Political Mass Murderers

[Moses]

I have met many people who disagree with the use of capital punishment in the case of the average criminal but who fully support it when it involves dictators who murdered people on an enormous scale. For instance if Hitler survived World War 2. Also Ethiopia recently sentenced several officials of the former communist regime to death, including the leader who is living in exile. These guys killed millions of Ethiopian peasants so I was wondering what people thought about capital punishment in very particular situations such as this. I have not made my mind up on capital punishment in general but in these scenarios we are talking about people adept at having a huge and loyal crowd of followers do their bidding.

[rlrose328]

I believe support of the death penalty isn't a black and white issue.  It would be nice if everything were black and white but that just isn't the case.

I would definitely support the death penalty for someone who has killed multiple times or participated in or condoned genocide.  If a leader turns a blind eye to what is happening in his own nation, that is condoning it.  He should be willing to put his own life on the line to save his people from being slaughtered (that is, if he's not a willing participant).  

I know that's a strong stance for a so-called liberal... but the slaughter has to stop and if it means taking the life of the slaughterer, I believe that's the way to go.  Granted, someone else will take his place eventually... it's human nature.

[Will]

Killing Hitler wouldn't have brought back anyone that he was responsible for torturing and murdering. All it would have done was keep him from possibly feeling remorse someday.

Had Hitler not committed suicide, and had he been captured, I would have supported institutionalizing him, not murdering him. Clearly the man was suffering from extreme mental illness, and it's wrong to kill the mentally unbalanced. I won't go so far as to say what he did wasn't his fault, far from it, but one has to take into account the fact that no moral, ethical, and stable human being could have done what he did. As such, the reasonable and dispassionate response would be reforming him. Imagine Hitler, after decades of treatment, emerging as a healthy man who feels the full weight of what he had done and who was seeking forgiveness. Imagine a remorseful Hitler.

Kill a monster or heal a man?

[susangail]

I agree with Will. I don't like the idea of the death penalty. It just doesn't seem right to execute someone when they can be imprisoned for life.

I do think that the death penalty is a black and white issue. If we only punish truly heinous offenses with the death penalty, who gets to decide what the heinous offenses are? Where is the line drawn?

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" That pretty much sums up how I feel.

[Evolved]

I try to look at potential for recidivism when considering the death penalty; I am far more concerned for those of us hardworking folks making a living and loving our families than for murderers or other violent offenders.  This may even apply to crimes that we currently do not consider to be capital crimes.  Some rapists, for example, are known to repeat their crimes after release.  Eliminate the threat - whether by permanent confinement, execution, or rehab - whatever works best.  I absolutely agree that there are no clear answers, and I also agree that sometimes we just want revenge; I think that the safety and security of those of us that make an effort to be good people should come first.

[rlrose328]

Imprisonment for life is a good way to make them pay, emotionally and intellectually, for the remainder of their days on earth.  However, I can think of thousands of other ways to spend the money it takes to house and care for inmates.  I'm talking extreme cases here, so I'm not talking about "take a number at the door" gas chamber scenarios.  And it's not an eye for an eye, thing either.

There's a part of me that would like to see the families of victims get solace from pushing the button on those who killed their loved ones.  I know, no one would ever actually want to do that... when push comes to shove, anyway.

But I just don't want to waste resources on people who, for whatever reason, didn't give a damn about human life and decided to take it into their own hands.  I feel that, at that point, they deserve what they get and a lifetime of free meals at taxpayer expense isn't what they deserve.  Granted, the accomodations aren't top-notch and the food leaves a lot to be desired, I'm sure.  But it's more than their victims get.

[Tom62]

I also agree with Will. Are we also able to put all political massmurders in court for justice? Which rules do we apply to define whether a polician is a mass murder or not?  If we look at recent history then we could honestly say that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are political mass murderers, because they are responsible for the deaths of thousands (some even say millions) of innocent lifes. They are also known for torturing people and taking away civil rights, which put them in the same league as Adolph Hitler, isn't it? Same is true for the political leaders in Israel. When the Israeli airforces kills hundreds of Palestinians to revenge a Hamas rocket attack that killed perhaps five Israelians, we only issue a minor complain. That the Palestinians  are second rate citizens, with practially no human rights doesn't bother us either. Basically there are a lot of attrocities going on in the world (like in Dafour or Zimbabwe), which we are able to stop, but don't. Isn't this neglect also a form of political mass murder?  At the Nurnberg trials we executed a lot of Hitler's croonies, but why wasn't there a similar trial in Japan helt at the same time? The Japanese war criminals where just as bad (sometimes even worse) than the German war criminals. What about the dubious bombing of civilian targets by the Allied Forces in WO-II? Why don't we consider them to be warcrimes? Isn't it because we were on the good side in WO-II? Are we really allowed to mass murder for the sake of "goodness"?

[Vichy]

Governments are nothing but organized robbery rackets led by sociopathic thugs who use the language of 'morality' and tribal-religious craziness to cover up their activities.  Chances are pretty much every politician and most police and soldiers deserve death by any rational and consistent standard of criminal punishment.
Personally I don't give a damn the reasons have for attacking other people, and I commend those who defend themselves from these barbarians.

[rlrose328]

Which rules do we apply to define whether a polician is a mass murder or not?  If we look at recent history then we could honestly say that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are political mass murderers, because they are responsible for the deaths of thousands (some even say millions) of innocent lifes. They are also known for torturing people and taking away civil rights, which put them in the same league as Adolph Hitler, isn't it?... <SNIP>  Are we really allowed to mass murder for the sake of "goodness"?

I'd say yes, Bush and Blair (by association) are resonsible for the deaths of thousands by their ordering, sanctioning, and condoning all of the deaths and military actions that have taken place in the last 8 years.

I don't know who would decide who lives or dies based on the magnitude of their crimes, as in the case of Bush/Blair.  But I know I don't want to pay for their care in prison for the next 100 years.  Honestly... the "decider" decided these people, both ours and theirs, should die for his imagined cause.  Would that then encompass all of congress for voting to proceed with the war?  And then, to us, who elected those congressmen?

Is this so black and white an issue that it's either they die or we pay for their imprisonment?  How about hard labor?  At least then they are earning their keep.  But we don't do hard labor in this country any more, do we?  Make them fix roads, build soup kitchens, sell the marble alter Bush built for his daughter's wedding to pay for it all.

Again... as I've posted so many times here, I don't have the answers... but I know how I feel about all of it.  I used to be insanely passive.  In my older age, though, I want people to pay for their transgressions here on earth, not in the mythical afterlife, after they have the chance to be "forgiven" and let through the pearly gates.