Talk:Capital punishment

• Talk:Capital punishment/archive 1
• Talk:Capital punishment/archive 2

Can someone verify this?

I have discovered that it is possible, in Switzerland, that you may be executed ONLY in wartime, and ONLY if you have committed high treason.

Thank-You,Booksworm 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Booksworm,

The Swiss Military Penal Law had the Death Penalty for war times until 1992. Then the Death Penalty was abolished for all crimes. see e.g. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng

Susu the Puschel 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

About Latin America abolition of death penalty

Which is the source about that Latin America has abolished the death penalty due the democratisation and/or catholic thoughts? I am not sure about that. Is it maybe too difficult to see this as a more civilised form to punish human faults addopted by latin and european countries? Who can say that Mexico abolished slavery many time before the United States for the same reasons reasons? Or what are then the reasons? Is it too dificult to accept a very primitive paradoxal society in many ways in the U.S.? Of course slavery was a way to take advantage for the gained power of the ancient and modern U.S. And there must be a profitable gain to retain death penalty, maybe to spread fear, maybe just as a mirror of the decadent empire.

For one, in many occasion, capital punishment was abolished due to its rampantly abuse during junta regime. Secondly, in latin america, debate is not between liberalism and conservatism but between left and right. So presenting anti deathpenalty movement in Latin america in the context of humanism/liberalism argument is bit biased toward European/AngloAmerican way of thinking. Plus, in my view, it is biased to censor out the influence of Catholicism in latin american society. FWBOarticle

Removal of important information due to bias

There use to be a table on the capital punishment page showing number of executions in 2004 for the top 12 countries. This table showed the United States had the 4th spot after China, Iran and Vietnam. Clearly this table looks bad for the USA and is damaging to pro death penalty groups. The table was then edited to show number of executions per 100 million of the population. This put the United States into 9th position and moved Kuwait to number one which only had 9+ executions compared to 3400+ that China had.

Clearly that method of showing data was crazy and only had one benefit, Hiding the fact the USA had the 4th highest number of executions in the world. This is biased and I replaced the table with the original version. This was several months ago and now I see the table has been removed completely (As far as i can see) It was an important table and very relevant to the death penalty issue.

The table should be re added with the 2004 figures, Or possibly the 2005 figures but the page is losing valuable information by not including it. Here is the table I am talking about.. If it is on the site still and i just cant find it I apologise, But it should be fairly easy to find and possibly needs moving to the main page.

(This is just to show the data that was displayed before, The table is not correctly formatted to look its best)

Position	Country	Number of executions in 2004	Executions per 100 million residents
1	China	3,400+	260
2	Iran	159+	230
3	Vietnam	64+	77
4	United States	59	20
5	Saudi Arabia	33+	130
6	Pakistan	15+	9
7	Kuwait	9+	400
8	Bangladesh	7+	5
9	Singapore	6+	140
10	Yemen	6+	30
11	Egypt	6+	8
12	Belarus	5+	48

Yep, looks great. More detailed statistics are always welcome. FWBOarticle

Fallibility

Argument states the people have been executed prior to evidence being presented that proves innocence. This has never been documented. Needs an unbiased reference. Since the re-institution of the death penalty there has not been one execution of a person subsequently discovered to be innocent.

In u.k. there is one case. Can't remember the name but the high court reversed the conviction 30 years after the execution took place. FWBOarticle 08:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Timothy Evans FWBOarticle 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of Derek Bentley, there were at least two people "executed by mistake" in the UK in the 1950s Nickhk

Public opinion - NPOV dispute

User 71.107.80.90 is an anonymous but probably well-informed pro-death penalty campaigner. The user has made numerous deletions of anti-death penalty views from this article (vandalism?), sometimes replacing these with pro-death penalty views. References included by 71.107.80.90 stand up to verification, so accuracy is not disputed. However 71.107.80.90 does not appreciate that Wikipedia also has an NPOV policy: i.e. you can't just delete opposing views because you can provide evidence to support your own side. In order to prevent escalation in to an edit war, I have temporarily left the latest edit to this section by 71.107.80.90 as he desires it to be. 71.107.80.90 is possibly identical to user User:ER_MD. I'm also noting that the huge text dump following my post was added by 71.107.80.90. IMHO, this is a hostile addition to the talk page, obstructing discussion by its sheer volume and weight. Note carefully that accuracy is not in dispute, but neutrality is. Caravaca 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Caravaca--the public opinion poll you site, if you read the DPIC webpage, is from a 1993 Greenburg/Lake and Tarrance Groups poll. I did more research and found the actual Gallop Poll and and put it below. Its from the gallup.com that requires a temporary password so I cut and paste the contents of the article from the real data so people can see it. Therefore the data I entered was the real data, not data the was purchased from a public interest compnay which everyone knows can be tailored for whatever political purposes desired.

Is neurtality really in dispute? I suggest counting the number of anti-deathpenalty links and the removal of supportive death-penalty arguments.

As an example:

1) the poll numbers are strongly pro death penalty so the line of "difficulty with the interpretation of opinion polls" gets added? Why not just add the straight information like I did? There is no difficulty, or do you just not like the numbers?

2) Deterence argument: "death penalty increases murder rates by brutalising society" That is pretty blatantly opinionated.

3) Hipocratic oath is an underhanded argument--the oath is only historical in nature. Otherwise abortion would have to be illegal. So the argument here is not appropriate since it is not clear and not really valid.

4) Removed a reference to "actual" versus "legal" innocence??? How about that for bias in favor of the DP.

