Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Error in the article: not in Spain -and in all Europe

It seems this article is somehow protected and I can't edit it.

The article reads: "Other states, while having abolished de jure the death penalty in time of peace and de facto in all circumstances, have not ratified Protocol no.13 yet and therefore have no international obligation to refrain from using the death penalty in time of war or imminent threat of war (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, France, Italy, Latvia, Moldova, Poland and Spain)."

Well, Spain is out of place here (and BTW all others, as we're about to see). Death penalty was fully abolished under all circumstances in Spain on November 23rd 1995, with the proclamation of the new -and current- Penal Law, BTW by a Conservative government (so strong was the request). So all kinds of murders are banned in Spain today, like in any civilized country.

Spanish Penal Law (in Spanish) available at: http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo10-1995.html

Life without parole is not a legal penalty in Spain, either. Maximum imprisonement is 40 years, like most European countries.

Not just that: all Member States of the European Union (including Spain of course) signed and ratified protocol #13 (the "Ultimate Ban" on Killing Penalty) on May 3rd, 2002. Protocol # 13 reads "The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed. [...] No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention. [...] No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol." So if you want to be an European, you can't be a murderer.

Greetings from the Med. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.233.190 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Agreed - looks like our lovely friends across the pond don't though. 90.152.12.130 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see many people do not understand the difference between the European Union (E.U) and the council of Europe, The council was responsible for the European court of human rights.

Map Edit

I believe that map needs to be edited. It says Michigan still retains the death penalty, but I know for a fact and according to [[1]] this site it was abolished in 1846. In fact no one has ever been executed here. Smart194 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are 100 percent correct. An interesting history of capital punishment in Michigan can be found [[2]]here. I don't know if the map can be edited, but perhaps it ought to be removed as inaccurate, or replaced by some other map. JCO312 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the map to properly reflect Michigan's status, but can't figure out how to upload it to the page. If anyone can help me out on that - or would just like me to send them the map itself - just let me know.JasonCNJ 02:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with Brazil also. It is under green (Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances). That is not true. There is no death penalty in Brazil at all. As a matter of fact, one can't even spend more than 35 years in a prison here, no matter for how many years he was convicted. Death penalty is completely abolished. So I would ask JasonCNJ to make this one more edit to the map already edited for Michigan and upload it already with this correction. This site: "http://www.dhnet.org.br/direitos/penamorte/dalmodallari.html" (in portuguese) says the last convictee for death in Brazil was executed at the end of the XIX century, when Brazil was ruled by a Monarchy, not yet a Republic. The executed man was called Mota Coqueiro and was innocent.

See Use_of_capital_punishment_worldwide: Brazil retains the death penalty for military use during wartime. Rmhermen 01:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to also add that Puerto Rico Abolished the Death Penalty in 1929. Plus we recently have denied the US request to federally execute two of our prisoners. Reaad more here if you wish: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=11&did=670 Daniel168.215.99.163 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best that can be said is that the situation is unclear. Rmhermen 01:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although Europe is all blue, most still have capital punishment under martial law. Have to note that I know this to be true but have no 'proof' for this.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey recently outlawed the death penalty, so the map on the page about the Lethal Injection should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.215.25 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire

I removed Voltaire from the list of death penalty supporters. Voltaire came to oppose the death penalty in his later years. I refer you specifically to the book "Voltaire in Exile" by Ian Davidson.

Well, according to French Wikipedia, Voltaire supported the Death Penalty, therefore I am putting his name back.

203.217.91.1 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to make a note of this, and to cite it!Emmett5 03:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As the guy/girl above said, Voltaire came to oppose the Death Penalty later in his life, in the last 10 or 15 years before his death. And how about before that, during the first 50 or 60 years of his life? Should we forget that he was a supporter of the death penalty during most of his life. I think that it is only reasonable that we call him a retentionnist because he supported the DP during most of his life.

GreatKing 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Not really relevant, but I understand people like to make lists of opposers/supporters of views. 2) If Voltaire is being valued for his ability to think, surely you would consider his final view to be what he arrived at after the most thought, and the view for which he would like to be remembered as holding. 3) I don't think he should be in either list, given his views changed. If he were still alive, he would obviously be in the 'against' list. As he is dead, if his views are considered significant to the debate, his changing views should simply be noted and cited. Skittle 09:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on why you have lists of supporters and opponents. I suspect the reason for having these lists is so people on either side of the issue can have use the names as proof that their side has validity. If, however, you simply want a list of high-profile advocates, you should mention Voltaire as having spent time on both sides. If a famous writer was outspoken for both sides, presumably, he/she has written a convincing arguments on the subject, arguments that are at least on par with those definitely to married to one side. If the intended reason for these lists is to provide an overall "vote" on the issue, leave Voltaire out; if the intention is merely to indicate which notable figures have key works of interest for one side or another, leave Voltaire, indicating his nuanced position. I would think that someone who wrote for both sides has opinions just as valid as someone who never changed their mind. Wencer 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think that warrants changing the argument as written, since 1) it specifies that it's only talking about the United States, and 2) seems like an attempt to insert anti-death penalty POV into the article. Better to mention the examples you've cited in the arguments against section. JCO312 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New Compromise

I will accept any new sentence, as long as the judiciary is explicitly mentioned and is emphasised (not heavily necessarily).

Written by GreatKing

It is not neccesary to mention the judiciary in the opening sentence. The judiciary is part of the State, and thus, is incorporated by reference. I say, for the final time, you would be right if this article were about the death sentence; it is much more accurate to use the "State" in reference to capital punishment, as now 4 people have said. JCO312 06:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, could I possibly explain why the judiciary should be explicitly mentioned in the first paragraph (at least)? Here are my reasons: a) in a death penalty case, the judiciary imposes the sentence, b) most of the time, condemned people spend 99.999...% of their time fighting their sentence in the courts, c) in most cases, it is usually the courts that stay execution

I have also asked one of my teachers (who studied political science at uni in France) and he agrees with me. Employees of the State, or public servants are not members of the branch and do not belong to and are not apart of any branch whatsoever in France. He also added that maybe it would be worth mentioning that police officers, nurses, teachers, etc. cannot be apart of the executive branch or be members of the executive branch or belong to the executive branch as they do not detain the executive power, they do not have the authority to make decisions or issue executive orders and do not have similar powers.

The only people (in France), who are members of any branch are:

-executive: The President, the Prime Minister and his government -legislative: MPs and Senators -Judiciary: judges of the constitutional court, and judges of courts below that latter court

I might have missed a couple of people, but I'm certain I got the most important ones.

203.217.91.1 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (written by GreatKing)

A few errors: France only has a department of surrender. Mentioning "judiciary" is incorrect since ditatorships may not have a separate judiciary. "State" can be used but it is implied and obvious... mentioning the structure of the government or system that invokes capital punishment is not necessary. Calling the person a "convicted criminal" implies a proceding, however careful or capricious, and by whatever governmental or military body. Call it "State" but anybody with the ability to read would know that. I think it should just be omitted. ER MD 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

France, as an abolitionist country, is an odd choice for a debate on the death penalty. We seem now to have moved to a debate on whether police officers, prison guards, ect., are "members" of the executive or simply "employees of the State." Well, they are hired under the authority of the executive branch, can only be fired under the authority of the executive branch, report to higher ranked officials in the executive branch, and are paid out of the executive branches budget. That being said, if it's the word "members" that you're hung up on, fine. The fact is that even if they are simply "employees of the State," they are certainly NOT employees or members of the judiciary. Condemed prisoners (or their lawyers) might spend 99.9 percent of their time fighting through appeals (assuming you're in country that has an extensive appellate system), but they spend that time sitting in a prison, trying to avoid an act carried out exclusively by these other "employees of the State." I don't think the word "State" should be omitted, as it is the involvement of the State that seperates capital punishment from plain old murder.JCO312 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with JCO312's analysis above. I think we may be running into a difference in how the separation of powers is analyzed by political scientists in different countries. In the United States, we characterize the executive branch as covering all employees who are under a direct line of authority running back to the state governor or the President of the United States. Similarly, the legislative branch covers all members of Congress and their staffers, while the judiciary includes all federal judges plus the large number of administrators and clerks who keep the courts running.

Also, it is extremely rare for the courts to stay executions nowadays, and even when a stay is granted, it is only temporary. The vast majority of courts now adhere to the theory that a prisoner's primary remedy is to appeal to the executive branch for clemency or pardon (which is rarely granted). --Coolcaesar 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would concur that we should use "state" (without the current capitalization (no pun intended)) rather than judiciary for the following reasons:

• Anyone who carries out the execution, who orders it, or who determines that it is an available punishment represents the state in some way.
  • for example, in the United States the executive (no pun intended) branch kills the convicted, the judiciary (sometimes a jury of "peers") sentences the convicted, and the legislative branch determines for what crimes death is an appropriate penalty.
  • As JCO312 says, "state" is a nice general term. Everyone involved represents the state; not everyone involved represents the judiciary.
• The "judiciary" is too restrictive. In a state where executions are at the discretion of an administrative hearing by the police, would we not call that capital punishment?
  • In the same introduction, military justice is listed as a reason for capital punishment, administered by courts martial. That does not always involve the judiciary.
• For the term "state", there is no proper noun "State", and this is not German, so there is no need to capitalize a noun. I agree that it is important that a sovereign entity impose the punishment. Parents can barely get away with corporal punishment. Capital punishment by a parent (in most places) would be considered homicide.

Dpv 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should use "state" rather than judiciary. Within the United States, all have a civil right that prohibits any criminal trial of any American by any judge. Those who are tried for capital offenses are generally tried by their fellow citizens, and only the process (and not the findings) being supervised by the judiciary. Criminal trials within the US are generally conducted by the individual states, and only rarely by the judiciary (whenever the accused waives their right of trial by jury). Raggz 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for and against

Even if you don't agree with the reasons presented, please don't just delete the reasons given, unless you can show they aren't used. David Underdown 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed. however, wikipedians should strive to:

• cite their reasons with something. this page has seen a lot of wild conjecture in the past!
• not duplicate reasons with minorly different language to "puff up" a preferred position

frymaster 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There is too much garbage and speculation floating around on Wikipedia. On some days I think it should be called the Speculapedia. We need to enforce the Cite sources rule more aggressively. Also, writing well-cited articles is not that hard. See what I've done for the Lawyer article! --Coolcaesar 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I reworded a few of the "reasons to oppose" and removed the free speech argument. There is no scholarly writing that I have ever come across that comes remotely close to making that argument. In fact, it is widely accepted that free speech can and is curtailed when someone is imprisoned anyway. Also, I've never seen anything that says that thousands of people who committed murder while in prison have been released. What's the authority on that?JCO312 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the text of one of the reasons to support, which had been something like "thousands of convicted murderers kill in prison, and are then released, and there hasn't been a proven wrongful execution, therefore cost-benefit says execute. That doesn't follow logically, unless it's an attempt to say that those convicts who kill in prison should be executed, which is effectively what I changed it to. JCO312 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've changed this some more. It previously said that African Americans are "more frequently" executed than Americans of Europeans descent. That's not true. By the pure numbers more white people are executed, but it's disproportionate to the population of the country, so I changed it. JCO312 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

citation #7

the last point in "reasons to support the death penalty" states: "Since the re-introduction of the death penalty in the United States, there has not been one proven wrongful execution". on my request, two citations were added. the first of those two, is here. the argument provided in this citation is best summed up with this quote:

• "Acquittal, which is a "not guilty" verdict, means that the state was unable to meet the necessary burden of proof, in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with establishing actual innocence. "

i submit that this is a rather disengenous argument. additionally, it really doesn't really address the specific fact it's sourcing. so... i've removed it. please read the page in question (once again, it's here) if you find question with my judgement on this issue. frymaster 14:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the quote you've put in the box above is a disengenous argument? Cause it's not. It's an accurate reflection of what a jury trial in this country is about. JCO312 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On that technical basis, no one is ever found innocent in the U.S. — OtherDave 13:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. JCO312 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to support

