The human dignity of a mass murderer

By Paul Schratz

The hanging of Saddam Hussein brought forth a degree of introspection and condemnation that, under other circumstances, wouldn’t have been all that surprising.

It’s customary to have protesters outside a prison when an execution is taking place. Candlelight vigils are an expression of a view that, whatever crimes have been committed, a life for a life is not an appropriate response from a civilized society.

Capital punishment remains something the Church permits in some circumstances. Like war, its appropriate use is something for legitimate authorities to determine. Yet the amount of soul searching that took place following Saddam’s execution suggests something significant: an acknowledgement of the dignity of every human life, even Saddam’s.

International objections to the execution demonstrate that there is still recognition that the taking of human life is a very serious matter.

In some ways this is surprising. Relativism continues unabated toward a growing list of moral restrictions. Norms that were once thought untouchable are thrown out with less and less compunction all the time.

Why, then, in a world accustomed to denying right and wrong would the execution of a mass murderer spark debate about right and wrong?

It may have something to do with what J. Budziszewski calls those things “we can’t not know.” In his book What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski maintains there are certain first principles that everyone is aware of. These include the intrinsic wrongness of murder, and the inherent goodness of such things as fairness, friendship and family.

These are truths, and although people may not always abide by them, and they may even deny they know them, it is part of God’s design of our human nature to know these things. “He who ignores the witness of his design will have to face the witness of natural consequences,” says Budziszewski.

We ignore the witness of our design when we deny there is universal truth. In the case of Saddam, those who assert that his life should have been spared are demonstrating their knowledge of first principles, or natural law.

Whether they know it or not, and whether their argument is correct or not, it is based on their recognizing that, although Saddam perpetrated great evil and that justice demands punishment, every human life has value. This is quite a breakthrough, considering most polls show few people still believe there are such things as truth, or right and wrong. To get upset over Saddam’s execution demonstrates a disconnect between what they say and what they really believe.

In this case, they’re in agreement with Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, who said a capital execution “is always tragic news.”

Killing the guilty is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society, he said. On the contrary, it carries the risk that “the spirit of vengeance will be fueled and new violence be sown.”

Pope Benedict XVI made remarks on New Year’s Day that were germane to the topic. On the solemnity of Mary the Mother of God and the World Day of Peace, the Pope said if human rights are to be respected, the world’s nations must first respect the dignity of the human person.

This is a powerful message. In a world that is passionate about human rights, yet in denial over the inherent dignity of human beings, the Pope is saying you can’t have one without the other.

The response to Saddam Hussein shows there’s still hope. That so many people can recognize that even Saddam was human and entitled to be treated as such demonstrates that people can’t not know right from wrong, despite how much they claim to.