This article is way away from NPOV. My edits preserved those arguments, got rid of unnecessary inflammatory stuff, and added supportive arguements. Now it looks like supportinve arguments are removed again and anti-death penalty statments are back in. So much for NPOV. I think vandalism could be characterized by what you are doing-- Like stating that the numbers are from a Gallup poll when they are from Greenburg/Lake. ER MD 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments above anonymously added by 71.107.80.90. 71.107.80.90 then signed himself as ER MD several days later.

If you wish to discuss anything with me, please remove your anonymity and read Wikipedia policy first. Once you are respectably identified and tolerant, I'll be happy to devote a little time to this. Thank you. Caravaca 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Caravaca: you state that you are looking for NPOV. Why is it then that you are intolerant of contrary views? Take a look at the number of references against the death penalty versus supportive information. Do you think there is balance? Why would you remove references or statistics (or use statistics from unknown and fringe polls from 1993.) that don't agree with your position? Also, who writes in the this "deontologic" pespective or "a priori" or "empirical studies"??? No encyclopedia that I have ever seen is written in this form. The real issues concerning the death penalty are written on the "issues section" of the DPIC.org or on prodeathpenalty.com. I perused "virtue ethics" and I don't see even how it even fits into the debate. Makes no sense. In addition, you throw in "argumentum ad logicam" with the hippocratic oath. Obviously your bias is dominant on this subject.ER MD 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that you have identified yourself as ER MD, here's a reply.

• I rearranged pre-existing ethical arguments of others to clarify the types of argument already being used.

an obvious attempt to control the issues/debate. A real section would be one in support and one against.ER MD

• You anonymously and systematically deleted many anti-DP views at about the same time (see WP:WROE and borderline WP:VAND).

which ones?

• You replaced some anti-DP views with pro-DP views. Even if you can support your pro-DP views with sources, this is still a violation of WP:NPOV.

there is no pro-DP views in the section. only your slanted view of your opposition. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• In the case of the Public Opinion section under discussion here, I modified your edits by placing your pro-DP view alongside the old anti-DP view. Surely that is fair?

opinion section looks better now. It just has facts associated with the statistics even though the link to the greenburg survey is still there. ER MD

• You deleted the anti-DP view again.
• Your version is still there (because I left it there), but I added a warning tag about the NPOV dispute. If you wish to demonstrate that you now follow WP:NPOV and WP:WROE, then perhaps you could revert your own deletion of User:Solar's views and put his view back in alongside your own?
• As regards some of your earlier criticisms of other parts of the article, please note that I went back to the article and made a couple of short edits to accommodate your criticisms where I felt they were justified.

obviously...its pretty one-sided. so much for philosophy huh?

• As regards your claim the references are slanted towards anti-DP, that's because the anti-DP contributors spent more time referencing their work. There's loads of unsupported pro-DP views in the article. If you want more pro-DP references, find some and add footnotes to the existing pro-DP views, but don't use low-quality ranting blogs - find some high quality academic articles, or quote from famous philosophers (check out the 17th/18th century ones for pro-DP views).

i did and i placed a reference link to it. You deleted it since you didn't like the argument. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow you seem to be holding me responsible for everything written in this article, just because I defended others. That is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit. I don't agree with everything said here, and I am sure there is lots of room for improving the article. I don't have time for everything, nor is that what Wikipedia is about. I reorganized a lot of things to add clarity, but it's up to others to do some more research now.

wikipedian spirit? reorganizing into issues which are not even discussed on the amnesty international or webpage. that doesn't make sense. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As regards your most recent set of objections: you said that words like a priori, empirical, deontological and co. have no place in death penalty discussion. These are standard terms used in many academic fields, including ethics and law. Students will usually be introduced to these terms in their 1st year of studies in tertiary education, or may even know them from secondary education. There's nothing POV about using these terms. Nor is it over-intellectual. These are neutral terms which are used by people such as ethicists for structuring and clarifying complex chains and groups of arguments. If you don't understand them, go and read a lot of books on ethics (Wikipedia is not a substitute for an academic book). Similarly with virtue ethics: you can't guarantee that the Wikipedia article can replace a university education, although I am sure there are a good few ethicist-Wikipedians working on it!

no encyclopedia is written in this fashion. plain and simple. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As an lawyer, I concur with user ER MD on this point. Wikipedia is often accessed by curious students at both secondary and tertiary levels who may have not yet studied philosophy. If this were solely an article on philosophy, then those terms might be appropriate terms of art (for example, WP's mathematicians use math jargon all the time in the math articles), but capital punishment as an object of study is an interdisciplinary subject that attracts both experts and laypersons from many fields — philosophy, penology, law enforcement, jurisprudence, political science, medicine, etc. Therefore, in order to keep this article accessible to a wide audience, I agree with ER MD that we should keep the jargon to a minimum. See also the KISS principle. --Coolcaesar 08:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't spend time on a prolonged argument here, so this is my final post on this issue. If you'd like more of my time, reinstate User:Solar's view first (and please remove your text dump below; a URL is enough). Thanks!

Caravaca 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted newspaper article. One should not use talk page as if it is an internet forum. Plus, please be aware of 32kb recommended limit. As of poll, of course anti death penalty would selectivly pick stats which only show decreasing support for death penalty. But the right response is not deleting that stats. Instead, try adding stats so the overall picture become more complete. If someone can pull the whole Gallop poll, please do so. Then we can end this debate. FWBOarticle

Split?

