Granted, Saddam was a special case- TRUE justice would have been served by him spending the rest of his life in unpleasant and humiliating captivity.... practicality demanded that he be executed as soon as possible. IF we are to have a death penalty, then it certainly can be argued that few were more deserving of it than Saddam.

In general, I disapprove of the death penalty- since its use WILL result in the execution of some innocent people, and there is also a racial bias in its application. However this argument cannot be made in the case of Saddam. The greater good was served by his death, even if justice wasn't.

I once was called to be a potential juror on a death penalty case- the crime was horrific... a small young mother of two had gone jogging in the early morning and had been brutally attacked and raped and then killed by a huge man supposedly on drugs- she never stood a chance. He was clearly guilty, and I think his planned defense was 'I was on drugs'. We were given a HUGE questionairre to fill out that asked, among other things, if we could impose the death penalty- I answered honestly and said 'I really dont know'...

Luckily, I was not chosen to be on the jury- after I was dismissed I read up on the case- I personally felt I could have personally killed the monster with no remorse- BUT I was still unsure if I could have voted to have the state kill him in the name of justice. I guess the point is that while there are people we can almost all agree should die for their crimes, there is a certain line you cross when the state sanctions their deaths. It makes me uncomfortable, and even after much thought I still have no simple answer to the question "Is it justice?"