I again deleted the text about "murderers kill in prison, and are then released, and there are no proven wrongful executions, therefore the cost benefit analysis says execute. That's an illogical argument. First of all, I take issue with the idea that thousands of murderers are committing murder in prison and being released. What is your authority for that statement? Second, unless you can also say that upon release they are killing more people, then how does that prove that the cost benefit favors execution. This would be fine if you simply said "there has not been any proven wrongful execution." But to throw in those other unsupported assertions, which don't actually relate to the ultimate conclusion, is improper. JCO312 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the text correctly it did not state what you claim: that the same people who murder in prison are then released. It is likely a different prison population (there are murderers in prison who murder again, and then there are murderers who don't, who subsequently are released and then murder again). Your statement: "Second, unless you can also say that upon release they are killing more people, then how does that prove that the cost benefit favors execution" makes no sense. Have you not heard of people who have been convicted of murder and then have been released, ie parole??? Not all murderers get LWOP. Cost-benefit arugment: The cost to society is a dead murderer, and the benefit is innocent lives saved. Follow? ER MD 21:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be snide. Your argument is still wrong. If a convicted murderer is released (i.e. paroled) and doesn't do anything, there is no cost to society. By the way, nearly every case that is eligible for capital punishment does get LWOP. JCO312 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with JCO312; nearly every capital-eligible case either terminates in a sentence of death or life without parole. But it also depends on the flexibility of the state's laws. For example, in California, for many serious felonies, like the intentional wrecking of a train, the only sentencing choice available (once the charge has been presented and proved) is between LWOP and death. Of course, there are lesser felonies which allow for more flexibility, but our prosecutors, as in most U.S. jurisdictions, like to bring the maximum charge that the facts will arguably support. --Coolcaesar 06:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The cost-benefit perspective (including the risk of an innocent execution) is an aspect of the argument (irrespective if you agree or not). Opponents argue that the cost of an innocent execution by the state is so wrong that they are willing to accept more murders by murderers in prison. Obviously they don't argue that point because at some point it becomes illogical. Obviously, if the state had a wrongful execuation rate of 25% and the perceived deterence rate only prevented a few murders, one could argue in terms of cost-benefit that it does not make sense to continue with executions. Proponents simply argue that the fact that there has not been a proven wrongful execution in the US (actually in the 1900's) and that there are indications that it deters murders, then the cost-benefit would support continued executions (i.e. it saves way more lives that the theoretical execution of an innocent in the US). Instead of it being "wrong" why don't you acurately reflect your opinion as you disagree. Now do you understand? ER MD 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never read in a single scholarly text anyone make the argument that the cost-benefit has anything to do with letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them. You have yet to cite any authority for either of those points. What you've said in this sentence, "there has not been a proven wrongful execution in the US (actually in the 1900's) and that there are indications that it deters murders, then the cost-benefit would support continued executions" actually does make logical sense, but to include anything about "murderers killing in prison" is so unrelated to that point that it makes no sense to include it. As to why I disagree, it's pretty simple. As written, it was an illogical argument that has never been advanced by proponents of capital punishment in any work I've ever seen (and had no citation).JCO312 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an argument??? you have got to be kidding me. Think about it for a while since its pretty easy to understand. Or let me explain... One one extreme: Cost: zero wrongful executions. Benefit: prevent recidivism and saves thousands of lives. On the other extreme: Cost: multiple wrongful executions. Benefit: Zero lives saved by executing murderers and preventing recidivism. Simple cost and benefit. Virtually every decision can be made along those line. Proponents simply argue that the cost of potential/proven wrongful execution is "vanishingly small"[3] in comparision to the lives saved by executing murderers. opponents argue that the cost is high: potential/proven executions of innocents versus very little benefit or no prevented homicides. Also you again fail to read what I wrote stating "letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them." That is not what I wrote, so I don't know why I am even discussing this matter with you. Either you do not care what the real point was or you intentially want to mischaracterize the position to further your argument. Finally, do you really need to read it in a journal to understand the concept? Seems to me that this is common sense and debate 101. ER MD 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Advocates argue that given the thousands of murders that have occured in prison and by murderers released from prison, and given that there has not been a proven execution of an innocent (at least in the US), the cost-benefit analysis favors the retention of capital punishment. That's why you're having this discussion. Perhaps now that you recall what you wrote, you can actually respond. I'm probably asking too much, but maybe you can cut down on the snide and conceited way you've been doing it.

You are an idiot and you are proving it. Note the differences:

My statement: "thousands of murders that have occured in prison and by murderers released from prison"

Your characterization: "letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them"

Do you not see the difference moron? I am stating that there are TWO different populations. You are saying that they are ONE. Damn, you are dumb. ER MD 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are unnecessary and incredibly rude. You fail to understand why the statement you wrote is totally illogical and have to resort to attacking me. You should be ashamed of yourself. JCO312 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

JCO312, how are you to tell people to be ashamed of themselves?. Anyway, I'm going to have to side with you and Coolcaesar this time. ER MD, the main problem with your argument is that you do not explain the relation between your cost-benefit idea and the "inmates murdering other inmates" idea. You assert that since thousands of murders have been committed by persons in prison or after they have been released, the death penalty should be retained because it is cost effective (that's what I understand): the link between the main part of your assertions and its conclusion is missing. This is why it is so confusing and illogical.

I do have a compromise however. How about seperating both of your arguments?

GreatKing 11:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked I wasn't calling people names as part of my argument, which is why I threw in my ashamed suggestion. As far as your compromise, I'm satisfied with the list as it exists. JCO312 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Juvenile Edit

The way the last revision of the sentence about juvenile capital punishment and Iran was written suggested that the text was in conflict, i.e. to say "80 percent of juvenile executions happened in the US or Iran" followed by "it should be pointed out that the US does not execute juveniles" suggests that one of the seteneces is wrong. How about "it should be noted that the United States no longer executes juveniles" or "since 2005 the United States no longer..."?JCO312 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're talking about two different things. Juveniles are not executed in the US and haven't been since... I don't remember when. Very occcasionally, an adult will be executed for something they did when they were under 18 - q.v. Dalton Prejean who was executed at age 30 for murdering a cop less than five months shy of his 18th birthday (Prejean's birthday obviously, not the cop's). That is completely different from a country like, just for example, Iran where people are actually executed before their 18th birthday. It is inaccurate to equate the US with Iran - as the article currently does. I will go ahead and change the wording again and you should feel free to make further changes if you're not happy with mine and in that way we should eventually arrive at a mutually acceptable version. Sound fair? --SpinyNorman 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really two different things, and the equation is quite reasonable. It may feel odd, but that's because you're used to thinking of Iran as backward and evil and the US as enlightened. Not everything Iran does is bad, not everything the US does is good and vice versa, so let's move on. Basically, waiting until the person is older than 18 before executing them for soething they did when younger is purely jumping through legal hoops; many people would say that morally (which is where most arguments both ways come in) it is the same as executing them below 18. Consider an extreme case, as 'just before 18th birthday' brings a lot of ideas together at once. Consider a 5-year-old who kills someone. They kill them in such a way that if they were an adult in certain American states, they would be sentenced to execution. Is there a moral difference between killing them now, at age 5, and imprisoning them on death row until they are 18, then killing them? I know this particular case would never arise in the US, but I feel it illustrates the morals by removing the baggage image of the Evil Youth Timing Their Murder. Skittle 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skittle that there is no real difference between executing someone who commits a crime at age 16 before they turn 18 and waiting until after the turn 18. The whole issue centers around whether or not a person under 18 and the level of responsibility we hold them to for their crime. Dalton Prejean would no longer be eligible for the death penalty in the United States because he was under 18 at the time of his crime. That's the rule under the Roper decision.JCO312 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for and against sections

I don't think that the arguments for or against sections are appropriate places for people to add counter-arguments. If anything, put them in the section that they belong, and not as parenthetical notes, particularly if you're only going to do it for one side or the other, which makes the overall article appear to reflect one POV. JCO312 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, they have delted the link to the article which specifically deal with the debate. I have restored the link. Vapour

I assume Nickhk is planning on putting something on the talk page given the last edit. I maintain that what he (or possibly she) has written is flawed for two reasons. First, it is not an argument in favor of capital punishment as it presumes (with no support) that some jurisdictions are executing the innocent. Second, it cites an article (which is of questionable worth) that doesn't actually say anything in support of Nickhk's edit.

Actually now I see his note in the fallability section. If the extent of documented "wrongful executions" is one person from the UK in the 1950s, then any edited text should reflect that. JCO312 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a moment I have just lost my edit Nickhk 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that an observation on the state of affairs in the US is not an argument to support the death penalty, it tells us nothing about the other 73 countries that use the death penalty, so the wording change was intended to make a general argument which was then then supported by the observation. Contrast with the anti arguments which start with a general proposition and then use examples to support. BTW the link is unchanged from the original Nickhk 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add the perspective of this debate is very narrowly focused on the present day and certain jurisdictions- I dont think anyone knowledge of, for example, Pol Pot's Kampuchea or the Spanish Inquisition would argue that there have been no "wrongful executions". The article needs to be very clear about the sub-category of executions that is being debated hereNickhk 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case you should find some support for the proposition that any of the nations which currently have the death penalty have had a single wrongful execution before the text is changed. Also, the U.S. doesn't conduct post-execution trials, so of course we haven't had any wrongful executions proven after the fact. JCO312 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is moronic. If you check the history, the section had for/against split structure before it was reorganised by merging corresponding for/against argumentit. Eventually, the section became large enough that the content was shifted out to the separate article. There is nothing in this section which can't be found in the debate article. We are simply repeating the entire process of edit war between the opponents and the advocates of DP. Wikipedia isn't a soap box of opposing partisans. What is the justification for regressing the whole edit? We should simply summarised the article about the Capital Punishment Debate in this section. If ideologue from U.S. want to engage in another one of culture war, do it in the appropriate place. That means the page about the death penalty in U.S. or any relevant section in the Capital Punishment (Debate) article. Vapour

The fact/opinion list is not an encycropedic presentation and, for this reason, this section is in direct violation of the core policy of this site. You can either present two summary, one for DP and the other against, or you can summarise the opinion of both argument according to the topics. Vapour

List of famous abolitionists/ retentionists

Wikipedia is not the place for the list of trivia. What kind of insight does readers gain by finding out that Rick Perry is a retentionist and Thurgood Marshall is a abolitionist. I have never heard these guys. Why not add +1000 of member of parliaments in European countries who are abolitionists. The list should go. Vapour

Thurgood Marshall was the first African American justice on the United States Supreme Court. He wrote some of the most well known anti-death penalty opinions of the last 100 years and is one of the most important jurists of the 20st century. I don't think I disagree with your suggestion that the bullet points ought to go (I don't think you needed to call the section "moronic") but I don't see why a list of famous abolitionists and retentionists isn't legit. Certainly Justice Marshall would be included on such a list. Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. JCO312 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it probably more accurate to say he is relevant to U.S. jurisprudence. I'm quite sure that death penalty debate in non U.S., especially non English speaking countries, would make no reference to Thurgood Marshall. As of Rick Perry, would you be interested in the name of a governer in China who is retentionist/abolitionist? What is important is issues not who is who. So Locke, Kant or Stuart Mill's names are relevant as an indication of classical liberal's support for death penalty. By name itself, it has only minute relevance to the issue. TM's view is probably very relevant to U.S. judiciary opinion, which probably belong to Capital punishment in the United States page. However, the readers of this article gain no extra insight from finding out that Al Gore, GWB, Thugood Marshall, John Stuart Mill are retentionist. Presentation of barely relevant information such as trivia list is only toloreated in wikipedia to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of presenting encycropedic knowledge. This list should go.

Agree. Remove the list. A famous abolitionist is someone who makes strive to eliminate capital punishment as opposed to just opposing it, and a famous retentionist is a person who makes strives to keep it and not merely a person who agrees with it. ER MD 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not heavily invested either way, but if what you say is true than shouldn't there be a list of people who have taken strives to eliminate or retain the death penalty? JCO312 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Done. Vapour

The title change: From Capital Punishment to Death Penalty

This has been bothering me. Historically speaking, not all type of death penalty were refered as death penalty. "Capital punishment = Death penalty" is a modern perception. Let change the title to Death Penalty. Vapour

P.S. Opps, "not all type of death penalty were refered as capital punishment". Sorry. Vapour

I would think that articles should be titled to reflect how a topic is perceived today. JCO312 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "capital punishment" is "The penalty of death for the commission of a crime.", so I don't see what difference it makes if it didn't have the same meaning historically: we're writing in the present, not the past. "Capital punishment" is essentially synonymous with "execution", "death penalty", etc., so we should base our choice on neutrality and commonality, not on vocabulary prescriptivism. "Death penalty" gets over 3 times as many Google hits as "Capital punishment", so, presumably the current title is based on the assumption that "death penalty" is not as neutral or accurate (or broad?) a term as "capital punishment"? -Silence 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Google, by its algorism, only show that the term "death peanlty" is more commonly used reference than the term "capital punishment". Google hit has nothing to do with controversy of any search term.

I'm just pointing out that the title "death penalty" would be NPOV either from the present or the past perspective. On the other hand, you appear to insist that today's perception (i.e. POV) should be held as a standard so it shouldn't make difference. That's not NPOV argument. I'm not taking side with old perspective or present perspective. Remember, NPOV is a POV. Because Death Penalty is time context neutral, I say DP. And I really don't understand why people object to this. Can you source your argument on wikipedia policies or guideline DP "shouldn't" be the title? That means showing that DP would be NPOV. I fail to see how.

As of meaning of Capital punishment, according to this article, "Capital punishment, (or the death penalty,) is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses." By this definition, life sentence is the capital punishment in many countries. In fact, LS=CP are being used in some countries. For example, in my language, we say, capital punishment in Europe is life imprisonment because they abolsied death penalty. Moreover, if I understand correctly, a theft amounted to death penalty in Engliand in old day. Capital crime, at that time, refered to treason and murder, and execution was designed to be extra painful and slow. It is problematic when the title of the article is Capital Punishment while all it talk about is death penalty. CapitalPunishment=DeathPenalty seems NPOV to me. Vapour

O.K. I've waited enough. I'm going to move this article to "Death Penalty". I'm quite sure more people would take notice. Some might object to my edit and want to debate the issue here. If anyone reverse my edit, I won't reverse it back until the debate is settled. Vapour

There was no consensus for a move as far as I can see. I'm not sure where you get the fact that Capital Crime previously referred to only certain offences for which the death penalty was applied. Some offences may have attracted different forms of capital punishment, but I've never seen anything to suggest anything other than that a capital crime was one for which the death penalty (in any shpae or form) was applied. In English (and this is the Enlgish Wikipedia after all) Capital punishment is synonymous with death penalty so far as I'm aware. See for example these two searches on National Archives website. This http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/quick_search.aspx?search_text=capital+punishment&go.x=23&go.y=11 gives 791 results, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/quick_search.aspx?search_text=death+penalty&go.x=18&go.y=13 gives 339. See also http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=7&CATID=-4238790&j=1 - "5. George Dine alias Farmer, convicted at the 'last' session, for stealing clothes, value £4:17:0, from a dwelling house. The jury found him guilty but reduced the value making it a non-capital crime. " So clearly theft was a capital crime.

Is it really appropriate to mark a page move as a minor change? David Underdown 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I don't know how or why I maked it as minor change. May be I got it mixed up with other edits. Anyway, no regular contributor will fail to notice the change so I can't see if it matter. As of consensus, it is rare for anyone to say "Yes, I was so wrong and you are so right". If your definition of consensus hold true, one can easily sabotage any edit proposal by raising objection once but never engage in the debate afterward. I waited for responces to my argument which didn't turn up until I moved the page. It certainly got your attention so I think my edit was a positive thing to do. I'm happy to defend my argument anytime and I have stated as such when I moved the article.

Anyway, I didn't really expect so many people objecting to this change. As far as I can see, the arguments for "capital punishment" appear to be an appeal to conservatism, saying that capital punishment is "as good as" death penalty. So far, I haven't heard anyone raising any NPOV objection to the title of "Death Penalty" per se. This doesn't seem to be an effective argument. One could certainly argue that "capital punishment" is a synomymous "substitute" word for death penalty" in usage. However, this does not provide effective argument to prefer capital punishment over death penalty. And as the previous reference to google search indicated, "death penalty" is far more common reference than "capital punishment". I can't comment on your last reference because it is inaccesible (due to cookie seting). I would like to know if the word "non-capital crime" was used by a contemporary or by someone who edited the archive.

Anyway, capital crime or capital punishment put linguistic emphasis on the severity of crime/penalty while death penalty is a matter of fact reference. We already had argument about someone trying to describe death/capital penalty as "murder of individual by state". Even though some different terms refer to the same thing, this does not mean all are NPOV. Anal sex is far more NPOV title than sodomy. Choosing CP over DP is not NPOV because the former put linguistic emphasise on the severity of crime/punishment while the later is matter of fact reference. I now have some suspicion that some of those who prefer "capital punishment" has anti-death penalty bias, because it has very mild spindoctoring effect. Vapour

I don't think you qiute understand how consensus works, you've proposed a change, one or two people have objected, but no-one has supported you, so the status quo should have held, i.e. the article left where it was.

I don't see how Death Penalty is anymore a matter of fact reference than Capital Punishment, they both describe the penalty, you die, you "lose your head" same effect. Capital Crimes are described as such because they attract Capital Punishment, and it has generally been felt that this should be reserved for what are perceived to be more serious crimes. You could equally call them death penalty crimes, the term merely indicates the type of sentence you will receive.

You may have better luck looking at my final reference by going to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/default.asp and entering HO 47/5/49 where it says "type reference here". Unfortunately it is not entirely clear if the wording in the catalogue description is taken directly from the original document, but it is certainly the usage I am most familiar with. David Underdown 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"I know better than you" is a bit silly thing, but I think your understanding of wikipedia policy is slightly off than mine. Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy. It is arguments that count. I have seen a dispute resoultion where overwhelming majority opinion was overruled in favour of minority one because majority argument had weak basis on wikipedia policies. Moreover, there is no "status quo" policy in this site. It is adviced that one debate before making big change but what amount to big is left to participants. So far, only argument I hear is that CP is "as good as" DP. If my change have no difference in substance, it can not be regarded as a big change. Moreover, it won't provide effective argument to oppose the change. To do that, you have to argue that CP is more NPOV than DP.

As of your claim that "they both describe the penalty", I don't think it is quite an accurate statement. Death penalty make direct reference to the "content" of penalty while Capital punishment make an indirect reference through the "ranking" of punishment, which is, "in turn", synonymous with death. Moreover, I invoke verification on "loose your head" edit which is unsourced. Yes, the original latin meaning of capital was "head". But I don't think "capital punishment" was so named as "loose your head" punishment. Rather, latin word capital was first transformed to mean "central", or "most important" or "ultimate" or "most serious" which is then used to apply to describe a punishment. As I said, DP refer to matter of fact content of the penalty while capital crime/punishment refers to severity of punishment/crime. I've already made comparison with sodomy and anal sex. Yes, sodomy is more NPOV than CP. Still, unless you provide argument that DP is more NPOV than CP, you really don't have a valid policy argument to reverse DP to CP. An appeal to conservatism is not a valid policy argument.

If you are not so sure about theft being described as capital crime by contemporaries, let me know if you find more clear indication of your claim from archival source. But even if you do, my argument that DP is the most NPOV among available terms stand because it simply refer to the content of punishiment while other require extra argument to link to the content of penalty. Vapour

My last word. If you can find a more authoritative source for English usage than the Oxford English Dictionary, go ahead, but

Capital adj, noun
...
2. a. Affecting, or involving loss of, the head or life. 

1483 CAXTON Gold. Leg. 184/3 To haue capytal sentence & be beheded. 1581 LAMBARDE Eiren. I. xii. (1588) 67 Capitall (or deadly) punishment is done sundry wayes. 1770 LANGHORNE Plutarch (1879) I. 181/2 Cimon..narrowly escaped a capital sentence. 1868 Spectator 19 Dec. 1487 We never remember a capital verdict upon such insufficient evidence.

    b. Punishable by death. For the distinction (from 1957 to 1965) of capital murder: see quot. 1957. 

1526 FRITH Purgat. 201 Whosoever hath committed a capital crime. 1688 STRADLING Serm. (1692) 168 The Egyptians made it Capital to affirm that their God Apis was dead. a1745 SWIFT Wks. (1841) II. 154 Guilty of a capital crime. 1827 HALLAM Const. Hist. (1876) III. xvii. 330 It was capital to preach even in houses. 1957 Act 5 & 6 Eliz. II c. 11 §5 The following murders shall be capital murders..(a) any murder done in the course or furtherance of theft; (b) any murder done by shooting [etc.]. Ibid., Where it is alleged that a person accused of murder is guilty of capital murder, the offence shall be charged as capital murder in the indictment.

    c. Of persons: Dealing with capital crimes; also, capitally condemned. Obs. 

1583 STUBBES Anat. Abus. II. 106 They, as Capytall Iudges, geue definytiue sentence of lyfe and death. 1631 GOUGE God's Arrows III. §60. 295 Putting capitall malefactors to death. 1644 PRYNNE Check to Britan. 4 An impenitent, obdurate, Capitall Delinquent.

    d. Fatal. Obs. 

a1626 BACON (J.) War, which is capital to thousands. 1701 COLLIER M. Antoninus 11 In the Reign of Adrian an excellency of almost any kind was sometimes Capital to the Owner.

    e. Roman Law. Involving loss of civil rights. 

1838 ARNOLD Hist. Rome (1846) I. xiv. 289 The punishment of a libeller involved in it a diminutio capitis, and was thus in the Roman sense of the term capital.

    3. Said of an enemy or enmity: Deadly, mortal. Obs. 

1375 BARBOUR Bruce III. 2 The lord off lorne..That wes capitale ennymy To the king. 1502 ARNOLDE Chron. (1811) 283 A capital enmyte lyke to haue endured for euer. 1670 COTTON Espernon I. III. 109 The Bishop was his capital Enemy. 1762 HUME Hist. Eng. (1806) IV. liv. 162 The capital enemy of their country.

    4. fig. Of defects, errors, and the like: Fatal, vitally injurious, most serious, radical. (Passing into sense 6d.) 

1538 STARKEY England 128 You have notyd such [faults] as be most capytal. 1581 MULCASTER Positions xxxiii. (1887) 121 Immoderate exercise..a very capitall enemie to health. 1612 T. TAYLOR Comm. Titus ii. 10 (1619) 429 It is more capitall to smite the master then a stranger. 1734 tr. Rollin's Anc. Hist. (1827) II. II. 34 Hannibal's stay at Capua was a capital blemish in his conduct. 1855 PRESCOTT Philip II, II. v. (1857) 249 In the outset, he seems to have fallen into a capital error.

You seem to be applying something of use e to all circumstances, whereas it is clear from these quotes that in non-Roman law jurisdictions, capital punishment and the death penalty are entirely interchangeable, with no point of view. Note that the first reference to a capital crime dates 1526 and that of capital sentence to 1483! It would appear that you may have fallen into a capital error ;) David Underdown 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I think I got a beat. V(^^) See my reference to encycropedia britanica. Sorry you missed it. My reference was put before yours. Vapour

Capital punishment is hardly POV. Vapour said earlier that "Capital punishment, (or the death penalty,) is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses." By this definition, life sentence is the capital punishment in many countries" How can that possibly be true? If it says "the execution" of a person, how can that ever be read to mean a life sentence. I echo the comments about the lack of consensus. Or, to put it more bluntly, you asked for comments on an idea, got only negative feedback, and then did it anyway. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work (since the guidelines call for 70 percent support before a move), so I'm changing it back to reflect what the majority of people who commented argued for. JCO312 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in your case, your grasp of logic is bit weak. Capital punishment is "presume" to be synonymous with death penalty because death penalty is regarded as the most sever punishment. "the execution of a convicted criminal" part is only deduced description. If this assumption doesn't hold, this equlity doesnn't work either. With Death Penalty, you don't really need to assume anything to understand what it means. Secondly, I would like to see your source of "70 percent support" when it is clearly spelt out in the wikipedia core policy that wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy. As I have pointed out repeatedly, your side's main weakness in term of policy is it's inability to argue that CP is more NPOV than DP. You will only draw at best. In that case, if I move the title to DP, you do not have policy based argument to justify revert to CP. Of course, you may do it anyway and I won't stop you. But in that case, I have to asky why CP is better title than DP. So far, you have not given any answer for this question. Vapour

My grasp of logic is fine, thank you. It's a simple matter of reading the entire sentence for what it says. Capital punishment may be presumed to be synonymous with the death penalty because it is the most severe form of punishment, but one need not presume anything when you define it in a particular way in the opening sentence. Capital punishment is the more appropriate title since it's the modern perception (by your own admission). As far as the 70 percent rule? Quoted from the page on how to move an article (WP:RM);

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 70% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.

I assume you are not an administrator. You did not wait 5 days. There was not 70 percent support. Since you changed it in the first place, I assume you know how to change it back and will now do so. JCO312 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you quoted from a wrong place. You didn't quote from the page on "how to move an article". You quoted from Requested moves page, which is not the same. In fact, if you request to move the page, then 70% 5days waiting rule are invoked. I think this is an odd rule but hey, I didn't make this rule. Appropriate thing to do now is to put the title dispute tag in the article. We usually don't jump to voting till the discussion run it course. Then if we fail to reach consensus, we put this matter to the dispute resolution process, where arbitrator would weight both side of arguments and make a ruling.

As of DP v.s. CP, you stated "Capital punishment is the more appropriate since it's the modern perception. You really have to help me see how you made this logical connection. Are you saying Death penalty is not "the modern perception" of the subject matter? In fact, google search done previously indicated that DP is far more common reference. Are majority of google user "old fashioned"? As I sated before, for someone to say CP is better (or more appropriate) to DP as the title, one must make a positive case that CP is more NPOV than DP. I have already made my NPOV argument. DP refer to the matter of fact content of penalty while CP refer to the severity of punishment, which is then equated with death. So far, you have avoiding this NPOV issue. All your arguments seems to be that CP is synonymous with DP. I do not see how this could be used to argue that CP is a better title. Vapour

Also, Vapour apparently doesn't understand that Wikipedia titles are always in sentence case, and not all initial caps, except for proper names. There is a naming convention guideline. Since death penalty is not a proper name (like George Bush or John Kerry or Washington, D.C.), the title should be "Death penalty." But I like capital punishment better because that's what professional penologists use.--71.131.223.23 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you really help me out here. Are you saying professonal penologists does not use the term death penalty? I would like to see a source on that. Plus, I find it difficult to see how penologists is to be regarded as the authority on this issue. Vapour

Above person is correct. If you're going to change the name, at least change it properly to "Death penalty" with penalty decapitalised. I tried but it was already occupied and I didn't know what to do. Skinnyweed 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, now the title is "Death penalty". I didn't change it. Someone else did. Me no idea who. :D Vapour

I think at this point only an administrator will be able to change it. I put in a request to change it back to Capital punishment, as that was the original name and the majority of people who commented opposed the change to Death Penalty. JCO312 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone put "title dispute tag" in the article? Vapour

Ah, I found something interesting in Encycropedia Britanica.

"Death was formerly the penalty for a large number of offenses in England during the 17th and 18th centuries, but it was never applied as widely as the law provided. As in other countries, many offenders who committed capital crimes escaped the death penalty, either because juries or courts would not convict them or because they were pardoned, usually on condition that they agreed to banishment; some were sentenced to the lesser punishment of transportation to the then American colonies and later to Australia. Beginning in the Middle Ages, it was possible for offenders guilty of capital offenses to receive benefit of clergy, by which those who could prove that they were ordained priests (clerks in Holy Orders) as well as secular clerks who assisted in divine service (or, from 1547, a peer of the realm) were allowed to go free, though it remained within the judge's power to sentence them to prison for up to a year, or from 1717 onward to transportation for seven years. Because during medieval times the only proof of ordination was literacy, it became customary between the 15th and 18th centuries to allow anyone convicted of a felony to escape the death sentence by proving that he (the privilege was extended to women in 1629) could read. Until 1705, all he had to do was read (or recite) the first verse from Psalm 51 of the Bible—“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions”—which came to be known as the “neck verse” (for its power to save one's neck). To ensure that an offender could escape death only once through benefit of clergy, he was branded on the brawn of the thumb (“M” for murder or “T” for theft). Branding was abolished in 1779, and benefit of clergy ceased in 1827."

It appear that capital crime=capital punishment=death penalty doesn't work. Vapour

OK, it wasn't quite my last word... That's just saying that the sentence of capital punishment (or death penalty if you must insist) was (often) commuted to a lesser penalty. That lesser penalty was not capital punishment. It was a capital crime because capital punishment was available (even if not inflicted) David Underdown 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, more accurate reading appear to be that capital crime didn't mean death penalty. This will somewhat conflict with understanding that CP is punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Obviously, if one use "death penalty" you don't need to make reference to "capital crime" for the sake of disambiguation. As I have stated repeatedly, death penalty make matter of fact refer to the content of penalty. Capital punishment refer to a ranking as well as severity of punishment which is less NPOV. I have made somewhat more biased comparison between sodomy and anal sex.

