hanging saddam

Jan. 4th, 2007 11:21 am
arguchik: (jupiter)
cnn has a little video on its website today, in which a female reporter interviews people on the street to see if: a) they watched the video, apparently shot with a cell phone, of saddam hussein's death by hanging; and b) if so, if they felt guilty about it. several people said they wouldn't watch it because people shouldn't be watching it; the moment of death is private and should be treated with respect. several others said, "hell yeah i watched, and the bastard got what he deserved." i could envision them cheering while the blue flickering light of the computer screen washed across their faces. a few said, "yes, i watched. i didn't expect to feel guilty or uneasy about it, but i really did." one woman said watching it has made her re-think her pro-death penalty stance.

i don't know how i feel about it. i will say that i haven't watched the video. i was not surprised to see it circulating, but i haven't looked at it and i don't intend to. i watched the "official" video of the moments leading up to the execution, in which the hangmen put a noose around saddam hussein's neck--that upset me enough, and i am already queasy about the death penalty, without watching a hanging. i think watching the "unofficial" video probably would make me feel guilty, or at least a species of guilt. part of me thinks videos like this should not ever be available--it basically reinstates public executions. another part of me thinks...well, if seeing video like that can make people re-think a pro-death penalty stance, then maybe it's worth it. people should see the uncomfortable, unpleasant, but factual truth about things that are basically being done in their names. but then i see the cheerleaders, and how the public spectacle of a death like saddam's feeds bloodlust and warmongering.

my gut feeling is that the video shouldn't be shown--and that it shouldn't have been filmed to begin with. but maybe that's just because i don't want to see it. as with most things, public ethics is a complex, sticky business, and response is so varied that it can't really serve as a basis for an ethic anyway. so what are we left with?

i'm feeling rather down today. still working for the union, doing nothing but research this week, and it's got me feeling very isolated, socially. the new quarter started yesterday, and i'm not on campus.

i really miss teaching.

P.S. (added later) in other news, the only (known) remaining copy of steve irwin's death from a stingray barb has been handed over to his widow, thereby "ensuring the gruesome footage will never make it onto YouTube." (citing this article.) the coincidence of these stories is fascinating.

P.P.S. i just got an email notifying me that sandra gilbert (of madwoman in the attic fame, along with susan gubar) is coming to seattle to talk about her new book, death's door: modern dying and the ways we grieve.)
this is simply horrifying. angel diaz, a convicted murderer in florida, took 34 minutes to die because his executioners did not insert the IV needle correctly. after this debacle, florida has temporarily suspended executions pending an investigation. the same article discusses california's record of botching executions, including that of stanley tookie williams. they have also temporarily suspended executions pending an investigation.

i'm very troubled by the conflicting accounts from florida, which i read about in a previous version of this article but that don't appear in this version. i wonder why. the "official" statement about angel diaz's execution said that witnesses did not see any evidence that diaz was in pain during the execution. this conflicts with quoted statements from reporters who witnessed the execution, and who said that diaz appeared to grimace in pain, his throat was spasming, and he appeared to be trying to speak.

i will spare you my anti-death penalty rant for now. i know people will say that what these two men suffered is "nothing" compared to what their alleged victims suffered. ok, but...first, this assumes that these two men actually committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. either way, though, the U.S. system of "justice" is not supposed to be about revenge or retribution, but about rehabilitation. the fact that we even allow the death penalty, coupled with this "retributive justice" / "eye for an eye" rhetoric that surrounds it certainly exposes "rehabilitation" as a fiction, doesn't it? the typical response here is something like, "these people are evil, they are a cancer on society that needs to be excised."

and that's where my aforementioned rant kicks in, so i'll leave it for now. suffice it to say that i disagree with the evil/cancer theory of crime. and as for the death penalty itself, i say, "not in my name."

(edited later)here is a more complete article on the subject.

Profile

arguchik: (Default)
arguchik

July 2014

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 27th, 2026 08:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios