Ed Morrissey says that the Iraqi government may be working out a deal to spare Saddam's life in exchange for an end to the "insurgency."

That's fine by me. I think that it's a much worse punishment for Saddam to live for many years and watch the nation that he thought of as his personal fiefdom go on (much more) happily without him and his sadism. Well, actually, like Eugene Volokh, I'd like to see him go through all of the torture and death that he dealt to so many, but one can only do that once, and he wouldn't be able to sample all the variety that he was so eager to dispense. Which raises two questions.

First, as Ed points out:

As long as Saddam never sees the light of day again, he can die like Rudolf Hess -- crazy, broken, and of old age.

Just so. But what does Saddam's future hold, assuming that he survives his current medical woes? One of the most powerful objections to effective immortality that may result from advanced medical technology is that, as long as men (and women) are mortal, then so are tyrannies. Even if it's impossible to overthrow a dictator, there is always the knowledge that he won't live forever. Once life-extension treatments become available, it's a given that the first to have them will be dictators, thus cutting off hope of ending their reigns of terror via natural causes.

In this case, now that the dictator is in prison, what are the ethics of medical care for him? He is receiving treatment for his chronic prostate infection. But suppose that our medical capabilities were more advanced, and affordable to all? Suppose that in fact we could restore him to full health, and indefinite youth, and that contra Ed's desires, he didn't die broken, of old age?

Should we? And if not, in a world in which no one else any longer had to suffer such infirmities, and the eventual death from them, how would withholding such treatment differ, ethically speaking, from a prolonged and painful (in the context of a new era of eternal youth) execution?

Moreover, suppose that we were in fact able to restore a human body to full health from the most major physical trauma? For instance, we could feed him into a shredder feet first, perhaps up to his very viscera, and then pull him out still alive and regrow the body. Or electrocute him with electrodes attached to various parts of his body (use your imagination here), and then resuscitate him to do it again. Or lop off ears, gouge out eyes, cut off tongue, gas him, rape him with various interesting objects--all the things that he cheerfully, joyfully did or had done to others, and then fix him up for indefinite repeat performances?

At some point, it takes on the flavor of the revenge of Greek mythology, like the fate of Prometheus, doomed to have his liver eaten every day to be regrown by night, or Sisyphus, condemned to forever roll the stone almost to the top of the hill only to have it fall down again.

In a world of potentially infinite good health, the problems of dictators, and of crime and punishment, will surely take on a whole new cast. It may be, in fact, that the future holds means of punishment and agony that the Spanish Inquisition couldn't dream of.

It will be very interesting when the dictators get rejuvenation therapy. Will their kids be their greatest threat since daddy is NEVER going to leave the throne? We won't be able to "wait out the Castros" anymore. Lots of problems. You can see some governments only allowing the preferred people to get the treatments while the rest get to live natural lives. Sets up for a self-perpetuating rule of the elite.

As for the Saddams, letting them slowly die by aging would be fitting. If you could live very long lives prison no longer becomes a threat. I steal $50M and get sent to jail for 10 years. Who cares! (and the $50M is making interest in the Caymens) I am now set for a very long life and never have to work again. Think of all the Enrons etc where the bad-guys do a little time but still get to keep some of their loot. Same with murder and most other crimes. Prison no longer becomes a threat to the super long lived. You can wait it out and your portfolio is making compound interest the entire time. I would expect execution or permanent loss of rejuvenation therapies to become the preferred punishment.

Or maybe the world will go the route of the Organ Banks.

The problem of "immortal" dictators is not as much of a problem as it first appears. Castro not withstanding, most dictators tend to get over thrown in coups far more often than they get to live to a ripe old age.

Wide spread "immortality" is likely to "level the playing field" anyways since people who can look forward to indefinitely long youthful life spans are likely to have a more "bohemian" attitude towards life and be much less inclined to feel a need to "belong to something bigger than themselves". It is this latter attitude that creates the mass movements that result in dictators in the first place.

Another issue here is that currently a dictator is a single person. If he dies, particularly if it's really easy to do, then that's a great deal of leverage.

Just because something doesn't age does not mean it can't be killed.

As far as prison being a poor punishment, well, then just make him do forced labour or corporal punishment instead (aha!).

I say execute him and be done with it. The longer he stays alive, the more chance he has to escape/be released or be a focus for some insurgency or even direct operations from prison like some Mafia boss.

The idea of long-term torture does have some appeal for me, but in the end I couldn't actually be that barbaric.

Rand writes:

"It may be, in fact, that the future holds means of punishment and agony that the Spanish Inquisition couldn't dream of."

I'm put in the mind of Harlan Ellison's story, "For I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream".

The flip side of having dictators live forever is their victims living forever. How would such a victim cope with the knowledge that there may NEVER be any release from his or her torment?