Please give argument that CP is more NPOV than DP instead of saying CP is as good as DP". That means CP and DP are both appropriate title. Then, I really have to ask what is the reason all of you are "against" DP as the title? If you think DP would be NPOV, I would like to hear it so that we can debate it. I have given my NPOV argument but none of you have, except JCO who say capital punishment is more "modern" reference (which I think is a ridiculous claim). Is this some sort of trench warfare in a culture war? Vapour

You may find the argument that I made ridiculous, however a glance at a law dictionary will pretty clearly indicate that "capital punishment" is the more correct defintition (death penalty actually redirects to "capital punishment" in some, I have yet to find an example where the reverse is true). At best for your position, death penalty is defined using the words "capital crimes" and "capital punishment" is given the much more extensive defintion. Also, I didn't quote the wrong section, you did. If you read the text on "how to move an article you'll notice that it gives the following examples of when it's appropriate to unilaterally move a page:

The title has been misspelled.

The title does not follow the wiki's naming conventions (such as Wikipedia's naming conventions or Wikibooks naming policy).

The scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed.

Clearly, none of these were met. You put a question up for debate, no one agreed with you (still, no one has agreed with you) and you then went ahead and changed it on your own. JCO312 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your claim "a glance at a law dictionary will pretty clearly indicate that "capital punishment" is the more correct defintition" dubious at best. Correct definition of what? Death Penalty? :-) And weren't you arguing that death penalty and capital punishment is used interchangeably? May be, because capital punishment emphasise ranking rather than content of the penalty, it is more popular use in legal studies as it link directly to sentencing. But this is the exact reason I stated death penalty to be NPOV because it is a matter of fact reference to the content of penalty. I have given slightly more biased example of anal sex and sodomy. It also explain why google have more reference to death penalty (or anal sex) than capital punishment (sodomies).

As of policies validity of my renaming action, you are backtracking your position. You made specific reference to majoritarian procedure, which turn out to be totally wrong reference. In backtracking, you are again misrepresenting your reference. No where in the document does it refer to valid examples of "unilateral" move. Moreover, you are implying somewhat that NPOV and other wikipedia core policies do not apply in naming and only these naming convention apply in deciding article title, which is categorically wrong assertion. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with my policies argument. But you are pushing it when you argue that my move was some sort of clear techincal violation of categorically specified wikipedia policies. Vapour

Had the article started at Death penalty, I'd have been just as much against moving it the other way, to me there seemed no reason to upset the status quo. I don't see any difference between the terms, certainly not that one is more NPOV than the other. You were the one who was adamant the page page be moved, so it was up to you to win a consensus for that move, which you didn't, that's the main issue here for me, lack of process. No-one else seems to find your arguments convincing, and I've tried to explain why. You still don't quite seem to understand about capital crimes either. The only sentence the judge could pass if a defendant was found guilty of a capital crime was death. The process of commutation was by exercise of the Royal Prerogative (specifically that of clemency and pardon), initially by direct petition of the Monarch, later the exercise moved to various Ministers of State, rather than through the courts, or as the article you found states, by being to claim benefit of clergy. To a large extent this was a Legal fiction, it was perfectly well known that the people claiming this weren't clergy, but it was an easy way to avoid the hassle of commutation etc. The jury often performed mental gymnastics to avoid a capital charge being proved, the documents I referred you to earlier show that in the case of a theft, the jury would often find that the objects stolen were under the value of £2, and so the defendant would be found guilty of a non-capital offence.

Incidentally, are you also going to propose a move for Capital punishment in Belarus, Capital punishment in the United Kingdom and all the other country-based articles? It seems very odd to have the main article at one title and the others using a different standard. David Underdown 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with JCO, JCO is now making argument based on wikipedia policies that CP is more NPOV than DP. On the other hand, I don't see the relevance of your argument to wikipedia policies. You are saying you are going to be an obstructionist either way on the account that you are neutral to this issue? I would love to see wikipedia policies justification for such argument. Moreover, "no one agree is you" is an appeal to majority, logical fallacy both in general term and in wikipedia specific term. Moreover, your lengthy explanation needed to equate capitalcrime->capitalpunishment->death penalty is one of another reason death penalty is superior title. It appear that capital punishment is a "substitute" term for death penalty. With death penalty, we don't need this lengty disambiguation while legal techinicality can be explained in an appropriate section. Lastly, you seems to argue that the title should stay on the accoun of the fact that other relevant page use "CP" already. It is another argument based on conservatism/tradition which has no basis on policies. Please debate the issue on its merit (i.e. NPOV). Your attachment to "old way of life" doesn't have much merit except sentimentality. Vapour

While we're talking completeness, if the page remains here, you should also correct the double-redirection of Judicial execution and re-word the opening sentence to start with the title of the article. Assuming this is the right place to comment on the request for move, I support the move back to the original name, primarily because that is where it started and the move did not come from any consensus. In general, the titles of related articles and references to the topic are a toss-up between "Death penalty" and "Capital punishment" in what I've seen. The two terms mean the same thing, and there isn't really a strong reason to prefer one or the other. That said, it would have remained at "Capital punishment" had Vapour not intervened unilaterally, and it should probably be put back. (By the way, Vapour really ought to sign with the 4-tilde signature [~~~~].)Dpv 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a request for move is made. I guess whoever in charge would make decision on the account of debate here. S/He may move the title back or he may actually wait until this debate end so to save hussle. I would say it is more apporpriate to add title dispute tag at the top of the article but I don't know how? Vapour

Arguments section (again)

The arguments section, as structured, is in violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, as it does not allow for counterpoints (I tried to add a rebuttal to a particularly egregious claim, and was immediately reverted), and the arguments are phrased in the voice of the adherents (e.g.: "The death penalty is the only possible deterence [sic!] for those criminals who are already serving a life sentence.") Moreover, the section links to a main article Capital punishment debate, but does not actually summarize that article -- instead, users are adding new material to this article, typically randomly collected URLs mixed with populist views presented as fact. Wikipedia is not a soap box, it is meant to present a concise summary of the scholarly debate on the subject. Popular views outside scientific, political and philosophical discourse are best cited in the form of opinion polls, not in the unsourced and unhelpful "Some people argue" format.

I have tagged the section with a "cleanup" tag and would like to ask for it to be completely rewritten, so that it actually becomes a summary of the main article it links to.--Eloquence* 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is already a summary of the pros and cons. Turning the list into an area of debate will expand the section too much. You can write in the opponent section the opponent position on deterrence research. If anything needs a rewrite its that debate page. ER MD 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it is sometimes difficult for partisan warrior to understand that there are such thing as neutral argument/opinion. The "capital punishment debate" article make that very clear. Most academic debate are nuianced and not necessarily for and against. The current arrangement prejuidice the debate from the outset and hence inherently NPOV. Plus, pro/anti split is inevitably untenable because the debate is dynamic and continuous. As Eloquence stated, how do you present counter-counter-counter rebuttal with pro/anti format? In fact, the previous merger of pro/anti argument happended for that reason. Culture warriors are just repeating the process which has been done before. Vapour

It doesn't work like that, ER MD. Sectioning "pros" and "cons" tears apart logical threads and makes structuring the content systematically impossible. Aside from that, it is well known that bullet point list structures lend themselves to "hit and run" additions of questionable new material without sources. "Oh, I have an opinion on capital punishment, and this is the place to add it to!" So we end up with an arbitrary study from an economics journal alleging "14-19 lifes saved" per execution, which even many capital punishment scholars who argue in support of the practice would consider an utterly bizarre pseudoscientific pamphlete -- and the only reason we have it in the main article is that someone thought it made a nice bullet point.

A news organization like CNN or Fox News might come up with this kind of "pro/contra" schema which is firmly rooted in the most recent, most attention-grabbing claims, but an encyclopedia needs to make an effort to summarize the breadth of evidence and opinion that comes from hundreds of studies and essays that have been published on these matters over the decades (centuries when talking about philosophy). Here in the main article, we should primarily describe the core arguments without concrete evidence one way or another, and we can attempt to summarize some of the methodologies used and different trends. The arguments from and about specific studies should be in the capital punishment debate article, with the possible exception of landmark studies and publications (as recognized by scholars through awards, very frequent citation, and so on). --Eloquence* 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This subject gets riddled with POV especially with the liberal bias on wikipedia. I often have tray and defend the proponent positions from distortions. The last battle I was engaged in was a few peopl who tried to change the intro line on the subject to "capital pushishment is state-sanactioned killing." In addition, the points supporting capital punishment are often rewritten to distort the proponent view. i also had a battle with someone who wished to censor the 2000 gallop poll numbers. They didn't like them since they still showed a predominance of support for the issue. I would support the removal of the list since it is mostly a soapbox. I would argue further still that the entire debate page be re-organized, as its current headings are POV. In my opinion, the debate page should be restricted to the main points of contention as listed by the DPIC, amnesty international, and by proponent arguments such as prodeathpenalty.com. The philosophy jargon needs to be removed--its unencylcopedic. Each topic should be a certain issue, such as innocence, deterrence etc... with each topic having a proponent and an opponent viewpoint. In reality, this will likely not occur since the bias in the debate article is pretty strong and there will be incessant objections by the people who wrote the article since it would mean the removal of their POV. ER MD 06:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. But I agree with you that that debate article is a bit heavy on the philosophical side. Skinnyweed 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we damb it down the writing. Instead of saying "utilitarian dispute", we could say something olike "one dispute is whether DP benefit the society as a whole". It is more apporpiate from wikipedia perspective to make any article more accessible. Vapour

The main English Wikipedia does not need to be accessible to three year olds or the completely illiterate. We have the Simple English Wikipedia for that. Most teenagers and adults (in developed English-speaking countries) know a little bit of what utilitarianism is, or least they are vaguely familiar with the term's general connotation. Also, you mean "dumb down" the writing. Your misspelling is the funniest mangling of "dumb down" I have ever seen. --Coolcaesar 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Adult with highschool education and above" is good idea of our target audience. Deontological is bit heavy in my opinion. I think "a priori" is better. As of my Engrish, I try to compensate with better understanding of subject matter. :-) You may be suprised to learn that I wrote and edited large part of the debate article. The current philosphy/law/humanright/economics sectioning is my edit. Prease feer fleet to collect my Engrish. V(^_^) Vapour

Is there really a consensus to delete the entire section? For anyone looking for the reasons people support or oppose the death penalty, they aren't going to find it here, and just a link to "Capital punishment debate" isn't as good as the abstract bullet-list. I put it back in, and someone took it out again; I just wonder if anyone else thinks we should keep it in. RHammond 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why?

I can't be bothered to read through all that stuff above, but can someone in one sentence explain to me why someone chose to move this from a pefectly good and coherent title to "Death penalty". It appears to have been done out of process, please move it back. Jooler 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the title would get stucked. Sorry about that. A request for change is already made. We can simply change the wording of intro and make it coherent at least as a temporaly measure but it is opposed by some who want to bring it back to the original. It's silly because most say DP and CP is equally good. Vapour

Most (meaning everyone but you) also say that changing it in the first place was a mistake. As I said earlier, the legal dictionaries are clearly favoring CP over DP, which is reason enough in my mind to have it back the way it was. JCO312 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The vast majority of people who are actually seriously involved in the debate in the United States call it capital punishment. --Coolcaesar 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment when I made my move. I had no objection for a revert, though subsequently, I have questioned people who equate CP to DP then in turn prefer CP. I also specifically alluded to possibility that people who object to my change will engage in the debate which is exactly what happened. If someone want to imply that my move edit is somewhat "selfish" they are mistaken.

So far JCO is the only one who is making meaningfull argument in wikipedia context. I don't agree with his reasoning but he is at least making case for CP. The rest is arguing CP=DP hence CP better than DP, which I do not consider as a valid argument. As of "vast majority in u.s.", google appearently shows that DP is far more common reference than CP. U.S. bias in wikipedia article is specifically ruled out in wikipedia. Vapour

Anyway, it is easier to follow argument if DP/CP debate is separated from this argument about technical legality of my move edit. I will no longer respond to this topic in above section but do so here. My question is whether this title dispute is to be decided by normal dispute resolution process, which would produce semi permanent solution, or by "requested move" process, which produce only temporaly one because it's about technical legality of my initial edit. The later procedure also takes majoritarian approach while the former does not necessarily do so. Vapour

Could someone please put the title dispute tag at the top of the article. I know how to use "neutrality dispute tag" but I don't know how to create a tag. Vapour

Coolcaesar did not say that the vast majority of people in the U.S. used CP, he said the vast majority of people "who are actually seriously involved in the debate" use it, and he is correct. JCO312 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess Amnesty International is not seriously involved in the debate in the United State. [4] Vapour

I'll quote him again, Coolcaesar did not say that the EVERYONE in the U.S. involved in the debate used CP, he said the vast majority do, and he remains correct. JCO312 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn right! Vapour is simply out of his league here. Furthermore, the U.S. dominates the debate because we're the largest and most advanced country that still regularly uses capital punishment. --Coolcaesar 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I should point out that capital punishment is overwhelmingly favored in the U.S., and supporters come from all political backgrounds. After all, my state, California, one of the most liberal states in the nation, voted to kick out Rose Bird in 1986 because of her judicial activism against capital punishment. CP and three-strikes laws get bad guys off the streets and therefore reduce crime. Of course, they're also very expensive to carry out, which is another issue that I won't go into right now. --Coolcaesar 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is simply bogus. Vast majority in U.S. use capital punishment? Really? What is your source of your claim. I would love to see it. Now let consider the fact that even if one add up all non U.S. English speaking countries such as Australia, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, it can't add up to U.S. population. Moreover, U.S. produce most DP/CP related seach result. Is it not unreasonable to say that google search in English reflect what is going on in U.S.? Google "exact phrase" search indicate vast majority (loughly 3 to 1) use DP over CP. Even if one (incorrectly) assume that everyone outside U.S. use DP instead of CP, how do one substantiate the claim that "vast majority in U.S. use capital punishment"? And let consider those "who are actually seriously involved in the debate". What better way to measure this than to use google scholar search. Let remember that academic debate does not have u.s. exceptionalism. "Exact phrase" google scholar search indicate that majority of people (24 to 18) who are very seriously involved in the debate use death penalty. And let check for news media. Google news search, which undoubtedly reflect u.s. media in regard to this issue, show vast majority (11 to 2) use death penalty. It appear that the vast majority of people in U.S. use DP. You should switch your camp and come to my side. U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A! V(^_^) Vapour

Searching google does make any of our claims bogus. Look at a legal dictionary, the entries for Capital Punishment are more extensive. Look at Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw. They have categories on "capital punishment," not "death penalty." We uniformely describe crimes elibigle for capital punishment as capital crimes. I have never seen the phrase "death crimes" used, anywhere, ever. Lawyers are called capital defense lawyers not "death defense lawyers." The Fifth Amendment says that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Sorry, but I truely believe that capital punishment is the best title for this article. JCO312 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, making up non existent words such as death crime or death defence to argue that death penalty is inappropriate word is spurious. In fact you are somewhat making my point. You say capital punishment is tied to capital crime. "Capital" denote ultimate or prime or ultimate, making reference to severity or significance. So it can refer to a city (London) as well as crime or penalty. "Death" is a matter of fact reference to the content. For this reason, death city makes no sense. In reverse, death penalty is more matter of fact (NPOV) reference than capital punishment. Moreover, your claim that that "We (American?) uniformely describe crimes elibigle for capital punishment as capital crimes". A simple google search shows that the claim of uniformality is not sustainable even in U.S.A.