The problem with a merger is that it makes a huge article even bigger. On the other hand, it makes sense for "death sentence" and "capital punishment" to go the same article. I suggest both merge and split - i.e. split with new distinctions which genuinely divide the article into sensible coherent smaller ones, which can then be further improved.

1. Capital punishment / death sentence (sociology, history, legal aspects, etc.; i.e. everything except ethics and religion)
2. Capital punishment / death sentence (ethics of...)
3. Capital punishment / death sentence (religious views on...)

No.1 should be the main article, with subsections which use prominent redirection to sub-articles like this:

Ethics of capital punishment

        Main article: see ethics of capital punishment

...so I added the split notice as well.
Caravaca 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some subjects could be split out into separate pages - perhaps two pages corresponding to your #1 and your #2 and #3 together. However your template says that you want to make this page into a disambiguation page only which I would oppose. Rmhermen 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment isn't the right title. In some counties in the past, Capital punishment refered to particular type of death penalty. The page's title should be changed to "Death Penalty". FWBOarticle

Death Penalty Worldwide Map

On the map, is it possible that we could differentiate between U.S. states, as laws vary between them. Just off the top of my head I know that there is no capital punishment in california and mortoriums in several states. At the least the state-to-state variation should be noted. Savidan 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevant in term of international comparision. FWBOarticle 09:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is extremely relevant. In the US, unlike just about every other federal system, murder is a matter of state law, not federal, so it would likely be impossible for Congress simply to outlaw it, something anti-death-penalty campaigners overseas don't seem to understand. The US Supreme Court was able to outlaw capital punishment at one point by using its constitutional power to strike down state laws, a power Congress does not have. Also, California has a relatively high number of executions. Of important note is that a huge proportion of executions are in Texas--I believe more than half of the country's total--again, something that's obviously relevant to the debate. Meanwhile, even in other countries, if one department or region is practicing the death penalty disproportionately that would clearly be noteworthy in understanding the how the death penalty is carried out.

Ah, it is releant for someone interested in U.S. internal politics. It is against NPOV [1], which specifically rule out Anglo-American focus. FWBOarticle

• Some pointed out an error in the photo. China doesn't kill kids. I found the appropriate alternative in Japanese version of wikipedia [2]. I don't know how to upload it to English wikipedia. Can someone do it? please.... FWBOarticle 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethical View of DP

The section need to be cleaned up. If it is about philosophical ethics (which sucks in my view), it should be split into three section, consequentialist, deontological and virture. FWBOarticle 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've spun off the Ethics section into a new article called Capital punishment debate as, I think, someone broadly suggested above. I hope no one objects because the article was obviously too long. In fact even without the ethics material the article is still looking a little unweildy. For the title I've imitated the Abortion debate article. But if anyone has a better suggestion we can hash it out on Talk:Capital punishment debate. Iota 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That goes against the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline; therefore I am adding merge tags on the articles. --James S. 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agaist Merger Firstly, this is clearly not POV content forking. Both pro and anti death penalty are well represented in this article, while the original "Capital Punishment" article is also well balanced in presentation (in term of pro/anti). Secondly, this is also not content forking in the sence that it does not duplicate the conent. It is clearly intended to provide more detailed exposition of this more controvercial issue. Plus, the merging the article would increase the size of article to the level which clearly exceed the article size recommended for split (but not fork). FWBOarticle

The original split statement suggested ethics/non-ethics. While there is a lot of overlap in the actual articles as they have developed, there is not much coherent distinction between the non-overlapping portions, and in fact they contain vastly divergent balance when viewpoint statements pro-and-con are counted: The debate article has far more contrary view statements. If there are going to be two articles, shouldn't there be some objective measure of what goes in each? Simply calling a fact "part of the debate" doesn't make it any less of a fact. Likewise, facts surrounding the issue shouldn't be removed from the debate article. --James S. 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the original split was mainly about the size of the debate section reaching the reccomended split limit. And I'm not sure what do you mean by "objective measure"? Anything which has relavant to anti and pro capital punishment debate goest to the debate section. It is quite simple IMO. The main article has been edit war free since the split because all controvercial material, both anti and pro, has been branched out. And the debate article has been quiet since the section has been reanranged into priori, human right, legal and utilitarian argument. Plus, the debate article's size is 42kb. It has grown to big to be remerged into the main article. There better be a very good reason(s) to upset the current stability of the two articles not to mention the featured article criteria of 32kb recommendes size of any article. FWBOarticle

And I hope this isn't about an attempt to revive "brutal" "inhumane" and "unjust" aspect of death penalty into the main article as "fact". These issues has proven to be toxic in term of stability becaues each side wage POV edit war in the pretext of "factual" presentation. The issue was contained when it was attributed to Human right argument against the death penalty, which seem to have kept both side happy. FWBOarticle

I do believe that the brutality, inhumanity, and justice (and the frequent abject lack thereof) are crucial to both an encyclopedic exposition or a description of the debate, but that is beside the point. It does, however illustrate the problem with the split: both articles are likely to grow in both overlapping and non-overlapping portions until they exceed the size of the original article at the point of the split. But I'm not inclined to attempt the merge until the tags have been up and comments collected here for at least another week or three. --James S. 02:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The method of execution clearly belong to this page. On the other hand, whether these methods are "inhumane", "brutal" or "unjust" are matter of subjective POV by definition and should be discussed in the debate article. Therefore, the split clearly separated fact from opinion, avoiding duplication and helping to stablise two articles. Because the size of two articles cleary necessitate split no matter what, I hardly think merger to be a good idea. IMO, "The death penalty worldwide" should be expanded while "History of abolitionary movement" section should be forked out once it is expanded in detail and schoarship. FWBOarticle

