It came up because of Saddam, but pretty much every man on death row has aspersions left to cast and threats of doom or revenge by friends to issue.
Some famous lines were imputed to be made from the gallows. Some considered stirringly patriotic today, but condemned as confirmation of treason by the hangman.
Is it a right? Or can a judge in any open country (as clearly they can under a strong man’s rule) simply declare that the testimony at the last trial were the last words, and that’s that. Put a gag in his mouth as you chain his feet and let that be that.
I’ll go first. I think any judge that has the right to hang someone should also have the right, and common sense, to silence him.
I believe, at least in the USA, people have the right to say, within reason, whatever they want whenever they want. As far as if anyone has the right to hear those words, I think if they are remarkable enough, then of course. If the final words are just more hate and anger, then probibly no responsible journalist would want to broadcast them.
I believe in the right of the condemned to make a last statement. And, to a lesser extent, choose a last meal and to have a last cigarette even if the prison is non-smoking. It’s simple courtesy.
Why do you believe it is common sense to silence someone about to be executed?
Well, those who die in prison usually are not in any condition to make a final statement, being quite ill.
IIRC, the tradition is that the condemned asks for what he wants as his last meal, and those in charge make a good-faith effort to procure those items; he has no ‘right’ to eat those food(s) again before he dies. None of which has anything to do with last words, unless you’re viewing eating as an extension of free speech, which is tenuous at best with a convicted felon.
Isn’t that some sort of injustice that criminals with worse crimes to pay for get to address the world, while others with lesser crimes just get to rot in silence?
Do they check for food allergies? I can see a criminal asking for something to give him an anaphillactic (sp?) shock just to deny society the chance to kill them.
I don’t think it’s injustice. Those condemned to life in prison will HAVE chances to communicate, whether through lawyers, letters, books, whatever, while they’re in prison.
Those about to hang (or whatnot), however, are facing their absolute last chance to convey any thoughts or sentiments to the world.
It is, as said previously, just simple courtesy. And letting them have their final say shows both mercy and an acknowledgement by the state of the seriousness of the punishment and the fact that it’s an extraordinary situation.
You do realize that once in custody, all “human rights” and “rights of citizenship” are gone, don’t you.
They need permission to eat, sleep, wash their hands, wear cloths, or talk to the person next to them.
Generally I am in favour of the death sentence, for individuals that have nothing to offer society but grief. Provided I’m sure that they have not been fitted up.
Personally I find Saddam quite interesting, sure he was a paranoid dictator of a state that used lead as a way of getting regime change, but even so, he looks interesting, and potentially useful.