Secondly, your made a claim in term of general usage. Therefore, google search with few millions sample is infintely more authoritative source than your sample (few entries dictionaries which subsequently equate DP and CP anyway). Even if we somewhat restrict ourselves to academic reference (which include legal dictionary or encycropedia), google scholar search, which make comprehensive search of academic papers, shows that death penalty is more common reference. You can also make few other type of search. Try using google news, which makes comprehensive reference to journalism. It shows overwhelming usage of death penalty over capital punishment. Or try using ask.com search which uses subject-specific link popularity to compute "authoritativeness" of a search result. Again it shows that death penalty is more common reference. Most top search for DP are from U.S as well. Capital punishment may be more common usage in sentencing which is a specific legal procedure in jurisprudence (which explain legal dictionary reference). This restcited context cannot be used to argue for commonality of usage of capital punishment both in public, journalism and academic world. This is another indication that DP is more NPOV than CP. Anyway, if you want to use few dictionaries entry as your evidence, feel free to do so. We appear to be heading to arbitration process. Consensus is prefered but not to the extent of filbuster. Ultimately, I don't have to convince the opposing advocate(s). I only have to convince the jury (arbitrator) that my case is more NPOV than yours. Vapour

I hope we don't need to jump to that step so quickly. WP:ARB says it is a last resort, and we should probably see if we can get this done via consensus if we can, before even asking for a mediator (see WP:M). Below, we can see that the survey in favor of moving back to "Capital punishment" was unanimous. It's probably not the final word, as not all interested parties participated, and many respondents were more bothered by the process that resulted in the name change than by the proposed new title itself.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the arguments I have seen are the following:

• The title "Capital punishment" has a non-neutral POV, as it makes assumptions about modern understandings of the term. At some time in the past "capital punishment" may not have been synonymous with application of the "death penalty".
• The term "Capital punishment" is the only entry of the two, or the one with the detailed explanation, in such references as Black's Law Dictionary and Wiktionary.
• The two terms are close enough in meaning and in overall usage that there is no need to change titles.

I have my own conclusions about the validity of these arguments, and I'm sure you do, too. It seems that we do not have unanimity, but nobody can expect that. Can we just go through the move request process, vote on it, accept the result, and get closure? I'm sure the mediators have enough on their hands. I'll defer to Vapour to initiate the process on WP:RM, but in the interest of closure, I'll initiate it in a day or two if nobody else does. Dpv 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your attempt to bring closure to the issue, I don't think another request for a move is appropriate. If you look at the votes below, 4 out of the 5 that gave explanations for their vote supported going back to Capital punishment for substantive reasons, not just because of the lack of process. The failure of Vapour to participate doesn't render the vote invalid, it would simply have been 1 vote against. Simply having another vote seems to pointless. Frankly, I thought the issue was solved, but if Vapour feels the need to take it further than he's free to do so. Also, it's my understanding is that the next step would be mediation, not arbitration. JCO312 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Vapour considers it closed, we'll leave it be. If not, Vapour can request a move on WP:RM. Dpv 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparent conflict between articles on juvenile execution

In this article it says "The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime) has become increasingly rare. The only countries still officially supporting the practice are Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen". However, in Roper_v._Simmons it says "Since then, however, each of those seven countries has either abolished the death penalty for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice." This discrepancy should be sorted out, with recent authoritative sources of course. I'll leave it to someone who knows more about this than I do. McKay 06:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Roper article needs some work, as it has some odd POV paragraphs (including the one you quoted from, which seems to suggest that the US "stands alone" in executing juveniles, in an entry about a case which bars the practice. JCO312 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move back to Capital punishment

I got a note saying that there ought to be a tag at the top in order for this to actually be resolved, along with voting. Many people have already expressed their opinions above, and hopefully will take the time to do so again here. JCO312 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• In lieu of any consensus for a page-move to Death penalty, the article has been reverted to its original name, Capital punishment. However, continued discussion of the potential names is encouraged: there is a possibly valid argument to be made for a move to "death penalty", but consensus should be built through thorough discussion before such a change, if one were to be made. -Silence 10:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support For all the reasons I stated above. It never should have been changed in the first place (there was nothing but opposition at the time it was moved), a move back will put the article back in conformity with the other articles on this topic (e.g., Capital punishment in the United States), and finally Capital punishment is the more accepted definition in the legal community and among those participating in the debate on the topic. JCO312 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. "Capital punishment" is the formal, legal term, yet it's widely understood by the general public. Death penalty should redirect to capital punishment. -Aude (talk contribs) 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 17:25 (UTC)
• Support. I agree completely with JCO312's position above. And then someone get an admin to block Vapour for a while for acting in bad faith and failing to respect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. --Coolcaesar 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the reasons noted above and support changing the title of this article to conform to its formal, legal usage.JasonCNJ 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This should be done automatically, as the move to Death Penalty was out of process. Jooler 10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty in China's special administrative regions

Just out of interest... As Hong Kong and Macau are currently governed by the "one country, two systems" rule which implies a 'western' legal system (based on former UK and Portugal laws), does this mean that Hong Kong and Macau do not have death penalty? I know both have their own legal system seperate from mainland China (mainland China, which does have death penalty) but I'm not sure about the existance or non-existance of death penalty in Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR.

See Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China JCO312 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That page states "The Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau have separate judiciaries and local laws and do not have capital punishment. This has created a barrier to the creation of proper extradition laws between the SARs and the mainland. It is quite a concern to many residents of the SARs that in many crimes with concurrent jurisdiction the central authorities have claimed the right to try, and potentially sentence to die, residents of Hong Kong and Macau". Does that mean that China's central government can sentence an inhabitant of HK/Macau to death by overruling local Hong Kong/Macau courts?

Error in Map

The map of which countries continue to employ capital punishment is misleading. Several of the United States are colored so as to indicate that the death penalty has been abolished "in practice." However, in all 50 of the United States, one can be tried and executed for federal crimes. Splitting the U.S. into multiple states on that map is misleading with respect to the american dual systems of justice (state and federal) and is clearly U.S.-centric since no country was divided into provinces.

Someone should fix it.

Selket 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the federal criminal justice system is much smaller than the state systems and rarely executes people (compared to, say, Texas). I see no problem with the current map. Also, it merely reflects the unique nature of American federalism and the American system of justice. Most countries think we are nuts to have two parallel federal and state court systems with concurrent jurisdiction over a lot of things. --Coolcaesar 16:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Coolcaesar that the fact that the federal system permits it is not a very good reason to change it. That being said, I'm tempted to suggest taking down the map, since there are clearly some errors in it. It's certainly not true that only Michigan has officially abolished capital punishment. I'm not sure that it's worth going through and trying to correct it. JCO312 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the map needs to be changed. (Indeed, I have said so already on its talk page.) The US federal government has the death penalty on the books, and actively enforces it. The fact that the federal death penalty applies in a lot less cases than the State death penalty isn't really relevant -- much as a country still has the death penalty whether it uses it rarely or frequently, so the death penalty still applies in every US state, so long as the federal government actively uses the death penalty.

I would add that therese is nothing unique about American federalism... the same situation, of parallel state and federal criminal law, occurs in a lot of other countries. In fact, exactly the same legal situation involving federalism and the death penalty as now occurs in the US used to occur in Australia -- the death penalty used to exist under both Australian federal law and the law of each of the Australian states. To abolish the death penalty in Australia, it was necessary to abolish it both by a federal law and by separate laws in each of the states. As the article Use of capital punishment worldwide, this occurred "Queensland in 1922, Tasmania in 1968, the Commonwealth in 1973, Northern Territory in 1973, Victoria in 1975, South Australia in 1976, ACT in 1983, Western Australia in 1984, and New South Wales in 1985." Thus, there was about 50 years in which the death penalty had been abolished in Queensland, and people could still be executed for crimes federal committed in Queensland -- exactly the same situation as exists in abolitionist states in the US today. And I would argue, that whether its Queensland 1922-1973, or one of the abolitionist states in the US today, its the same deal -- so long as the death penalty exists for federal crimes, it exists in all of the states of the federation, even in those in which the death penalty has been abolished for state crimes. --SJK 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the map showing the U.S. states as there were errors in several states. As well I don't believe showing all the states is necessary. Rmhermen 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with SJK, in as much as 1) the U.S. is unique as it is the only country I'm aware of that currently has the dual system, 2) the death penalty techincally applies in every state in the sense that the federal government has it on the books, but since federal jurisdiction is so limited compared to state government jurisdiction, it remains noteworthy to distinguish between the states that have the death penalty and those that don't. My main objection to the map was that it was incorrect, but I don't have any problems with the way that Rmhermen has edited it. JCO312 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the PNG map, which is cleaner and has fixed at least one mistake with other countries. There is already a note stating that the US is considered retentionist for statistical purposes; if certain states' information is inaccurate, that's one thing, but this map gives a better picture of what the situation is like. Also, if by not including all states you mean the lines between states (i.e. just coloring the regions within the country) that is also another matter. This map is cleaner and more precise. Moulder 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint Neutrality

I question the neutrality of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. The chapter heading to Genesis 9 of the Church's printing of the KJV specifically justifies the death penalty. I ask for a citation for the neutrality on this issue. Furthermore, the Church prefers to be referred to as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or The Church of Jesus Christ, or just the Church.

THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES CALLED GENESIS CHAPTER 9 Noah and his sons commanded to multiply and fill the earth—They are given dominion over all forms of life—Death penalty decreed for murder—God shall not again destroy the earth by a flood—Canaan cursed; Shem and Japheth blessed.

see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/9

They also used to teach the controversial doctrine of Blood Atonement. Due to this doctrine, Utah used to be one of the few states to have the firing squad as a method of execution. The law was changed in 2004 with the consent of the Church [5]. Idaho still has the firing squad as a method [6].

The article is wrong from a historical point of view. Now, the church may in fact take a neutral view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Recent reversions

JCO312, I just noticed that I actually reverted back to the version of 15:43, 29 September 2006. My idea was to remove the crucifixion image, which I do not think belongs here, at least not with the "ethnic minority" caption. Sorry if I have been too clumsy here. Jbhood 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't England still technically have the death penalty?

I thought that England still technically retained the death penalty for treason, but judging from the map I would be wrong. Is such a law (regarding the death penalty for treason) still in effect or has it been discontinued? --Zooba 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is no longer in effect, as of the 1990s. JCO312 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/263570.stm — Alan^✉ 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

effectiveness

No discussion of the effectiveness (or studies on the effectiveness) of the death penalty? Does it actually deter criminals, etc etc?

Can't find it

What is the theory that any and all crimes are punishable by death?

Pancapital Punishment.Lestrade 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Abolish it

This is way too slanted towards people who want to have a death penalty.

Our main concern should always be primarily the well-being and contentment of the inmates who are on death row.Lestrade 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Keep an eye out for vandals

Someone reduced the already short Islam section to one sentence that was deliberately defamatory. It went unnoticed. Keep an eye out people. Thanks. Angrynight 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment

can someone please explain to me what capital punishment is in kid terms so that i can actually understand it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.204.177.211 (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

the death penelty. death is used as punishment.

Russia not executing people?

It seems to me that Russia is indeed executing people, ex spies, journalists etc. Perhaps they should be flagged according to this? Even if they don't set an open trial to decide these executions, they still represent death penalty! 14:20 21 December 2006 CET User:Royk

Russia is not executing people like USA executes it's very own citizens 14:20 29 December 2006 CET User:Bushmannn

Can you keep your theories to your self until you have factual EVIDENCE to back up your claims?

-G

Innocent

Not much about people who have been innocent and executed? For example http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/false-justice.html http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Huma/HumaLine.htm

Shouldn't we collect and list the names of innocent people who have been executed? This is not merely a question for conjecture.Fconaway 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No person has been proven innocent after being executed, so it would be a very short list indeed.RageGarden 05:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Do you mean that there has been no actual court case after an execution that proved the condemned innocent? It seems I have heard of people being executed for a crime before DNA evidence was possible, only later to be exonerated by DNA evidence. I find it hard to believe that 100% of USA executed individuals were guilty. Eyknough 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was the 10 Rillington Place case in England where an innocent man, (Timothy Evans) was excuted, and this led the way to England doing away with capital punishment. Then, there was the Let Him Have It case, where the person executed did not murder the policeman, but, was a partner of the person who pulled the trigger. The executed man, (Derek Bentley,was in police custody at the time the office was killed!), was later pardoned by the government. In the USA, how good a lawyer a person can afford can make a big difference in what happens to them in court.204.80.61.110 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

How about the 20 people executed in Salem, Massachusetts after being found guilty in the Salem witch trials of 1692 and 1693? The only crime they were probably really guilty of was being contaimated with bad rye grain.204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Addition to capital punishment in Islam

One verse which clearly illustrates the possibility of capital punishment is in the Qur’an verse 5:32. “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” Other verses reinforce the idea that, for example, in a case of muder, the victim's family decides the punishment- with the death penalty as a possibilty. Verse 5:32 notes that compassion is the best choice. "Mischief in the land" (e.g. treason) is also punishable by death. Verse 2:178 further discusses capital punishment, in the case of murder; “O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.”