I disagree that there are no objective measures of inhumanity, brutality, or justice. The wrongful conviction and execution rates are just such measures. Do you really think that expanding the "worldwide" section while contracting the "history of abolution" section is neutral? --James S. 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"I disagree that there are no objective measures of inhumanity, brutality, or justice." I respect your right to hold this view. Unfortunately, this site do not hold such view. Please read NPOV which specifically state that this site's editorial policy do not take such stance. Attempt to assert that Death penalty or Abortion (or certain type of death penalty or abortion) is or is not unjust/inhumane/brutal is anathema to this site. NPOV require that we distinguish between metaphysical (POV, opinion) and emperical matter. Rate of execution is emperical fact. Whether such rate is "unjust" is a POV. I "personally" hold that death penalty applied to adultry (or drug trafficking) is unjust but I accept that many do not agree with me. I also accept that Wikipedia is not my personal soapbox. Important question in Wikipedia is not whether such views are "correct" but whether such views and arguments are properly "attributed". "Wrong"full is metaphysical/existential concept while statistical attribution of the type of crimes (treason, national security, adultry, murder, drug trafficking), in which death penalty has been applied, are emperical observation. And please do no use "estimate" which is propagated by anti death penalty group as "fact". We so far has only allowed "verifiable" and "reliable" statistics, such as Gallop Polls or statistics which has been released by various governments or U.N. (which AI used to assemble their stats). As of "the history of abolution" it is problematic because it is arguably an (anti death penalty) POV forking from "history of death penalty". Currently, the secton is not even a coherent section in itself. Your non NPOV argument further convince me that the separation of these two articles are, indeed, appropriate. FWBOarticle

If someone was executed for a crime s/he did not commit, NPOV expression would be, "the person was wrongfully executed" rather than "the person was unjustly executed". Wronglfully could refer to both procedure, evidence, fact or idea of justice so it is NPOV, while "unjust" is a POV. FWBOarticle

I believe the debate is pretty much dead. I will remove merger tag. FWBOarticle

You have clamed that "this site do not hold such view" when you referred to my view that the wrongful execution rate is an objective measure of injustice, inhumanity, and brutality. There have been no sourced edits suggesting that the view is uncommon; in fact, it is at least as common as Christianity. Therefore, the view is notable and the dispute persists. There is no evidence that the deterrent rate of capital punishment justifies any wrongful executions, which have obviously been far too common, unjustly depriving scores of their most fundamental right. And for this, we get a deterrent which can't be shown to be statistically superior to life imprisonment? Please do not ask me to refrain from making sure that the notable view is properly clear, and please do not ask me to refrain from replacing the merge tags or merging the articles, or to refrain from replacing your unsourced deletion of information about the wrongful execution rate. Thank you. --James S. 11:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful execution rate is an objective measure of people who were exected for crimes they didn't commit. In wikipedia, you are supposed to avoid using words like "most influential", "unjustly executed" and so on. Instead, you ought to make factual reference. In case of wrongful conviction, you can simply state the fact that someone has been executed for a murder which s/he didn't commit. Whether that has been unjust, inhuman, brutal is still POV. For example, if such mistake was due to self incrimination or perjury then pro death penalty side might consider that judicial system was not to be at fault. Anti death penalty (you, i assume) side might consider that justice was at fault because death penalty is inherently wrong. And it is not question of whether you or me is right wrong. Important thing is to recognise the pluralism of opinion. Please try to see the other side of argument. Edit based on perspective that one hold unassailable truth never works in wikipedia. FWBOarticle

In controversy, both points of view need to be represented. Seperating them into different articles is a bad idea, and leads to two misleading articles instead of one comprehensive article. If there were no controversy, then there would be one neutral view. Please do not assume that the view you hold is neutral simply because it is the one you hold. --James S. 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pro death penalty (or anti) if that help you to change the perspective about this debate. Plus, I didn't split the articles in the first place. The problem is that, whenever you make argument, you fail to refer to wikipedia policy and guideline. For example, Featured article criteria number 5 specifically state that the article have to be an appropriate size, which is set at 30kb-35kb. (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Moreover, NPOV does not state every opinion and facts get equal presentation. In fact, controvercial aspect of any issue are always relagated at the bottom or in separate article. You can argue for equal representation of anti and pro argument. You can't argue for equal representation of particular aspect of topic especially when objectivity of each sides of opinion/facts are in doubt. FWBOarticle

There have been plenty of featured articles far above 35kb, I am sure. Why do you think that "controvercial aspect of any issue are always relagated at the bottom or in separate article" -- I can find no support for that. If both sides are in doubt, that makes the case for equal representation stronger. --James S. 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is ingenious presentation of fact. 35kb is where you start thinking about trimming or spliting articles. Then this "reccomended" size can be streched to somewhere around 45kb. But once the article become +50kb, the article become unreadable. This is not a POV. It is based on well researched studies which shows that adult attention span can deal only around 30-35kb of text in wikipedia term and this studies are cited as a reason why wikipedia article should be concise. Rarely, an article can pass featured article nomination process when it's size is like 60kb. Sometimes a featured article, once passed might bloat and go pass 60kb but in that instance, the article often get nominated for removal from featured article status. Merging two article in this instance bring the size to +90kb. So your merger suggestion has zero chance of winning in VfM process. As of why controversy is almost always relegated to the bottom of the article in Wikipedia is due to the fact that NPOV mandate that facts always take precedent over POV. Moreover, so called facts presented in controversy are often advocacy statistics presented by pro or anti side in deliberate attempt to skew argument on one side. Therefore, such "facts" can not be considered as credible or neutral. That is why controversy almost always get relegation. FWBOarticle

I hope this reference kill your argument [3]. In this instance, both pro and anti facts and POV are forked out in accordance with guideline. If "brutal" "unjust" and "inhumane" wrongful conviction are selectively revived, then that would make the left out content (such as economic statistics, legal facts, statistics of economic damage incurred by murder) as a victim of POV forking. You can't selectively revive wrongful conviction stats, because it amoung to reverse POV unfork. You can't merge entire article because it is patently in violation of wikipedia policy and guideline. FWBOarticle

History

• I'm going to revamp this section. There are few fundamental flaws with current edit.

(1)Blood Feud being the origin of Death penalty is not correct. This view is originated in philosophical debate of Hobbisian state of nature. The intial idea was explictly hypothetical. Most conventional idea is that death penalty originate from communal justice which included beating, banishment and killing. This later become standarlised under the emergence of nation state. And I'm not too far off in guessing that DP=Blood Feud is another spindoctoring from the opponent side to equate DP with barbarism.

(2)This article is about death "penalty" or caital "punishiment". Not about state sanctioned killing. For this reason killing as part of conquest, religious sacrifice, or gralditorial combat, does not fall into this category. Majority of sacrifice subject or gradiator were slave and they did nothing in particular in term of "crime" though some are made slave as part of punishment but it is not the same thing. Aother spindoctoring to give presentation that DP=savage

(3) "Differentiated styles of execution" subsection isn't really about the history. I will transfer it to "Method of execution" section.

(4) Abolitionist movement is a history of activism/ideology. Because it is relevant, I will put it under different section. Feel free to expand. This section deserve more details. FWBOarticle

• Gee, I just realised that the entire section is AI version of history where humanity "progress" from savagely to enlightenment.

• Blood Feud section have little historical materials. Most are about sociological/philosophical speculation about justification of Blood feud. Plus, it another example of AI history. FWBOarticle

• Duelling isn't a punishment or penalty. Another AI history at work. FWBOarticle

• "Sacrifice and Entertainment" subsection has no relevance to capital punishment. It primaly function had no relevance to punishment. Another AI version of history where execution are to be equated with barbarism. It has lot of religious interpretation so I could possibly redeemed as part of Abolitonary Movement. Instead of deleting it, I will transfer it to Abolitionary Movement. FWBOarticle 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted "Tom Krajcik is sexy" from this entry. Sorry to all of you who think he is. [[[User:ACinfo|ACinfo]] 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

Duelling not punishment or penalty? How about judicial combat? One could argue that the blood feud, judicial combat, trial by ordeal, and the death penalty as we know it do form a kind of continuum. I have not sources for this, however. But the entertainment aspect was (is?) definitely relevant, for example public hangings in 18th Century England. Look at Hogarth. Jbhood 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Duelling wasn't a part of "punishment". However, if you contextualised it as a part of arbitration system, certainly it deserve inclusion. Previous edit which was along the line of Feuding=Orign of DP, didn't really make this point clear. Public hanging was a punishment and I have no problem with inclusion. However, graditorial combat or sacrifice wasn't really about punishment. It was part of slavery, entertainment and religion. Now, some criminal were indeed condemmed as gradiator slave or sacrifice so you can recover the content along this line. Problem with the previous AI version of History is that it gross over the fact that ancient judiciary system (and it's use of execution) had quite reasonable internal logic. Whether one agree with it is another matter though. FWBOarticle

I agree with most of your last contribution, but note that the outcome of a judicial combat was supposedly ordained by God, and therefore anyone killed in such a duel was considered in effect to be executed (punished) by divine will. This is all in a Northern European context, of course. Maybe insert a link to the Wikipedia article "Trial by combat"? Jbhood 10:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see there is a link to Trial by combat. How about one to "Trial by ordeal" also? Jbhood 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More info is good as long as it is in the right context, IMO. :) FWBOarticle

Evidence of at least two executed innocent

User:ER MD removed the following:

After DNA-based forensics became available, a large number of wrongful convictions were brought to light, including some where the wrongfully-accused had already been executed.

I remember reading that two U.S. wrongful executions were brought to light in the past four or five months. Can anyone find the source? --James S. 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Such info would be an front page news in AI. If not, I doubt the report to be true. FWBOarticle

1. Ruben Cantu
2. Larry Griffin

--James S. 09:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1) DNA evidence was not used in either case. 2)Neither person was proven to be innocent...only speculation that they may (and that by people who oppose the DP).

