Responding to the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's major newspapers) stated in its editorial today that despite the paper's editorial opposition to capital punishment, justice was still done. Earlier in the article, the editorial argued that capital punishment was wrong. It then argued that there could be no doubt that Mr. Hussein was an "evil" man and had committed numerous crimes against humanity. Therefore, there was greater assurance that the Iraqi sovereign killed a man justly, without a doubt of innocence. This seems a poor reason to compromise one's moral opposition to capital punishment, no matter where it happens in the world and to whom.
Let me be clear. Mr. Hussein's actions seems well documented. Assuming that the allegations of his crimes against humanity could be proven, he deserves justice. However, you either oppose capital punishment or you don't. I would have rather seen the Globe wrestle with the notion of the extent to which one country or the international community must respect the political and legal choices of a separate sovereign community. I would have respected that kind of position, while still disapproving of the result. But, I believe the Globe undermined the integrity of its argument and did public discourse on the issue of capital punishment and the role of the international criminal justice system a disservice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment