Should the ISIS 'Beatles' be Executed?

[GlennB]

I’m afraid I don’t see “stateless” as such a dramatic consequence when these guys left their victims lifeless.

It's the consequence of being stateless/losing UK citizenship that's the problem. The UK has a policy of not extraditing to countries that use capital punishment, and by removing their British citizenship the way is opened up for that to happen. It could mean years without trial in Gitmo, a decade or two on death row and maybe a botched chemical execution at the end of it all.

The Home Office's reasons for this out-of-the-blue move are nothing but weasel words, and the real motivation for it unclear.

And then the 'Beatles' get to be martyrs if they finally get the chop.

 

[Myriad]

I'm starting to wonder if abolishing the death penalty completely is actually a good idea after all.

It doesn't have to be the standard punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Or for every premeditated murder. Or even for every horrifying aggravated premeditated murder.

But sometimes it seems that as soon as a society decides that no crime is so heinous as to justify the death penalty, criminals go to great lengths to try to prove it wrong.

 

[GlennB]

I'm starting to wonder if abolishing the death penalty completely is actually a good idea after all.

It doesn't have to be the standard punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Or for every premeditated murder. Or even for every horrifying aggravated premeditated murder.

But sometimes it seems that as soon as a society decides that no crime is so heinous as to justify the death penalty, criminals go to great lengths to try to prove it wrong.

They always have, because people who are truly nuts don't consider the consequences. The men in question were driven by fanatical beliefs, uninfluenced by weighing-up the odds. I doubt if there's one chance in a thousand that they thought their British citizenship might save them from capital punishment.

Jack the Ripper wasn't deterred by thoughts of the gallows, it seems.

 

[dudalb]

I oppose the death penalty, but I have never had any sympathy for those who commit a capital crime in jurisdictions with the death penalty. They surely knew the consequences of their acts.

Here? I’m sitting on the fence. These guys committed unspeakable crimes and if they are stateless and end up being tried in a country with the death penalty, I wouldn’t be outraged. I would like the UK government to strongly justify the decision to make them stateless though. For example, if they have evidence of future terrorist attacks.

Why shouldn't the UK just try them for treason? Seems to me that if you have taking up arms against your country, that is as clear a case of treason as you can get.

 

[dudalb]

I'm starting to wonder if abolishing the death penalty completely is actually a good idea after all.

It doesn't have to be the standard punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Or for every premeditated murder. Or even for every horrifying aggravated premeditated murder.

But sometimes it seems that as soon as a society decides that no crime is so heinous as to justify the death penalty, criminals go to great lengths to try to prove it wrong.

That is an issue I have with some "Progressives": they seem unwilling to face the fact of the evil that people are capable of.
They also act like everey criminal is capable of rehabilitation:THat is nonsense. Some are, some aren't.
If you oppose the death penalty, fine;but then have the option of Life Imprisonment Without the Possiblity of Parole...unless new evidence comes up proving you are innocent.

 

[quadraginta]

They always have, because people who are truly nuts don't consider the consequences. The men in question were driven by fanatical beliefs, uninfluenced by weighing-up the odds. I doubt if there's one chance in a thousand that they thought their British citizenship might save them from capital punishment.

Jack the Ripper wasn't deterred by thoughts of the gallows, it seems.

And there is an important underlying point here.

If it serves no use as a deterrent, then the only purpose it serves is revenge.

I don't think that's a good principle to base policy, laws, and penalties on.

 

[quadraginta]

That is an issue I have with some "Progressives": they seem unwilling to face the fact of the evil that people are capable of.
They also act like everey criminal is capable of rehabilitation:THat is nonsense. Some are, some aren't.
If you oppose the death penalty, fine;but then have the option of Life Imprisonment Without the Possiblity of Parole...unless new evidence comes up proving you are innocent.

I haven't run into many "Progressives" who are against the very idea of LWOP.

I know I'm not.

At least even with a sentence of LWOP a trial can still be overturned if it is proven that a clear miscarriage of justice occurred.

There's no going back from an execution.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Reality isn't a Batman comic full of cardboard prisons and revolving door justice where the supervillains are going break out every other issue and go on a killing spree.

If we do have X percent of a criminals who are just... on some literal or practical level not rehabilitatable, prison removes them from society as much as death would.