Here, it is further clarified that capital punishment is only just with the rule of equality (slave for slave, etc., a man killing a woman would not be justly punishable by death), and the idea of the victim's family receiving a payment to spare the murderer's life is presented. This payment, some Muslim thinkers hold, is more constructive in a case of a father being murdered -- the murdered father's family has a better chance of survival without him if there is monetary compensation, whereas capital punishment would leave them without a breadwinner. Thelofted 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)thelofted

Abolition of capital punishment

Can anybody here help me finding points for the abolition of capital punishment, ....thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulful talk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Voting and discussion:

• Support: We should call the death penalty what it is: penalizing someone with death. "Capital punishment" is a vague term, mainly used in the United States by those supporting the death penalty. Nobbie 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been debated and voted on. See #17[7] below. I moved the prior votes, excluding the one person who voted for Capital punishment just because the Death penalty move was improper. JCO312 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the arguments below, because I don't think they make much sense and are not in line with Wikipedia principles. It may be that "capital punishment" is the more usual legal term, but it's NOT the most widely used term. "Death penalty" is more common and according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style it shoud therefore be used. Nobbie 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This point has been argued, at length, already. It's not just that it's the more usual legal term, it's that it's the formal term. Crimes subject to capital punishment are not called "death crimes," they are called "capital crimes." JCO312 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Death Penalty is almost "slang-ish" to use in that the proper "Capital Punishment" is so well known and common in its own right. 205.157.110.11 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note: Anonymous IPs are not allowed in votings according to Wikipedia policy. In addition, the IP address in this case is shared by several users (Home Depot). Nobbie 19:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I asked an administrator that I trust so that I would be sure (you can see his response at the bottom of my talk page, and he informs me that all users, including IP's, are invited to share their views, although the admin who ultimately decides whether there is consensus to move the page may ultimately choose to discount this persons opinion. Please do not alter other people's posts in future. Cheers, JCO312 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I hear capital punishment on news programs too, and there's no reason death penalty can't redirect to capital punishment, which technically promotes teaching the term to those who wouldn't know the meaning otherwise. Probably not a strong argument, but I still think the media usually uses capital punishment. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. For some reason, we seem to go through this request every few months. I realize my vote is listed below, but I am writing again because I remain unpersuaded that a move is a good idea. Capital punishment is the formal, legal usage and Wikipedia is designed to be a formal encyclopedia. Thus, Wikipedia should reflect the formal term. Nobbie said that capital punishment is "vague," but I have yet to see any support for that. I oppose the proposal to move the capital punishment page. JasonCNJ 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the nominator can bring forward any evidence to suggest that the term is actually exclusive to American English as claimed. Dekimasu 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not exclusive to American English. If you read David Underdown's posts here[8] you'll see that the term is also used in British English (where, I believe, Mr. Underdown hails from). JCO312 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, "death penalty" sounds too informal and there's nothing wrong with "capital punishment". Recury 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, all people who specialize in fighting this issue, on both sides, use the term "capital punishment." All lawyers who litigate these cases refer to capital punishment. --Coolcaesar 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes from Previous Survey that FAVORED Capital punishment as the name of the article

• Support For all the reasons I stated above. It never should have been changed in the first place (there was nothing but opposition at the time it was moved), a move back will put the article back in conformity with the other articles on this topic (e.g., Capital punishment in the United States), and finally Capital punishment is the more accepted definition in the legal community and among those participating in the debate on the topic. JCO312 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. "Capital punishment" is the formal, legal term, yet it's widely understood by the general public. Death penalty should redirect to capital punishment. -Aude (talk contribs) 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 17:25 (UTC)
• Support. I agree completely with JCO312's position above. And then someone get an admin to block Vapour for a while for acting in bad faith and failing to respect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. --Coolcaesar 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the reasons noted above and support changing the title of this article to conform to its formal, legal usage.JasonCNJ 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck wasn't it moved before when there was so much consensus? Now there's no consensus at all. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of confusing because the votes above say "support." They were from a previous survey which occurred when an editor moved the page to Death penalty without any consensus. So, the votes above all favor capital punishment as the name. So do all the opposes in the current survey. Consequently, there's overwhelming consensus for Capital punishment as the name. JCO312 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anti-capital punishment NGO reports

The article states "Reports from NGOs opposed to the death penalty tend to publicise the view that abolition is a global trend." This is an unreferenced assertion and doesn't really seem to have a place in the section it is under (Global distribution...). It might not even be relevant to the article. If a reference is found then perhaps it could be under Public Opinion or International Organisations. At the moment it looks like someone (the editor who added it) is saying "NGOs opposed to the death penalty try to misrepresent true public opinion by exaggerating or lying about the supposed abolitionist trend". It is a loaded statement of opinion. I will state that I'm personally against the death penalty, however I am happy for this statement to remain if [a] it is properly referenced, perhaps a review of NGO reports which substantiates the claim, and [b] it is put into the correct context within the article. Ooooooooo 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a very similar issue, but this statement

In demographic terms, many retentionist countries have large populations and high population growth. When the relative demographic proportion between retentionist and abolitionist countries is taken into account, this may indicate an underlying trend of increase in retentionist population, which is seemingly shifted in favor of the number of abolitionist countries when new countries switch to being abolitionist.

has seemed rather weird to me for a while. I've finally sat down and actually correlated the history of executions with historical population figures, and it turns out the speculation in it is just that - empty speculation.

According to my data (which, admittedly, does not have "execution" status for all countries, so about 10% of the world population do not appear in any of the three groups I have), the proportion of the world population DEFINITELY living in totally abolitionist countries has increased from ~2% in 1940 to 20% in 2006; that of countries which I definitely know to practice the death penalty has fallen from ~90% to ~50% - though that excludes India and other countries I consider likely not to perform further executions (> 10 years without an execution, moratorium, etc. I included India since executions there are definitely extremely rare, to the point that all but one of the indian states would be considered de facto abolitionist if they were considered independent countries.)

It's certainly not publishable research, or enough to be included in the main article text, but it's very clear: the percentage of the population in totally abolitionist countries has risen near-monotonically since 1940. It is true that in the absence of further abolition, it would probably decrease to about 19% in 2030 - but as at least one country is planning to abolish the death penalty in 2007, that seems unlikely to me.

If anyone wants to save any of the text quoted above, please restore it carefully. Otherwise, it's gone as debunked speculation.

RandomP 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hypocritical" bit

I'm removing

It is also argued that capital punishment is a hypocritical punishment, especially in murder cases, as it implies killing a certain individual is wrong before exacting the same action upon them.

The dangling gerund aside, I'd like a good source before including any statement along the lines of "people argue using X as punishment for someone doing X is hypocritical" - it's analogous to saying "making a thief pay a fine is hypocritical because it implies taking away money from someone against their will is wrong while actually doing so", and, frankly, I don't really believe anyone notable is arguing that way.

Note I'm not arguing for or against the statement, and don't want to do so. If you want the statement included, please provide proper sources (and preferably proper grammar, though with good sources that can be fixed) that demonstrate it is an opinion common enough to warrant inclusion in a brief summary of the capital punishment controversy. Whether or not the statement about people arguing that way is included is independent of whether the argument actually holds merit.

RandomP 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Death sentence vs Capital punishment

I think it's a bit of a problem that both death sentence and execution redirect here, even though the article is virtually exclusively about judicial executions following a Western-style trial. I believe it's not uncommon for death sentences to be issued in accordance with the letter of a law only for them to be commuted automatically; certainly the number of death sentences far exceeds the number of judicial executions.

It also doesn't really fit in with the "Criminal procedure" box, where "Execution" should probably be a post-conviction event.

My suggestion would be to either have separate articles on death sentences and executions, or somewhat independent sections in a common article (this is what the current redirect suggests).

I don't really think "capital punishment" would be a good name for an article that is about death sentences that mostly do not result in actual executions.

I'm a bit worried that the impact of these articles might depend quite crucially on how they're split up, and that making that decision based on usage counts isn't the best way to go. As an analogy, should a hypothetical language where a word meaning "white man" is used more often than one meaning "other human" have a long article on the former (and prefer the concept in other articles? list GDP per white men, maybe, rather than GDP per capita?) and restrict the latter to other humans?

I think this article is similarly, if not as drastically, biased to consider only the most acceptable (or least unacceptable) instances of "people deciding others should be killed for their crimes" (I honestly can't think of a good term that means precisely that - i.e., includes retributory/"justice" killings not following a formal judicial process, but also formal judicial processes involving a death sentence but no actual executions).

Right now, it appears there is no coherent discussion (or, indeed, any obvious place to put it) whatsoever of:

• the impact of death sentences pre-execution (solitary confinement, psychological problems, pre-execution suicide)
• death sentences that are never intended or expected to be executed
• death sentences issued in absentia, after the death of the accused, or in other situations where the accused is not available for execution
• formal death sentences not following a trial (I believe the Rushdie fatwa might be one of those?)
• death sentences that are overturned prior to execution

RandomP 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

states

does anyone no of a list of the states that have abolished the death penalty?137.87.66.6 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean nations or U.S. States? JCO312 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

US states sorry about that 137.87.66.6 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital punishment in the United States The infobox has a list. JCO312 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much 137.87.66.6 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'capital' punishment so called?

I have read through the wikipedia entry on capital punishment but (unless I missed it) I didn't see a reference to why 'capital' means that the sentence for the perpetrator's if found guilty is that their life is forfeit. Can anyone reading this comment come up with why capital punishment is so called? 62.136.15.232 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in there but seems to have been removed at some point:

'The word "capital" is derived from the Latin "capitalis," which means "concerning the head" and thence, metaphorically, "deadly" or "mortal", or from the related Latin "capital/capitale", a capital crime. To be subjected to capital punishment means to lose one's head, literally or figuratively.'

Maybe it should be put back? David Underdown 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a secondary reference to the fact that a definition of capital is “chief in importance” also relating to the Latin, capitalis. This is the most extreme punishment that a state can impose.68.62.132.235 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

also in Vatican!!!!!!

In Vatican state the Capital punishment is theoretical legal You can see i vatican law = "Legge Vaticana 7 giugno 1929, n. 11, art. 4" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.7.244.53 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Death penalty is NOT banned in Michigan in 1846-7

It is for all crime - except for a treason. That's big difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.61.48 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, But Death Penalty is Banned in Michigan

Article IV, Section 46, of the Michigan Constitution, which became effective on January 1, 1964, provides as follows:

"No law shall be enacted providing for the penalty of death."

As the official commentary to the section indicates, in 1846, the Michigan Legislature abolished the death penalty except in the case of treason. In 1964, the prohibition on capital punishment was written into the Constitution, and the exception for treason was eliminated. In the view of the Framers of the Constitution, treason is more a matter of federal concern than state concern. Thus, since January 1, 1964, there has been no death penalty in Michigan for any crime, and, absent a change in the Michigan Constitution, the Michigan Legislature has no authority to enact one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.3.95 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

KILL THEM IS TO NOT MAKE DEM SUFFA - LIL JOHN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.70.130 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion listed under non-criminal homocide?

Doesn't this seem to be an unfounded statement? There is no mention of homicide in the wikipedia article on abortion, nor is there mention of abortion as murder in the homicide article. If someone could show me any legal precedent for abortion to be listed under non-criminal homicide, great, but it seems to be far too loaded of an issue to list abortion as murder without reference.Vigsxxx 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Death penalty banned in China?

Regarding the sentence: "The death penalty was briefly banned in China between 747 and 759." I need to ask, do we have a source for this? I find this most interesting. Piercetp 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Source needed

North America 66%/27%, Asia 63%/21%, Central and Eastern Europe 60%/29%, Africa 54%/43%, Latin America 37%/55%, Western Europe 34%/60% Does anyone have a proper source for this? Because I could not find anything of the sort. 83.101.1.99

Picture in the template

In case this was discussed before and is in the archive, I apologize, but I couldn't find it. I found the picture in the template quite graphic and I don't feel comfortable with it. It seems like a 'banner' or an 'ad' for (or against?) capital punishment, and a little out of place to me. I never read the article before and it struck me right in between the eyes - quite shocking IMHO. Opinions? SWojczyszyn 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the picture is inappropriate. JCO312 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of the image (as well as the template). It was modeled after the title image for Transport (Title transport.jpg), the order from left to right was based on the general chronological use of each method. That said, I have to admit that once I finished it, something about it didn't "look right", either POV or perhaps too intrusive, but I wasn't sure if I was just second guessing myself. I put it up and decided to wait and see what others thought. Now that y'all have also taken notice to it, I agree then we should keep it off. What's odd is that even I did have suspicions that it was POV... which is really weird considering that I don't have an opinion on capital punishment one way or the other. And you're right, I'm not sure which way it's pointing. I was also concerned that it was too visually intrusive. Altogether, I seem to have made a very effective image, it definately has its use somewhere (I don' know where), but Wikipedia is not it. --Shadowlink1014 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently the people over at Uncyclopedia have found a use for it: [9] --Shadowlink1014 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Capital crimes" definition

The definition for "capital crime"/"capital offense" is not completely correct: I know in US states that don't have the death penalty, such as Michigan, capital crimes still exist - they are just punishable by life imprisonment with no parole.