ER MD 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Since the reintroduction of the death penalty there have been ZERO proven cases of innocent people executed. There are cases where there is "suspected" problems but nobody proven innocent. Technically, these may be cases of "legal innocence" verses "actual innocence." OJ Simpson and Baretta are good examples of people who were factually guilty, but were found legally not guilty (which some people wrongly interpret as "innocent".) This is why your statement is being removed. You can write about it on the debate page if you wish. ER MD 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how many have been exhonorated before execution? Doesn't that proportion say something about the vast numbers where DNA evidence is not available to exhonorate? Replacing statement. --James S. 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

First question: yes I do...the actual wrongful conviction rate is about 0.2% based on the stats that I have read for "actual innoncence" and not "legal innocence." Second question: Your conspiracy theory about "vast" unknown DNA evidence to prove innocence is unfounded--not one executions has been proven to be wrong by the use of DNA. I know you wish this to be true, but its not. ER MD 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Testing DNA for evidence in past cases is fraught with problems. As an example, a DNA test can confirm a conviction such as the "wrongfully convicted" "innocent" Roger Keith Coleman. It can be equivocal as in a partial match indicating either DNA degradation or contamination. It could be a complete mismatch which may not mean anything--we have a bunch of DNA from other people all around us--so the type of evidence (i.e. blood versus hair, vs. semen, etc. must be investigated) Or it can implicate another person whose DNA has already been run. Obviously, the only benefit of DNA is either confirming the guity, implicating someone else, or demonstrating that an absolute integral aspect of the case shows DNA that is not the convicted. True, DNA has shown that other people have been convicted for crimes commited by other people--so you are partially correct and I encourage you wo add that in on the DNA testing section. The interesting aspect about your argument is that DNA is a doubled edged sword. By arguing for overturning past convictions, you must also admit that cases tried from here on out will be much more precise since the juries will be able to weigh the DNA evidence. Therefore, DNA not only may prove wrongful convictions in the past, but it makes all future convictions much stronger and hence is an argument which supports the future application of the death penalty. Having read your user profile, I noticed that you support the ACLU. With that in mind, I doubt that you will present both sides of the argument if you opt to write a section on DNA evidence. ER MD 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you get 0.2%?

What do you think the actual number of wrongfully executed is?

If DNA evidence is only part of 10% of all capital cases, then what is next year's expected number of wrongfully executed? That should be easy for you to answer given the answers to the two questions above. --James S. 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate is insightfull and all but should you guy doing this in the capital punishmen debate article? FWBOarticle

The fact that wrongful excutions continue is a fact about the death penalty, not a fact about the debate. The fact that the number can be easily estimated by those who would prefer not to think about it is appropriate here. --James S. 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that there has not been ONE documented case of an innocent execution. So I have no idea where you get "wrongful executions continue." Obviously you are blinded to your ideology. You can suppose theoretically or statistically that it is likely to have occured but subsequently claiming that it has factually occured is a lie. Its true that there have been people subsequently found innonent for the stated crime while on death row--probably something discovered during appeals processes. The exact number is difficul to pin down since the DPIC overinflates those numbers. But the number is around 20-40 out of 7400 people on death row (including past executed people). With this small number, and the number so far executed, this would suggest about 2 innocent execuation. The problem with this argument is that the discovery of innocence may be in the legal proceedings, and people who have progressed through that hearing are now less likely to be innocent since more people look at all the evidence and any discovered evidence. In reference to your hurt feelings, you theories are not proven and they don't belong in the introduction section. Add a section to describe your theory, and remember to present both sides of the DNA debate, in that it has the ability to prove wrongful past convictions, but also to make all future prosecutions more exact.

Quality of Article

I spent a while yesterday trawling through the myriad spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes in this article, trying to correct them - there are still some left as well! I don't know who is editing this article that has such poor English, but I would encourage you to ensure the SPG is correct. Bad SPG reflects badly on what is mostly a very fine article. I say mostly, as there are a couple of points about it that I think need sorting. Firstly, the article header is very long and wordy - it could do to be cut down to around half of its current size. Secondly, I'm not sure that the "blood feud" part of the history section is particularly relevant. The section on sacrifice and entertainment needs rewriting to make it sound more encyclopaedic and less like a TV documentary. Overall, the article requires only touching up, but I think there are a few areas where it could do to be improved. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The prose needs some up-cleaning. I may get on that at some point. Kai 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was a "death sentence" that was executed by an agent of the political authority, (king, country, or whatever) the executioner was the person who carried out the sentence, or 'executed' the sentence. His (any women?) actions have come down to mean Executions, and now we say a person was executed, and I made a note of this in intro sentence 3/25/06 Pabobfin 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Penateuch or Old Testament

The Penatuch is a Greek name only the first five books of the book commonly called the Bible. They are properly called Torah. The Old Testament is the Christian name for the entire Jewish scripture, which is properly called Tanach. So, the reference should be corrected to be consistent. Perhaps the logical choice is to say the first five books of the Bible often called the Penateuch or Torah. Veniceslug1 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro wrongful executions statistics controversy

Newspaper which start from "Did we?" certainly doesn't prove anything. Statistics is never a conclusive proof of anything no matter how complex the math is. At best it is a suggestive "indication". So please put this kind of argumentation to DP debate article which is linked from this page. Secondly, this is exactly the reason why the intro should be short if the topic is controvercial Claim and counter claim should crowd the intro. The Table of content provide overview and easy access to each relevant issues. Why do we have to duplicate information? FWBOarticle

Firstly, the intro should not be a platform for people with anti or pro death penalty agenda. Secondly, your info clearly fall within Death penalty debate which is in different sister page. Thirdly, this page is not "U.S" Capital punishiment article. US is qute minor player in global execution and there is a separate sister page for U.S. So please take your domestic issue to more appropriate section. Lastly, here is an eample of wrongly executed which has nothing to do with DNA or U.S. And this example also doesn't belong in the intro. FWBOarticle