Before anybody "Well ackshcually"i's me... yes there have been very isolated instances of criminals escaping custody and continuing to commit horrible crimes (Bundy for instance) or cases of criminals being let out of the system and committing horrible crimes again, but in general the system works as far keeping criminals away from society.

Nothing is lost by trying to fix them while they are in the system. If we can "fix" them great, if not we tried.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't run into many "Progressives" who are against the very idea of LWOP.

I know I'm not.

At least even with a sentence of LWOP a trial can still be overturned if it is proven that a clear miscarriage of justice occurred.

There's no going back from an execution.

The UK better repatriate these guys quick, before the US executes them by mistake?

 

[smartcooky]

They always have, because people who are truly nuts don't consider the consequences. The men in question were driven by fanatical beliefs, uninfluenced by weighing-up the odds. I doubt if there's one chance in a thousand that they thought their British citizenship might save them from capital punishment.

Jack the Ripper wasn't deterred by thoughts of the gallows, it seems.

The really vile end of the scale isn't all about deterrent though is it? In the cases of those guilty of really egregious murders, its also about punishment, and about and doing what is in the public good I don't think anyone believes for one moment that Bundy or Gacy were candidates for rehab or that their executions were only about deterring others ; their crimes were extremely vicious and they were a danger to the public if they were ever released or escaped. Berkowitz ought to have been executed as well but he managed to avoid it only because there was no capital punishment law in effect in New York at the time.

I see these scum as no different. They deserve execution for what they did, and while the risk of making them martyrs is there, if they are dead, they cannot be used as leverage - there would be no risk of them being subject of a terrorist hostage plot (and there have been plenty of those happening over the last decade or so).

 

[quadraginta]

The UK better repatriate these guys quick, before the US executes them by mistake?

Yeah. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It seems to me that if they are not British citizens, then Britain has no legal or ethical duty to protect them from execution - any more than they owe such a duty to any other ISIS member in Syrian or Iraqi (or US) custody.

I think that a civilized state has a duty (certainly ethical, and for many states also legal) protect people in the custody of that state against execution. The state does not, of course, have any direct obligations towards individual who are in the custody of other states.

It also seems to me that if Britain has set conditions for the loss of citizenship, and these people have met the conditions, then Britain has a legal and ethical duty to recognize that those conditions have been met, and that citizenship has been lost.

Yes, but that does not mean that they can send them to somewhere where they are likely to be executed. There are cases where we have revoked citizenship (or just permission to stay), but must suffer the continued presence of individuals because we cannot extradite them without a real risk of them being executed.

It seems to me that the moment they met the conditions for losing British citizenship, their fate at the hands of other governments stopped being Britain's problem entirely. "Not our monkey, not our circus."

Except that we are not talking about monkeys, and we are not a circus (although you might at times get that impression).

If I might offer an analogy: You have found a stowaway on your ship. He has also stolen stuff (like food). He has no right to be there. He has broken every rule of your ship. But does this mean you can throw him overboard? ^*)
Hans

*) I realize that, during the ages of sea-faring, a considerable number of stowaways have indeed been thrown overboard, but that is another matter.

 

[Vixen]

According to wiki, El Shafee Elsheikh is still a Sudanese citizen, while Alexanda Kotey is now stateless.


Those numbers do not matter in the case of Kotey. As the Guardian notes:

Making someone stateless is a big no-no.


If you don't like the rule of law, why don't you go to Somalia?

The 'Hmmm' was rather, my expressing scepticism they were allowed an appeal.

 

[Vixen]

I'm starting to wonder if abolishing the death penalty completely is actually a good idea after all.

It doesn't have to be the standard punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Or for every premeditated murder. Or even for every horrifying aggravated premeditated murder.

But sometimes it seems that as soon as a society decides that no crime is so heinous as to justify the death penalty, criminals go to great lengths to try to prove it wrong.

Maybe you like what they did in the middle ages - beheaded political or monarchic opponents in a public square. Could have been Davies' and BoJo's recent fate. Or even Hillary's.

 

[Vixen]

The really vile end of the scale isn't all about deterrent though is it? In the cases of those guilty of really egregious murders, its also about punishment, and about and doing what is in the public good I don't think anyone believes for one moment that Bundy or Gacy were candidates for rehab or that their executions were only about deterring others ; their crimes were extremely vicious and they were a danger to the public if they were ever released or escaped. Berkowitz ought to have been executed as well but he managed to avoid it only because there was no capital punishment law in effect in New York at the time.