I also feel that a separate article for "capital offense" would be warranted, to highlight these differences in it's punishment, and also to show which crimes are considered capital offenses around the US and the world. We would be able to move this information, which is currently on this page, to a more appropriate article. --Shadowlink1014 05:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Democratic?

The use of the word democratic here seems superfluous and inappropriate:

"Among democratic countries around the world, all European (except Belarus)"

In the light of the elections on March 2006, democratic seems a rather generous term for the government of Belarus (see http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GSVQRGQ)

Drobba 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

I think that on the discussion pages of social issues such as this, we should have surveys to find out the opinions of all who participate in Wikipedia. We could then post the current results in the article itself. For example we could say something like "70% of wikipedians support the death penalty." Note: This is a random number I chose based on what I've read about American opinions on this subject. This would help the article because it would give people an idea about what their peers and fellow wikipedians think. If no one else agrees, this was just a thought I had. Emperor001 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nondemocratic Countries

"Among nondemocratic countries, the use of the death penalty is common but not universal." This statement presumes that we know what is a "democratic country". Can someone fix this, and support it? If not, I will delete it. Raggz 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-worded it a bit better, just not sure if it'll be good enough though. Still a debatable issue as to what nation is or is not "democratic". That-Vela-Fella 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, I think the changes you've made don't do anything to clarify the statement in question; you've only added weasel words. I agree that it would be useful to clarify what exactly is meant here by "democratic" and "nondemocratic." Still, even without said clarification, the first paragraph does seem essentially correct to me, at least from my limited knowledge of capital punishment around the world. I think it would be a mistake to remove the whole thing simply because an exact definition of "democratic" hasn't been established — it's not, after all, like the word has utterly no meaning.

Why don't we just stick a {{Fact}} tag at the end of the first paragraph until better sourcing can be found? Dce7 06:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this sentence is to make a claim about "nondemocratic countries". If what a "nondemocratic" country is is unclear to everyone, then Wikipedia policy requires deletion. If what is meant by "nondemocratic countries" is eventually clarified, at that point it will be eligible to be here. Wikipedia policy requires deletion, anyone who reverses this must (by Wikipedia policy) be responsible for the now missing support.Raggz 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't say that unreferenced material MUST be deleted, merely that it CAN be — and I'm saying that's a bad idea in this case.

Also, this sentence about "nondemocratic countries" goes hand in hand with the previous sentence in the article, which makes a claim about "democratic countries." If the meaning of "democratic countries" is clear, then the meaning of "nondemocratic countries" is clear. Or vice versa. If you delete one, it would make sense to delete the other. Dce7 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can summarize what a democratic country is in a sentence or two, go for it. Just make certain that you cite reliable sources and attain a NPOV. Iran claims to be a democracy, please be sure your definition draws a clear enough line to include or exclude Iran. I recommend trying it here first. Raggz 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

International organisations

I suggest a preceeding and short section titled "Global organizations" which would summarize what global (United Nations) policy presently is - and is not. There is not much to cover, but the absence of global policy is a significant and unmentioned relevant fact. The only UN concern presently seems to be opposition to the use of minors as executioners? Does anyone know of another "global" rather than "international" policy? Raggz 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "global" policy -- only international policy, which is discussed in the "International organizations" section. If you want to add to this (I agree that it needs some more information) take a look at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, and the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989. Both of these include provisions about capital punishment. I'll try to get around to this stuff later if you're not up for it now. Dce7 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also some found under the List of international public law topics, like about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That-Vela-Fella 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestions. I'm open to discussing this.

I disagree about there is "no such thing as "global" policy", but agree that there PRESENTLY is none. The UN Charter determines global policy on Capital Punishment. The UN is "retentionist"? The US and China also lack a capital punishment policy?

The UN policy is "global", although also "international. (I would however support this.) This is not hairsplitting. The regulation of traffic on the Rhine River is "international, not "global". ALL treaties are international law. My central point is that we have very little "global policy" as opposed to treaties regarding Capital Punishment. Is it important to direct attention accurately to what a small degree of global policy exists?

There are the non-binding (or advisory) opinions of the General Assembly, the are advisory opinions by the Secretary Generals, and these should be mentioned or referenced in a global section. The key point for this section is to accurately describe what binding "global policy" is (or is not) and what global non-binding policies are.

All "international" policy (aside from that of the UN Security Council) is by treaties that nations may withdraw from or amend unilaterally. Somehow this needs to go into this article, and perhaps not all of the foregoing. This is a critical fact now missing. Raggz 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that by saying "global organizations" and "global policy" you really just mean the UN and its policies. But the UN isn't a global organization per se; it's an international organization that includes most, but not quite all, states on earth. So let's just call it UN policy to be clear what we are talking about.

Now, the convention and optional protocol that I mentioned above are not only non-binding advisory opinions passed by the General Assembly. They have also been ratified by quite a few states. Perhaps that would be useful to include or to summarize in the article. Dce7 22:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, no "global". Clarify that the UN Charter (Art 24-25) is pre-eminant for international law (or however you phrase it), as opposed to national treaties. Distinguish clearly between "advisory" and "binding" for UN policy. State something like: Presently the UN is a retentionist body.

Convince me that national ratification of the Treaty means much? Would Europe go retentionist without the treaty? What effect does the Treaty really have? CoE? Has it done anything except pass policy statements, what policy has it enforced? Has it jurisdiction to do anything if Russia executes someone? Does Russia secretly execute people because of this Treaty? What about a section on forcing "extra-legal executions? IF you strongly believe that the CoE is important globally, fine, but consider explaining WHY? I didn't learn this by reading. Raggz 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My Edit: Several international organisations have made the abolition of the death penalty a requirement of membership, most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, and practices the death penalty in law, it has not made use of it since becoming a member of the Council. Other states, while having abolished de jure the death penalty in time of peace and de facto in all circumstances, have not ratified Protocol no.13 yet and therefore have no international obligation to refrain from using the death penalty in time of war or imminent threat of war (Armenia, France, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain [7]). Albania is the most recent to ratify it with the effective date of June 1st, 2007.[8] Turkey has recently, as a move towards EU membership, undergone a reform of its legal system. Previously there was a de facto moratorium on death penalty in Turkey as the last execution took place in 1984. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February 2006. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice (all states but Russia, which has entered a moratorium, having ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights), with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe.

See if this reads as well, keeping it as it reads is fine also. It now seems too long and too complex. Raggz 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries

I wish to propose an edit to this page, since it is protected and I cannot edit it myself. I noticed that the numbers of abolitionist countries, countries which are abolitionist but for special crimes, countries which are retentionist but have not practiced capital punishment for 10 years, and retentionist countries listed on the map are contrasted to the number written in the 'Global Distribution of Death Penalty section of the article. I researched the number of abolitionist and retentionist countries in the world, and according to the Amnesty International website, [10], if there has been no change since the 23rd of May 2007, the correct information is that there are 89 countries which are abolitionist for all crimes, 10 countries which are abolitionist except in special circumstances, 30 countries which retain the death penalty but have not used it for over 10 years, and 68 countries which retain and practice the death penalty.

That's right, recently Zambia's status now falls under the "countries which retain the death penalty but have not used it for over 10 years" since the last excution was done in 1997[11]& a halt was done on any further death row inmates.That-Vela-Fella 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Death penalty deterrance

You'd better update this article, because here's a link that says: Studies say death penalty deters crime What do you think about it? --Angeldeb82 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! You can update the article to include that information. JCO312 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems more like an item more suited to be added to the other page at Capital punishment debate than this one.That-Vela-Fella 09:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Death Penalty, is a good thing. Basically, for the people that think its bad, think about this, your family has just died, because of a mass murderer, and your paying your taxes to keep him in jail. Your paying taxes, giving him money to keep him alive, but he/she killed your family. (added by 69.56.92.91)

After being compensated, wouldn't it be better to let them suffer than giving an easy way out? That-Vela-Fella 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

US position on capital punishment

in general we have treated the US as a whole as retentionist since the federal death penalty still exists. This is explained in more detail later in the articel - remember that the lead is suppsoed to be a summary of the article as a whole, so we shouldn't attempt to go into too much detail there. David Underdown 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a mention of the Illinois moratorium

Why don't any of these articles include a discussion of the 2000 Illinois moritorium?[12][13][14][15] They should. I'd add it, but I'm not sure where it should go. 75.18.207.111 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Best if you add it to the correct spot for it:Capital punishment in the United States, since this here is more general in nature. That-Vela-Fella 07:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Life on the Row add link request

Life on the Row is a true crime forum with a primary focus on the issue of Capital Punishment.Life on the Row is dedicated to the education of its member in regards to the death penalty thru the sharing of news and information along with discussion of said by the member body. The forum is totally supportive of all sides of the debate and welcomes all comers irregardless of where they stand on the issues.

capital punishment in the battlefield

it was said that a soldier who retreating in a battlefield can be executed right away. can someone talk about this? Jackzhp 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this in the modern age but it brings Barrier troops, Order No. 227 and Order No. 270 to mind. --Meridius 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Highly doubt a modern Army in the developed world would do that. Usually one is caught alive if doing so & brought before a military tribunal (court martial). May be possible though if the person is from a despotic third-world nation. An old example is mentioned though under Desertion.That-Vela-Fella 17:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It will be great if someone can add two sections to the article. one for the modern time, another one for the old time. Jackzhp 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, if you can find information from the world's current military practices on it. The historical aspect may be more easier to do, but finding sources may not be. That-Vela-Fella 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Type of execution

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask (if not, direct me to where).

This concerns the varies ways of execution. "Ol' Sparky", leathal injection, hanging, etc. Why with the theatrics? Why not simply put a bullet through the head? Quick, easy, and cheap (nickel for the bullet?).

What is with the constent evolution of execution? And not all are as humane as a bullet. Leathal injections have been know to take hours to kill with unpleasent "jittering".

-G

Not all have or had guns before & throughout history. More methods could be found here too; List of methods of capital punishment. Could also go to the page at Capital punishment debate about it. That-Vela-Fella 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The following statement should be revised:

"The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty, except under Protocol 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which still authorizes capital punishment within the EU if crimes occur during war."

According to the protocol 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Mai 3rd, 2002 the death penalty is abolished in all times (including crimes committed during war).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Protocol_13_-_death_penalty.

Dirk

That is correct for those that have signed & ratified it though. It will be adjusted accordingly. That-Vela-Fella 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the capital punishment film listing?

What happened to the list of movies that have capital punishment in them? The "see list of films about capital punishment" leads nowhere. The list included a lot of great films that explored the use of capital punishment, pro and con. There was 10 Rillington Place about the case that led to England doing away with the death penalty. There was The Story of Women which was based on the killing of the French woman during WWII for performing abortions, while at the same time France was deporting Jews, (including children), to the gas chambers. There was They Shoot Horses, Don't They? about the man who helps a woman to commit suicide durning the Great Depression, (when many people starved to death), and is hung as a murderer for killing her. What happened to the list? 204.80.61.110 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Looked into it & found this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_about_capital_punishment Thus the link should have been taken out from this article also since it now goes to no where. That-Vela-Fella 20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it keep getting removed?

I added a link to the "opposing capital punishment area" now why does it keep getting removed when it is relevent? Mwalkmi 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because links to petitions are POV and inappropriate for this article. JasonCNJ 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your agenda. A link to a petition is exactly that. JCO312 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not talking about that, talking about another site that is devoted to human rights including the abolishment of the death penalty and info relating. dont be so quick to judge!!Mwalkmi 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're not talking about the petition, then why do you keep trying to add it? [16], [17]. I am not being quick to judge, I read your other link. A page established today apparently, which, much like the petition that you keep trying to add, is an attempt to push your view that capital punishment should be eliminated in Iran. Frankly, this whole section bothers me, but the edits you make are an attempt to push your agenda, and regardless of what that agenda is, this isn't the place for it.

So you are saying sites "...regardless of what that agenda is, this isn't the place for it." I can list other links here that are agenda focused "Death Penalty Focus, American Civil Liberties Union, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty" I do understand now petitions are a no go on wiki (wont happen again now!). but can't see the objection to the other site, its like others all over wikipedia. Mwalkmi 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed that site because it violates sections 4.1 and 4.2 of WP:EL, which states, Links normally to be avoided:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. JCO312 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In no way does this information as you put it "...misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" the site as with many others liked from this site, does have opinions BUT in no way is information provided "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".Mwalkmi 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the factual accuracy, but there's nothing on the site that would allow a reader to verify the information. As I've said, I don't like the section to begin with, because it tends to become a repository for any website that someone wants to throw together on the subject. That's not the point of the article, or the section. The reputable organizations that have a position one way or the other should be there, but websites like the one you're trying to add don't make the cut. I'm not trying to bash your views here, or even disagree with them, so I hope you don't take any of this personally. JCO312 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Website Poll?

Any chance somebody could remove the Algezeera website poll from the article? Website polls are not very reliable and the results of one really don't belong in an encyclopedia article. 24.220.220.109 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be used to strengthen a stated fact, although the one posted there was done back in Jan. 13 (I looked into it) & isn't sourced or further details on it given (as to the demographics on it). A date should have been given rather than saying "recent" since time does pass by when it was stated & I have tried to look for a source at one of the sites it has, but came up empty so far. So unless someone else can find it "online", it should be removed later on (I'll try also asking the poster where the source came from). That-Vela-Fella 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Still awaiting word from the poster as he had sent an email to the site. Hopefully an answer will be forthcoming soon. That-Vela-Fella 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now taken out by him. That-Vela-Fella 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC) the website poll was moved because of restrictions on this page- sinceraly timothy bradson-creator of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.144.254 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

San Marino

The Abolitionism in different countries section reads with reference to the Granducato di Toscana that

Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg, famous enlightened monarch and future Emperor of  
Austria, abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Granducato di Toscana 
(Tuscany), the first permanent abolition in modern times.

