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

The death penalty is ABSOLUTELY the right decision, and I would like to see it reinstated for other vile criminals too.

Just think about the alternative for these: they are put in prison and even if it is supposedly for life, you can bet that some idiotic bleeding hearts liberal do-gooder would campaign for their release.

Until we (hopefully after Brexit) are freed from the awful Human Rights legislation, that could easily happen.

My brain, the rational part that I like to think is the real me, totally disagrees with the death penalty for all the reasons stated on this thread BUT there is another part of me which says ‘if you can dish it out then you should take what’s coming to you’ or ‘those who live by the sword ....’

I think their crimes were so dreadful, so inhuman, and as these scumbags were brought up in this country then the irrational part agrees with the Queen of Hearts. I’d not just sentence them to death, I’d order their heads be hacked off with a blunt blade. That was good enough for their victims.

Glad to hear such Christian attitudes alive and well. Why don't we go one step further and have public beheadings, that would bound to be popular, could show them live on TV. Such attitudes make us the same as the vile perpetrators of ghastly crimes. Whilst I don't shed a tear for them or their suffering, it would be hypocritical of our society to allow the death penalty whilst claiming to be liberal and tolerant, and condemning those with medieval outlooks.

We are not allowing the death penalty.These men have been stripped of British citizenship and will never be coming to Britain.It’s a formality on Javid’s part to say they can be tried in the US or anywhere else.
Therefore it’s up to others to decide upon their punishment.They could be tried in Syria or the US and it need not mean the death penalty, not every State in the US
Goes down that route.However, I can’t think they would want these men in prison for a long time, acting as heroes and infecting others with their hate.
They are not penitent for their crimes, just sorry for themselves.

What was done to the minds of these men , not using mental health as an excuse but what causes men to do these awful acts, what caused some Germans to carry out atrocities in WW2, teach hatred, teach the victims are sub human? If we want to do the same back is it justice or hatred and or revenge?

What causes grown men to want to throw acid at a baby, come to that?

Can’t compare the two crimes surely?

Someone who was shooting people in Toronto yesterday was shot dead by police. Death penalty.

Obviously it wasn't an ideal thing to do but was it a wrong thing to do?

If these two "Beatles" had been caught in the act of murder or of encouraging others to murder would it have been wrong to shoot them there and then to prevent further harm to others?

I agree with the principle of no death penalty but even the best principles don't cover all eventualities. Stripping these men of British citizenship was a reasonable thing to do. Allowing them to be taken to be tried in the US and to suffer the consequences if their guilt is confirmed rather than released in Syria is the choice. I'd say it was a no brainer to let the US legislature deal with them.

Theres a huge difference between "shooting to kill " to protect others in a terrorist incident and the death penalty imposed in a situation in which the perpetrator is locked up and no threat. The problem with this case is the it has been British policy not to assist in the trial of anyone who maybe threatened with the death penalty. Although we don't have the full details this policy seemed to have been discarded without any debate, which leads to accusations of hypocrisy by the government.

I think "discarded" might be too strong. Put aside temporarily because of the highly unusual circumstances would seem to me to fit better.

In fact, the letter from Javid that I've seen stressed that the UK was not discarding its policy.

I'll go and find the exact words. Back soon.

"All assistance and material will be provided on the condition that it may only be used for the purpose sought in that request, namely a federal criminal investigation or prosecution. Furthermore, I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought.”

The thing is reinstating the death penalty would surely save lives in the long run.

If it acted as a deterrent for even just some of these vile individuals, then think about how many innocent victims would be spared.

At least the US has got a tough, no nonsense President, who would ensure that these creatures were not allowed to languish in prisons,( as others have said), infecting others.

I don't think there is any evidence that the death penalty does prevent murder, nor other serious crimes.

Oh come on. It's got to be a deterrent in some cases. Not all of course, but if it makes just one would be murderer think twice, it's worth it.

The other problem in this country is that prisons are just too cushy these days - and that's even if criminals get a custodial sentence, which happens less and less now.

they will not go to an individual state for trial.this is a terrorist issue.maybe,guantanimo for incarceration .that is a whole "nother can of worms..homeland security for trial.federal laws.its still not resolved.
death penalty..if they had been found at a different time they would be dead.murder,rape ,torture.
they have plenty of martyrs anyway.who cares.
news article from nytimes.
www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/two-of-isis-infamous-british-fighters-are-captured-by-syrian-kurds
its taken almost 6 months to get to this point. this will go on for years.
these freaks will give up "thier own"to delay prosecution.

Suzied I’m not a christian as doubtless you realise from my blood thirsty attitude. I agree Baggs that there’s little evidence that it’s a deterrent. I’m talking revenge

Bags, your post of 16.21 echoes my view entirely.

Re The Human Rights Act Jennifer, it was brought into British law in 1998 by the Blair government, basically they rubber stamped EU legislation and it is now enshrined in our law. The first human rights, The Declaration of Human Rights was brought about by the United Nations in 1945 and 1948 following the holocaust in WW2. I don’t think any of us wish to return to a situation where there are no basic human rights, such as in Germany (and other countries taken over by the Germans) in WW2 where Jewish people were deprived of every possible right, including the right to life. That can never be right.

The death penalty doe not deter murders, those who plan a murder think they will not be caught, those who kill in a red rage don’t give it a thought.

The US has a high rate of gun crime.

The two men in the O/P wouldn’t have given it a thought,they are fighting a war - in their view

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia and the UK.

Disagree anne (politely) they were young men acting out a fantasy. I defy anyone to actually hack off a human beings head and not give it ‘a thought’.

Evil, immature losers. I just want them to feel the horror and terror their innocent victims must have experienced.

Strange because I’m normally a peace-loving, cry at sad movies, rescue abused animals, sort of person. This brings out the worst in me.

I have no evidence that the death penalty prevented murders, but I sense that nowadays there is a more casual attitude to 'accidental' murder, as in the number of people who are done to death by their partners, or stalkers, or people caught in illegal acts; they barely make the headlines. From what I remember of executions in the fifties and sixties they were for people who had murdered in cold blood, intentionally and with malice aforethought and the death penalty was clearly no deterrent. But there didn't seem to be the same attitude to beating up people and going too far; most people were able to control themselves before causing death, because of the consequences to themselves. That restraint seems to have gone.
Perhaps the threat of the death penalty would rein in some of the violence?
I don't know.

Beating up is usually done to women , perhaps in the fifties it was easier to claim - she fell down stairs and there were far less drugs then.

They have been stripped of their British Citazen ship. Why should we worry if they face the death penalty.
Posters are saying we cannot bring the death penalty back, and we can't, but I bet if there was a public vote on it, the vote would be to reinstate.

I too think public vote would be in favour of restoring the death penalty .

I can understand why many support the death penalty for these two men.

That restraint seems to have gone.
That is a very pertinent point eazybee

I do believe in rehabilitation for certain prisoners guilty of some crimes, but some are beyond that and deserve a much longer incarceration without the privileges afforded them today.