Is execution the easiest way out?

The execution of Saddam Hussein has provoked fresh controversy as to the pros and cons of the death sentence; what is logical and what is not.

Is execution, in any form, not an easy way out for the culprit and a cheap solution for the state? It is an accepted fact in psychology that serious guilt, borne over a prolonged period, can be more torturous on the human mind than the endurance of physical hurt. In which case, execution could be accepted as a welcome and less painful release. On the other side of the coin, we hear figures like €100,000 quoted as the cost of keeping a prisoner in Mountjoy for one year. What kind of figures, then, would cover the cost of security if Saddam Hussein were interred indefinitely?

Maybe the time is now ripe to end all forms of execution and instead, build a giant global Alcatraz-type prison complex in the middle of some wasteland, eg the Sahara desert. A place where all hardened criminals and murderers worldwide on long-term prison sentences could be incarcerated and compulsorily obliged to partake in productive activities under the strictest security and supervision. The whole operation would be internationally-funded and administered, and would hopefully reward the member countries through having less crime and security problems at home.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, we have the ‘top people' who were instrumental in the whole sad mess in Iraq, as well as others who directly or indirectly condoned this unjust war, offering hypocritical opinions and shedding ‘crocodile tears' regarding the cruelty in implementing the death sentence. Only by appreciating the wonderful gift of life, respecting its true dignity and allowing for repentance, will a satisfactory solution to the death sentence ever be found.

JAMES A GLEESON
Thurles, Co Tipperary