Sajid Javid tells US: We won't block death penalty for Isil 'Beatles'

Shame they haven't caught and tried the person who caused half a million deaths in Iraq by pretending there were weapons of mass destruction there!

Even so, I wouldn't want him hanged for many of the reasons stated already. The death penalty models the behaviour you are seeking to prevent.

Also, even if you could be one hundred percent sure they are guilty (US proved innocent rate currently about 4%), consider who else you are punishing. Their families (children maybe) will have to come to terms with losing a loved one. Some executioners, jurors, wardens, chaplains, and judges will suffer PTSD of some sort or another with varying degrees of severity.

It is not true, though, that the majority of UK people support the death penalty; the figure is nearer 35-45% and this support has been falling steadily since abolition (when over 70% were in favour). What is true is that over half of Tory party members (54 per cent) support the death penalty (SNP 23 per cent, Labour 9 per cent, Lib Dem 8 per cent)

The death penalty is still murder, it is State Sactioned murder and should be beneath any society that purports to be civilised.

Vivian, to react to an uncivilised act with an uncivilised act ?

The quote you use from Exodus relates to more than murder, it relates to do unto others etc, if some steals a sheep from you don’t take more than one back.

As you choose to quote scripture then Matthew 5. 38 - 48

Anniebach the death penalty might not be civilised but nor is murdering people. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, as is recorded in the Bible.

Baggs precedents don't always have to be followed, but in law once you have varied from what has been usual practice the variation can be brought up in future cases and used to change practice. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is possible that this case is being used because there will many who will agree with the death penalty for these two, and it is a convenient way to change things.

I did think you knew what she said and deliberately skewed your post, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt ???

OldMeg, I know what Crystaltips said. I do not need to be patronised.

It was Denning who said for murder death was the appropriate penalty and where mistakes had been made there was always the appeals system. Great help for those found innocent after death.

He later changed his views and said the death penalty was not civilised

Someone famous once said, "If you hang them, they don't do it again". Sounds sensible to me. I thought it was Lord Chief Justice Denning, but can't find proof that it was him.

asking for

What I mean is the 'risk' is containable. Future such decisions, should there ever be any, can refer back to the UK's long established stance of asking assurances that a death penalty will not be applied.

Precedents don't have to be followed.

There are undoubtedy people who would reinstate the death penalty in this country and probably even a few who would like to see public executions re-introduced, but we do not have the death penalty as the law stands. And the problem with abandoning the traditional stance of not blocking the death penalty in the US is that it sets a precedence and in doing so this governement puts at risk a traditional practice. The death penalty has never stopped crime, innocent people have been killed, but in this case it would creat 2 more martyrs. Interesting that one of the voices asking that the death penalty isn't applied is that of the mother of a murdered journalist. Diane Foley deserves to be listened to.

I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t care if these vile people were strung up from the nearest lamppost, but surely we should rise above our base instincts and not give them them martyrdom.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blinko I suggest you read crystaltips post again. She said ‘if it was left to the public vote we’d still have public executions and torture .....did you miss that bit. I’ve put it in bold to help you.

Jalima that’s what I’m saying, actually have said. Normally very civilised and caring, but....

This is a difficult moral question, but I firmly believe that we must not reinstate the death penalty, murder can never be right and we need to consider that these ghastly people considered themselves to be part of their state, of ISIS, and as such they were carrying out capital punishment. We must not bring ourselves down to their level. However, I do believe that life should mean life in their case, time to perhaps reflect on what they have lost; no future, no chance to see children grow up, and likely no help from their masters in ISIS who will cast them aside as useless having done what they were instructed. The death penalty is not a deterrent and never has been, as someone said previously, those who plan it never think they will get caught and those with the red mist in front of their eyes do not think clearly. However, having said this, I do feel that having cast aside all civilised behaviour and acting as atrociously and deliberately cruelly as they did, these two are in no position, morally, to turn to the state they rejected to ask for protection in law. This is a difficult legal precedent and has been rushed through, I do hope they are not sentenced to death ( but suspect this will be the case in Trump's America), but that they are sentenced to permanent, non parole life.

The treason law still stands but the maximum sentence is life in prison not the death penalty

I agree with Baggs. What's happened to our laws on treason? Don't they cover these circumstances?

Revenge/justice: I just think we have a duty not to allow killers out and about in public.

I read an article today that was calling for our laws on treason to be updates, essentially saying that for crimes such as the ones these men are alleged to have committed, fighting for an organisation as enemies of their own country, there should be an appropriate sentence if they are found guilty. The article suggests life imprisonment where life means life with no parole.

But there is a difference between justice and revenge

I think it is civilised to mete out justice on behalf of those who can't.

For those who commit horrendous crimes such as these and others against children there should be an appropriate punishment. Our gut reaction may be an eye for an eye but we are supposed to be more civilised, OldMeg and try to set an example (even if it is not heeded).

I don't think Crystaltipps is 'being silly', I think she's just stating an opinion that a lot of people would vote for the death penalty, regardless of evidence that it was never a deterrent.

People were hanged for stealing sheep in the past. People still stole sheep, from hunger.

It's natural to want to see hard justice for hard cases. Unfortunately in the past, hard justice was applied to innocent people and also to those who were sorely provoked.

Plus that fact that some juries were reluctant to find a guilty verdict when the penalty was terminal.