their home towns and left their bodies hanging to rot in the sun. Families remember such atrocities and anyone trying to win the hearts and minds of these people will not force the non issue of Saddam as martyr.

Carsten “With the examples above, of similar adjacent states, I have largely eliminated the demographic factors you mention.”

Let me look at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

North Dakota:South Dakota, a bit tough.

However, North Dakota is, compared to South Dakota, South Dakota has, as a State, significantly more value of Manufactured products.

North Dakota population density is lower and Declining, whereas South Dakota population is increasing.

This leads to the simple conclusion South Dakota errs toward an urbanized population, more reliant on an industrialized economy and North Dakota a more Rural population working as something closer to an Agrarian economy,

Massachusetts: Connecticut, easy

Check out the population % of Hispanics and Blacks between those two states.

West Virginia : Virginia, too easy

That aside, Check
A: population Density
B: Numbers of Blacks and Hispanics in Virginia compared to WV.
OR
D: Language other than English spoken at home.
The differences are numerous strangely including tertiary education as expressed in % with batchelor degree of those age 25+.

Now carsten,it is obvious you are no where near “getting it” and I have given you some clues (above)

So, Plot a simple chart and tell us what you can interpret from that chart.

Axis X = Homicide rate by state
Axis Y = Population % of Blacks and Hispanics by state

As for “But Idi Amin was not tried”
And Stalin died in bed.

if the world knew what they were to become they would have been torn from their mother womb rather than allowed to breath the air we share.

Carl
“Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will, in the long run, do nothing to stop the problem.”

Dealers have shown such contempt for their fellow man that they do not deserve to breath anymore and after being caught a second time.
I would as soon expect a child molester will change from his chosen perversion as would a drug dealer. Reducing prison costs would be merely a byproduct.

Actually add pedophiles to the list for execution. Nothing can be done with them either

As for “But Idi Amin was not tried”

Carl
“Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will do nothing to stop the problem.”

Dealers have shown such contempt for their fellow man that they do not deserve to breath anymore and after being caught a second time.

Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 8:59:07 AM

OK OK maybe my argument is not statistically defensible - but neither are stats to show any effectiveness of the death penalty. It is something a very few countries apply these days - for no discernable benefit. In fact, in the US (and hypothetically Australia), it is more expensive to prosecute a capital case than to lock a murderer away for life.

The point, re Idi Amin, was that he was a nasty little thug who was allowed to go free and paid a pension for his natural life. The Ugandan victims are still dead. He escaped too lightly, obviously, but shows what happens when you don't kill a brutal dictator - nothing at all.

I think Carl was trying to say that locking dealers up or killing them does not solve the problem. More effort should be made towards solving the problem, than ineffective punitive actions. It might make you, Col, feel better that the dealers are in jail, or dead, but it does not slow the supply on the street - ie the problem is not addressed, and people are still dying. Besides which, drug dealers are another category - they are not forcing anything on anyone - they are simply meeting a demand, for profit. Like cigarette companies. Treat them the same, I say.

In terms of child molesters and pedophiles - castrate them, then lock them up for a good long time.

And murderers? Prison without parole. But not a cushy three-square-meals-a-day prison. Assign them some task (punching number plates or whatever) and feed them according to their productivity. If they don't want to work, they don't get fed - their choice.

Carsten “OK OK maybe my argument is not statistically defensible - but neither are stats to show any effectiveness of the death penalty.”

I would note I have not been arguing the merits of a death penalty on the basis if any statistical reasoning.

I actually wrote

Col Rouge Friday 5th January
“As in most things from Abortion to Zoos, subjective values and not objective reasoning determines what people choose to believe.

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

I recognize you now accept the merit of my view, with grace.

Now “It might make you, Col, feel better that the dealers are in jail, or dead, but it does not slow the supply on the street - ie the problem is not addressed, and people are still dying.”

It is a matter of supply and demand.

Assume the passive demand is constant. Some people will always be foolish enough to do stupid things, depending on the price.

What a society can do is leverage the price to the point where the experience if a hit of whatever does not overcome the price it costs to obtain.

The easiest way of leveraging the price is to make the role of “drug dealer” so expensive that it ceases to attract those who choose it now.

Society cannot control the price of the drugs of trade. Society can, however, control the price of being caught trading.

My view is simple. Execute enough drug dealers and those attracted to the easy money of that trade will start to balance the benefits of acquiring vast wealth offset by rapidly diminishing chance to enjoy it (or anything else for that matter).

The “problems” are
1 the curiosity of users. This is insurmountable and control would be detrimental. People should be free to do stupid things and pay the consequences.

2 the cynical opportunism of the drug dealers. This we can fix by
A the state expropriating the gains from their criminal enterprise (which it does already)
B executing them, which "ups the stakes".

It does take time.