OTHER SIDE OF LAW>>

The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) imposed the death sentence on Saddam Hussein and two of his seven co-accused early this month .The tempestuous former Iraqi dictator was handed the death penalty for killing 148 people from al-Dujail village in 1982.

However, Saddam ' s conviction and subsequent conviction has divided the world, The debate is on about the touchy issue of the appropriateness of the death penalty as an effective tool to deter capital offenses including murder. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (or Mam-Uncle-jala as he is sometimes referred) is himself opposed to the death penalty.

Talabani has intimated that he wont exercise his constitutional duty as leader of the Iraqi people to sign Saddam' s death warrant once the sentence is upheld by the country ' s appellate court. Talabani says he will delegate that duty to his deputies and that he will not be in Iraq when the execution is carried out. It is quite ironical considering the fact that Talabani is one of the longest lasting figures in Iraqi Kurdish politics stood up against Saddam '> s dictatorial policies and mass murder, and led a three-decade armed struggle in which many innocent Iraqis lost lives.

The same applies to Britain ' s Tony Blair who is also opposed to the death penalty but at the same time deploys British troops for a war without solid/hard evidence to justify his actions. As a result on overage 100 lives of innocent Iraqis are lost everyday.
> Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.

Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes.

Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn'>t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.

In the case of Saddam one of the world' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German'> s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents.

In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi\'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland. He didn' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.

Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.>> Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 88.

Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn ' t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.

In the case of Saddam one of the world ' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German ' s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland.

He didn ' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.
And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.

The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one'> s limb, you simply pay with your own. I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that' s death.

This doesn' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That'> s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.

Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice'> in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.

In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.

And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.

The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one> '> s limb, you simply pay with your own.

I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that'> s death.

This doesn ' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That ' s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.

Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International ' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial ' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice ' in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.

In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
> And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.
Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge.

Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate


And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.>> Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one ' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge. Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate> msserwanga@gmail.com>