I see these scum as no different. They deserve execution for what they did, and while the risk of making them martyrs is there, if they are dead, they cannot be used as leverage - there would be no risk of them being subject of a terrorist hostage plot (and there have been plenty of those happening over the last decade or so).

They are in Kurdish captivity ATM in Syria. I don't think they have even been charged yet.

There should at least be a fair trial before execution is even considered.

 

[Craig4]

They are in Kurdish captivity ATM in Syria. I don't think they have even been charged yet.

There should at least be a fair trial before execution is even considered.

I would think that's what we have in mind. I haven't seen anything that indicates the US is just going to hang them.

 

[GlennB]

The really vile end of the scale isn't all about deterrent though is it? Its also about punishment, and about and doing what is in the public good for those guilty of really egregious murders. I don't think anyone believes for one moment that Bundy or Gacy were candidates for rehab or that their executions were only about deterring others ; their crimes were extremely vicious and they were a danger to the public if they were ever released or escaped. Berkowitz ought to have been executed as well but he managed to avoid it only because there was no capital punishment law in effect in New York at the time.

I see these scum as no different. They deserve execution for what they did, and while the risk of making them martyrs is there, if they are dead, they cannot be used as leverage - there would be no risk of them being subject of a terrorist hostage plot (and there have been plenty of those happening over the last decade or so).

Perhaps they should face trial first, to establish their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? Or have you established that already, pre-trial? Certainly looks like you have.

And where should that trial be? I'm reading that two of their victims were Brits, and the (alleged) criminals are/were British citizens. Why is Javid twisting a long-established process in such a cavalier way? A way that's certain to meet a serious legal backlash and take the matter beyond UK shores.

The UK's history is absolutely heaving with cases - within my own memory - where, had there been capital punishment in place, innocent people would have had their necks broken at the end of a rope. Can you even imagine such a horror? Is it OK to subject the innocent to that prospect rather than accept that we keep the guilty in jail until they die? No. Just no.

Meanwhile I seriously doubt that a single murder would have been deterred by the prospect of the death penalty.

But, hey, if you're keen on killing people who kill in an especially nasty way then we'd better make sure we all understand that it's vengeance we're after here, and not deterrence. "An eye for an eye"? Are you kidding me? Perhaps we should execute them in an especially nasty way that matches the nature of their crimes? Would you approve?

 

[Reactor drone]

They are in Kurdish captivity ATM in Syria. I don't think they have even been charged yet.

There should at least be a fair trial before execution is even considered.

That brings up an interesting question on their statelessness. Are the Kurdish people who hold them Syrians or Kurds? If an ethnic Kurdish state is eventually set up, when does their Syrian citizenship swap over to Kurdish citizenship? The ISIS members were part of the Islamic state, they held territory, had a government and a military/militia to defend it. Is their state only considered a state when another government recognises it as such or is its self recognition and years of existence enough?

 

[smartcooky]

They are in Kurdish captivity ATM in Syria. I don't think they have even been charged yet.

There should at least be a fair trial before execution is even considered.

Perhaps they should face trial first, to establish their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? Or have you established that already, pre-trial? Certainly looks like you have.

Answered here

I would think that's what we have in mind. I haven't seen anything that indicates the US is just going to hang them.

At no stage did I say they should be summarily executed. Try them first, find them guilty (there is zero doubt about this) then execute them.

And GlennB, please don't conflate these people with wrongfully convicted civilians. What these people did is in no way the same; they are not potentially innocent. They joined a terrorist organization, fought as enemy combatants, committed war crimes, and killed people.

 

[ddt]

That brings up an interesting question on their statelessness. Are the Kurdish people who hold them Syrians or Kurds? If an ethnic Kurdish state is eventually set up, when does their Syrian citizenship swap over to Kurdish citizenship? The ISIS members were part of the Islamic state, they held territory, had a government and a military/militia to defend it. Is their state only considered a state when another government recognises it as such or is its self recognition and years of existence enough?

That depends whether you subscribe to the constitutive or the declarative theory of statehood. According to the constitutive theory, a state is an entity that is recognized by other states. According to the declarative theory, a state is any entity that fulfills certain criteria.

In any case, I don't think that ISIS actually had already a concept of nationality and recognized "ISIS citizens"; and neither does the Syrian-Kurdish breakaway region.