The number of wrongful executions is notable to both supporters and opponents. The fact that so many have been exhonerated by new DNA evidence from old collections is clearly important. Asking to move such information to a "debate" article is against the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline. --James S. 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rate of wrongful conviction is important to anti death penalty side. One noted jurist professor (can't remember his name) once remarked, in response to wrongful execution, that just because someone die in traffic accident doesn't mean we ought to demolish highway. For supporters of deathpenalty, irreversible act of justice apply to both death penalty and incarceration. The idea that wrongful conviction being holy grail of the controversy is mere anti death penalty side delusion. As I keep repeating, try to see it from NPOV. People who can't take NPOV end up leaving wikipedia. FWBOarticle

Are you claiming that the wrongful execution rate is unimportant to proponents of the death penalty? --James S. 19:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not important as a refutation of death penalty. Wrongful conviction is regarded as a moot argument by the supporter because it can equally apply to incarceration. Plus, you fail to realise that you actually don't have "wrongful execution rate". What you have is "in house" research by anti death penalty advocate "speculating" over the rate of wrongful conviction in "U.S". Come back here with something neutral (not in house), verifiable (not speculation) and fitting of encycropedia (not suffering from Anglo American bias). FWBOarticle

"The death penalty in arts and media" section

O.K. this section is either irrelevant or just another platform for anti DP view. I believe signifcant proportion of plot line in the world literature involve something like villan getting his just punishment (legally or not). And of course, there are lot of plot line where main charcter(s) get executed for wrong reason. But should we keep putting something like Mel Gibson's Brave Heart or Passion of Christ. Hey, why not put "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"? I think one of the plot line involved the baron nearly getting his head chopped off by the Sultan. I don't see the point of putting 100s of literature or arts which has death penalty in plotline but actually has no relevance to this article. On the other hand, any literature with anti-DP message do deserve inclusion. Which means that the section's attribution should be transformed. I'm puting this section under "Abolitionist Movement". FWBOarticle

The arts as far as I am aware are not limited to the domain of abolitionists, this section should be included in an article about the impact and cultural history of capital punishment. It should include culturally significant artists, in that they have made an impact on the debate, such as Andy Warhol. - Solar 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are few art pieces about executions but isn't the info too trivial within the overall issue of death penalty unless it is linked to abolitionis movement. How about creating separate sister page then providing link from this page. FWBOarticle

I feel that a separate article is unnecessary, it should simply have its own section here. The abolitionist movement is far less significant culturally than film, TV and the arts. I think many would agree the media is of major significance within contemporary culture; therefore it should be included and made to be NPOV and informative. At present the section needs work, but that does not mean it should be added only to the abolitionist section. - Solar 09:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Art piece which use death penalty as "symbol" aren't that many and quite trivial. On the other hand, there are plenty of tv,films and writing/literature which have "anti" death penalty theme (agenda). Using trivial and small example of art pieces as a platform to put large amount of anti death penalty tv/film/literature is a bit of weasel strategy, IMO. My suggestion is to separate pure art (andy wahol for example) from anti death penalty themed film (green miles). FWBOarticle

Apostacy

Why was this section removed?

Major religions ... have used capital punishment, the death sentence, as a ... means of ... control. Often, the death penalty was mandated by a religious body and then handed over to civil authorities for actual execution. In times past, a king would convert to a different religion, declare all subjects also converted (with the assistence of his new found religious leaders), and punish those subjects who resisted the new religion with various laws of treason, sedition, apostasy, etc. Apostasy is still punishable by death today in most countries where a state-religion is strictly enforced.

--James S. 12:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Very Anglo American centric pov. Are you sure, outside of europe, when king switch religion, people were forced to convert as well? Plus, apostasy is still punishable by death today in countries where Islamic Sharia is still enforced. There are many other countries, including Europe, where certain religion hold state religion status. Can you stop your crusade? FWBOarticle

I'm not sure what you are asking about -- do you think that the history of the death penalty for apostacy should be excluded because it is limited to Europe? Do you have any evidence that similar events did not occur in the feudal and tribal societies of other continents? Your implication that I am on a "crusade" verges on a personal attack. I am being forthright and honest, and trying to balance the article which has long been skewed because it was segregated into the "debate" article by removing ethical points of view. That balance needs to be restored. --James S. 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "accurate" statements of history should not be deleted. I don't have objection for reviving revised and improved version. We know instances of king "forcing" conversion of subject or imposing death penalty for apostasy were only specific historical instances. On the other hand, blood feud and communal justice (shunning/compensation/execution) is accepted as global phenomenon.

Debate Section

Please read the Capital punishment debate. The deteled content, "Many believe" is clearly anti death penalty argument. The pro death penalty counter argument is well provided and argued in capital punishment debate article. Moreover, "miscarriages of justice" is mentioned in this section which is expanded in Capital punishment debate. Please do not use this section as a soapbox for one side of POV.

On the contrary, please do not use the debate article as a rug under which to sweep all counter-arguments, leaving this one devoid of opposition. I resist your repeated unsourced deletions of notable, factual, and sourced statements, as I will continue. --James S. 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, use of weasle word such as "the most important" or "many believe" are violation of Wikipedia guideline. You inserted anti death argument with weasle word "many believe" which duplicated "misscarige of justice" edit. This section is supposed to provide summary of separate article. Please don't start POV war in this section. Misscariage of justice has been mentioned. If anyone is interested, they can read it by clicking Capital punishment debate.

Religious section is right below this section. Feel free to put your edit there. Plus, # "most religion has unambibious position" is personal POV. FWBOarticle

Introduction

Introduction is not free for all place to insert whatever opinions or facts each individual think is important. It suppose to be a summary of entire section. Christian or Anti Death penalty POV can be presented where it is appropriate. Don't use introduction section as one's personal soapbox.

