Stephen Vasciannie

Ten or so days following Saddam Hussein's execution, public opinion on the Arab Street appears to have settled firmly on the side of the former Iraqi leader. Not surprisingly, some of this support is based on sectarian perspectives, with Sunnis being more inclined than others to attach the status of martyrdom to Hussein. And, to be sure, much of the support is logical or ideological: if you oppose the American-led interven-tion in Iraq, you are apt - even on the basis of consistency alone - to perceive the execution as an unprincipled act of 'victor's justice'.

But some aspects of the execution have also prompted respect for Hussein, even among his critics. First, there is the question of dignity. In the televised version of the scene leading up to the execution, Saddam showed signs of neither fear nor cowardice when faced with the ultimate penalty. Second, the behaviour of witnesses at the execution helped to enhance Saddam's standing. While witnesses shouted "Moktar!, Moktar!, Moktar!", in an open show of sectarian bias, Saddam referred to the unity of the nation, and the status of Palestine, the reports indicate. This is a striking contrast.

Some actions, too, by the current government also appear to have offered lustre to Saddam's image. As has been widely reported, the execution took place on Id al-Adha, a Muslim holy day: there was no logical reason to violate the religious sensibilities of anyone, but this, apparently, did not occur to the authorities in Baghdad. In Trinidad and Tobago, when the state executed nine persons in one weekend, the hangman rested on Sunday out of respect for the day of worship, one recalls.

JAMAICAN PARADOX

But the hanging of Saddam Hussein also raises several general issues. Many on the Jamaican street - still a majority perhaps - regard the death penalty as an appropriate penalty in murder cases. And yet, there was substantial sympathy for Saddam among many of the same Jamaicans who call for the hangman's noose. Some who find themselves in the vicinity of this paradox maintain that they support the death penalty, but that Saddam did not deserve that form of punishment. For them, Saddam's guilt was simply not proved beyond a reasonable doubt: he was executed following an unfair trial, and everyone knew, from the outset, what the result of the trial would be, so the argument runs.

Given the physical distance between Baghdad and Kingston, as well as the different biases that shape the news we receive about events in the Middle East, it is not easy to assess whether Saddam received a fair trial. Similarly, in response to the accusation that the result of the trial was preordained, the anti-Saddam perspective could be that this followed from the clear notoriety and brutality of the murders in question. There was also the fact, demonstrated in the trial, that Saddam had signed some of the execution warrants.

Need for Speed

Another point arising from the Saddam trial concerns the question of speed in death penalty cases. One criticism of the Iraqi execution procedure is that the state appeared to be in an unholy rush to execute Saddam.

But should speed really be the basis for criticism? Saddam's trial itself was not hasty; neither, it seems were the appellate procedures - though they were not given much international publicity. So, "unholy rush" point really applies to the period between the appeal decision and the execution. On that point, our own Privy Council, and the practice of the English courts when they had the death penalty, points firmly in favour of speed (as readers of Pratt and Morgan will recall).

Finally, we should also remember that the public airing of the death penalty will always be shocking. If the death penalty is ever televised in Jamaica, the death sentence would be abolished two weeks later.