If someone is put in jail for 10 years, that 10 years can be considered as "irrevocable" whether one is innocent or not. An example of weasle word to insert anti death penalty bias. FWBOarticle

The wrongful conviction rate remains one of the most notable aspects of capital punishment. Do you think it should have its own section, though?

Unless they die in prison, it is not irrevocable to put someone in prison. --James S. 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe wrongful convictions rate to deserve own section but only if there are enough appropriate materials fitting of this article. At this point, what we have is anti death penalty side bringing up "examples" of wrongful convictions together with "in-house" research "speculating" the extent of wrongful conviction in United States of America. If you can come up with any peer revied research paper or U.N. report which give estimation of wrongful conviction in the world, then yes, this should be included in "The death penalty worldwide" section. Currently, what you are doing is bringing U.S. culture war into the article. Using wikipedia as a soapbox is specifically prohibited by the key policy. My recommendation is for you is to try to find statistics regarding wrongfull execution of political decidents. Provided your source is neutral and verifiable, I have no objection for you inserting such useful information. FWBOarticle

As of incarceration being not irrevocable, I won't trade my 10-30 years of life even if someone pay me 1 billion bucks. On the other hand, your POV appear to be that if I get exonerated and receive monetary compensation, then my punisiment is "reversed". My POV doesn't agree with your POV. And even if someone find the way to extend life span of human being, incarceration is still irrevocable unless someone invent technology to memory wipe my life experience in life behind bar including possible jail rape. But wait, what about my family and friends I lost during my incarceration. Can you make them younger and memory wipe them as well? So any punishment is irrevocable unless someone find the way to reverse time. But in that case, death penalty is o.k. as well. In fact, we can prevent crime before its happen. Whether you agree with my POV is irrelevant. The point is that what is or what is not irrevocable depends on one's POV. So it doesn't belong in anywhere unless it has anti-death penalty attributio, which belong to the debate section. FWBOarticle

You are at this point arguing for reviving Unjust, Inhumane, Brutal Wrongful execution from the degate section. By inserting wrongful execution edit, you are acting as if two article has been already merged. You should at least respect the procedure. Leave intro alone from wrongful execution edit until merger debate is settled. FWBOarticle

Merger debate is all about ressurecting Wrongful Conviction

Given the size of two articles, IMO, there is zero hope of reviving entire "Debate" article into this article if the issue is put to VfM. However, what you are arguing seems to indicate that you have no interest in ressurecting legal, detonological, utilitarian section of "capital punishment debate" article. I should point out that Human right argument section which deal with inhumane/brutal/unjust aspect of DP is, in fact, a deliberate POV forking from detonological section, a compromise which was reached to attain a stability in that article. Reviving already POV forked section into main article while leaving the rest (especially deontological section which human right section was POV forked from) is going way to far in term of NPOV violation, and destroy the POV stability achived in both article. Moreover, "facts/statistics/opinon" you have are u.s. specific, analysis produced by anti-deapth penalty advocate and "Unjust/Brutal" POV being specific to anti death penalty side. You fail to see that supporter of DP do not see "error" in judicial system to discredit DP as a valid institution in itself. Whether you agree with this POV is irrelevant. Given the current state of material in your possession, "wrongful execution" belong to either Capital punishment in the United States or Capital punishment debate but not "yet" in this article. Come back with international rather than domestic statistics and analysis produced by non partisan groups. Then feel free to revive "Wrongfull execution" section. But make sure "brutal" "unjust" "inhumane" are left in "Debate" article. Given that reliable statistics (not examples) of execution for crime a person didn't commit is impossible to come by, I would recommend that your quest for "wrongful execution" concentrate on "execution of political dicidents", which might have more reliable and impartial statistics. FWBOarticle

Neutrality dispute

Issues brought up by 208.54.15.1. Seems to me that death is inherently irrevocable and therefore redundant. The addition of redundant wording is likely placed to emphasize a POV. Wrongful execution rate is relevant, but that is part of the debate. Another perspective is that of convicts who are in prison who have killed other inmates, or those that have been released and killed again. So a "measure of injustice" should be balanced to reflect these points. Again this is part of the controversy and should be in the debate section so that both sides can be presented. Deterrence statistics is also a debate topic since some researchers have found a deterence effect while others have not. Obviously, most of these studies are biased themselves. Just look at prodeathpenalty.com which states that there is a deterrence effect and then look at DPIC.org which states that there is not. Traditional christian perspective can also be included. A reference to the Pope's opposition to capital punishment can be included since the Roman Catholic Church is an organized religion with a stated position on capital punishment. Many other religious perspectives from the different denominations would be difficult to include since there may not be an official stance. Forking issue: the debate section is much more complex than the article and would overshadow it--also the debate section the way it is structured is inherently POV. The issues facing capital punishment are addressed on the bullet points of the DPIC.org and prodeathpenalty.com IMO the debate section on this page needs to be removed since the POV edits are constant. The "wrongful execution rate" measuring "injustice," "brutality," and "inhumanity" already sounds like a POV argument. As stated previously, the fact that countries like the U.S. continues to release convicts who have killed in the past who eventually kill again can also be a measure of "injustice" and "inhumanity" and not just your perspective of injustice. The use of "execution" over "killing" is logical. Read any newspaper in reference to an execution and they will state "Texas executed John Smith" etc. Obviously you have a lot of POV issues if you are trying to change the wording of "execution" to "killing". The article has had "execution" in the first sentence for the last 6 months!