I suggest adding that the last recorded execution in San Marino occurred in 1468, but a formal abolition of the death penalty in that country was passed in 1865. 83.181.181.34 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Would be a better example than that of Portugal, so I'll change that to reflect on it's significance & earlier abolishment. That-Vela-Fella 18:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The US

The article incorrectly states that the US retains capital punishment, when the Congress lacks authority to ban it if it wished. The Government of the United States cannot ban it, only the states may. Congress could ban it for federal offenses - and has not. These are necessary complexities IF the US law is brought in. Raggz 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The "government of the United States" could ban capital punishment, and, in fact, has done so in the past (Furman v. Georgia). Second, it's not inaccurate to say that US still has capital punishment, since it's retained both federally and in most of the states. There is no need to expand the lede so much on such a country specific topic, particular when this is supposed to be a global article. JCO312 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Government of the US cannot change the Constitution of the US. An amendment is the only way this can happen. It did not change the US Constitution in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S 238, 288–289 (1972). It incorrectly found "imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." ,ref.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=408&page=343</ref> Further review reversed this error, so the death penalty is not and was not "cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments".

The US Supreme Court may not make or change laws, but may only strike those that deny basic human rights. The US SC has reviewed capital punishment repeatedly, and the issue is now well-settled. No branch of the US Government may ban capital punishment, only a constitutional amendment could do this. The Government of the United States lacks the authority to ban capital punishment. It is important to inform the reader of the actual facts.

I am fine with dropping the US from the opening paragraph and to deal with these complexities where they can be addressed.Raggz 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are entirely wrong. Furman was not "incorrectly decided," rather, the court found that the system of applying the death penalty was arbitrary at the time. Four years later the court found that the states had made sufficient changes to permit capital punishment to continue. The Supreme Court (which IS a branch of the government) could, at any time, conclude that capital punishment is unconstitutional, without an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court's judicial review is not limited to striking down laws that "deny basic human rights." It can only, in fact, strike down laws that violate the constitution or prior SCOTUS decisions. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but your comments above indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd suggest that you read more about the Supreme Court, its history, and the relationship between the branches, before you try to add this information. Cheers, JCO312 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm learning and I accept your correction. Do we agree that Congress may not ban capital punishment by state law? Raggz 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, Congress may not ban capital punishment in the states by itself (it could initiate a constitutional amendment, but even that would require ratification). JCO312 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to look like I'm trying to pile on here, but your statement "so the death penalty is not and was not "cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments" is an example of what I mean. That's very plainly not what happened. The court held that the way the system worked was a violation of the eighth amendment, the states made changes, then the court held that the new system was no longer in violation. It NEVER held that it was wrong in Furman, or that capital punishment was NEVER cruel and unusual punishment. There is NOTHING preventing the court from deciding today that the methods used, or the procedures in place constitute cruel and unusual punishment. JCO312 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pile on, I don't take your correction personally. I now think of you as my law tutor :). The whole point is to make the article better, and I didn't. What about the power of Congress to change state law? Congress could I suppose invoke it's authority to enumerate the 14th, but short of that, it cannot? Raggz 05:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Congress does not have the power to change state law. Under certain circumstance they could pass federal laws that preempt state laws, but under no circumstances could they simply change a particular states law. The 14th Amendment gives Congress to power to pass appropriate legislation to enforce its provisions, but even those would be federal laws. I'm unsure what you're asking when you say "Congress could I suppose invoke it's authority to enumerate the 14th," since "enumerate" doesn't seem like the word you were going for? JCO312 05:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The ADA is an example of Congress "enumerating" the 14th (in my opinion). The 14th makes it clear that there remain civil rights that await "enumeration", but that Congress (and not the Judiciary) is delegated this task. The power to "enumerate" was in my opinion an response to limit the unlimited power of the Judiciary, a power not anticipated by the founders, a power with only this feeble "check and balance".

The ADA overrides all state law only because it "enumerates" the 14th, what sayeth the Philadephia Lawyer? Raggz 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing regarding enforcement versus enumeration. The ADA doesn't, however, necessarily "override" all state law. That is to say, a state is free to also pass laws regarding persons with disabilities, by providing greater protections. There are instances where a federal law preempts all state law, but there are very specific requirements for that to occur. For the most part (and all of the anti-discrimination laws, ADA, ADEA, Title VII, are examples of this) federal laws co-exist with state laws in the same area. JCO312 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, California's Constitution guarantees expressly my right to go fishing (Art 1, Sect 25). I wouldn't want the federal government messing with that. The ADA overrides state law quite expressly, only the authority of Congress under the 14th permits this. Congress could do the same with the death penalty. Raggz 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, congress could not do that with capital punishment. You are reading too much into the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a blank check for congress to create laws in any area it wants. In fact, the Supreme Court has significantly limited the Fourteenth Amendment's scope over time. The police power (which would include the right to decide on punishments for crime) is a power reserved by the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't change that. Also, again, the ADA doesn't necessarily override state law. What I mean by this is that states remain free to pass laws giving more rights, but not less, than what the ADA provides. May be a minor point, but it's worth distinguishing from laws that literally preempt state laws. JCO312 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How could the United States have enforced the death penalty against minors in 1642 when it did not exist in 1642? The wording needs to be changed at the least, and the wiki will not let me do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.180.71 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Can Israel’s ongoing policy of assassinations be considered executions and disqualify it from being listed as "abolished in practice"? The key issue here is whether targeted killings by a state need to be judicially sanctioned to qualify as executions. Any input? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.112.35 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC) ALTHOUGH USA OPPOSES THE DEATH PENALTY, USA EXECUTED SADDAM SINCE USA WANTED SADDAM TO BE JUDGED BY A HIGHER MERCY!(GOD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.144.204 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

resolution calling for a world wide moratorium

think this link could be informative to those who seek more info on the proposed UGA resolution calling for a moratorium. Maybe it's possibile to add sometingh where we speak about the world day against death penality or where we speak about the use of death penality world wide. [18]

forgotten the signature --87.14.90.39 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We really need a world–wide moratorium on the death penalty. Our first priority should be to rescue and assist people who have been convicted of capital offenses. All other problems are secondary to this concern. We must not put any more murderers to death.Lestrade 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The page is for discussing imporvements to the article, not for discussions about the subject of the article. Rmhermen 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This was actually, and still is, my commitment. I think a proposed UGA resolution it's quite and encyclopedic subject. And as the page already mention it I can't see any good reason to trash some more info about.--87.14.90.39 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rmhermen raises a good point in response to Lestrade's comments, which had nothing to do with improving the article. I have moved the text at issue to the section dealing with international organizations, and the UN specifically, since that is the most appropriate area for it. Cheers, JCO312 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall apologize. Indentation level misled me and made me thin that Rmhermen was adressing to me with his comment. Anyway may i suggest to include some more info about the proposed resolution or, at least, a footnote, with a link to that article? So to make the reader understanding what kind of resolution is the page speaking of. --87.14.90.39 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very important to have a reference in the article to the world day against the death penality. Convicted murderers should never be made to feel the horror of a death penalty.Lestrade 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Please stop your POV pushing. If you have a justification for why the article should include the information that isn't about your personal feelings on capital punishment then say so.JCO312 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

May i ask you, Lestrade, to stop mocking me? I tried to be as NPOV as possible. I've just asked to add some more info about a topic I think it's important. And its importance dosen't rise from being something against DP. I can assure you that if a UGA resolution supporting death penalty have been proposed I would have asked to put some more info about it.--82.60.36.5 10:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When it got moved, the wording got slightly changed. It was also put in a past tense, to which it has yet to be formally done. Once it's been made official (with a source) and an outcome on the voting, then more will be included soon afterwards. That-Vela-Fella 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft resolution was presented today Reuters --79.10.95.37 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Resources opposing capital punishment

Please could you add a link under "resources opposing capital punishment" to "Death Watch International" [19] - which is an international site including information about the death penalty and how people can help to oppose it?--Death Watch International 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. At least right now it isn't. It's an advertisement page that indicates it's being held by godaddy.com JCO312 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking into it more, I found out that the link is actually .org & not .com = http://www.deathwatchinternational.org/ ,thus will be able to be included. That-Vela-Fella 10:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Cheers, JCO312 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please add a link under "resources opposing capital punishment" to "California People of Faith Working Against the Death Penalty" [20] -this is a well-established anti-death penalty organization aimed at faith communities in California. Thanks. California People of Faith (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Criminal

'Capital punishment' must not be sorted under 'noncriminal' - this in itself is non-neutral. Most civilised people regard this as criminal but if the esteemed Paedians can't bring themselves to this nearly universal appraisal then AT LEAST stop collecting it with the rubric 'noncriminal'. That in itself is criminal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.131.85 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Doesn't the United Kingdom reserve the right to hang people for treason still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.12.164 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. JCO312 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom states very clearly that they will not use the death penalty, so I am forced to agree with JCO Javascap 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we cite a particular law for that? Rmhermen 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mali plans to abolish death penalty

M&G Online: Mali plans to abolish death penalty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.77.64 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the death penalty reduce the amount of offenders?

A question before I edit this page a chunk, does anyone here think the death penalty serves as a deterrant for murder/other high crimes? I only think it cuts down on repeat offenders but... meh Javascap 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally would suspect not, but that's just what it is, a personal opinion. Unless you can find a reliable source, then we can't just edit the article. It is an argument used by proponents of captial punishment. David Underdown 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Capital Punishment Debate article refers to some studies, but none can be considered conclusive unless there is a controlled experiment. There is also evidence that abolition leads to lower homicide rates. See: http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php The problem is that other factors may explain variances so no cause and effect can be proved. --The Four Deuces 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

By it's very nature it is a specific deterrent: it permanently prevents the offender from reoffending. Whether it is a general deterrent, making the general population less likely to commit certain crimes, has not been answered all that authoritatively. 24.210.144.154 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church's Position

130.13.3.95 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the position of the Roman Catholic Church should be subjected to greater objective analysis. For example, throughout its history, the church favored, and regularly imposed, the death penalty for religious as well as civil crimes. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for the "crime" of wearing pants in public. Also, the current position of the church acknowledges that the death penalty is appropriate if there is "no other means" by which to protect society. Accordingly, the death penalty is morally acceptable, and it is merely a matter of degree as to when, and upon whom, it should be imposed.

John Paul Parks

Is there a credible site that shows that current or historical position? If so, then it can be mentioned within the article. (P.S.- I doubt Joan of Arc was burned for "religious" reasons, but was more 'political' in nature.) That-Vela-Fella 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

China and the Vatican account for 90% of the world's executions. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

POV, not a sourced fact. That-Vela-Fella 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Executions in 2006 list of "top 6" countries constituting 91% of all executions

The inclusion of this list, and the figure of 91% of all executions has gone unchallenged for some time, but now seems to have become an issue. First of all the figures were changed to say 90% for China, 1% for the other 5, my view was that that crossed the line into orignial research, and we should leave the figures sated the way they are in the source, but maybe I was being too stringent. This was followed by a series of "playful" edits which definitely weren't supported by the source, followed by the total removal of the list, and characterisation of the source as biased. Now Amnesty is clearly an anti-death penalty organisation, and the largest proportion of executions is clearly in China, two orders of magnitude beyond the next highest, but I don't think the stats are that misleading - the raw figures are being given as well. David Underdown 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves (See WP:NPOV). Those edits are just as valid, and are verified by the source, as Amnesty's interpretation. SesameRoad 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here then if the credible sourced material is mentioned? All that is listed are the top 6 nations that made up 91% of the executions in that year. The other 9% are very small in numbers for the other nations to be included, thus are listed the worst offenders. Amnesty is the leader of getting the most reliable information on this topic & other organizations also use the info. If there is a better source, then please edit it, but don't remove it if it's not to your own personal liking. That-Vela-Fella 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

China and the Vatican account for 90% of the world's executions. But I'm guessing you don't like that fact. Personally, I think basic algebra should be a requirement before editing Wikipedia. Almost all of the known executions have happened in China, but the Anti-Americans wish to muddle the facts with Amnesty's interpretation, instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.WatchingYouLikeAHawk 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What a great straw man. Is it really anit-American to point out they carry out the 6th greatest number of executions in the world? You and Sesame Road are the ones trying to remove cited information from the article, which has been accepted by other users from its insertion, that's why its you that needs the consensus for removal. David Underdown 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade into the debate of ideology here. However, there's fact and there's a synthesis or an interpretation of that fact. I will concede that per WP:SYN, we really can't make our own interpretation of the facts. That being said, saying that X amount of executions happen in A and Y amount of executions happen in B is not synthesis. This is sourced.

If you had a box or a table listing how many executions happened in each country, I would not raise concern with that. However, there is nothing notable per se about these 6 countries being lumped together as opposed to the top 4 or the top 8 or all eastern Asian countries. Of course, unless Amnesty International just wanted to somehow get the United States into its arbitrary classification model. SesameRoad 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If seen earlier, there were 25 nations that had executions in 2006, so if one wants to break it all down, be my guest & including the source also. You'll see that the other 9% spread out from the other 19 nations are very small in comparison to the given info put there months ago. Why is it now challenged & not when it was noted? Is there also something bad as to have the USA listed there, since it use to be ranked even higher in the previous years? I can't see why this is also turning into a political matter if numbered facts are given. How else is there a way to say China is the worst offender stacked against with a few of the others if not showing some numerical data (as best that could be gathered)? As said above, there was no consensus to it's removal & until there is, it should remain as it was. That-Vela-Fella 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In New York city if you kill a goverment worker you can be libality for death penalty. That would suck your can g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.153.112.211 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to meddle with facts and I think, one could strongly argue against relating counts of people inhumed "legally" in particular countries in relation to each other, but if one is inclined to do so, I would wish that the numbers are put in relation to the population of the country too (so that both representations are to be seen). That seems more fair to me. And no, I am neither american nor anti american (nor amnesty international)...(never trust the statistics you didn't fake on your own...)

--77.179.82.203 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

moratorium 2.0

I suggest rewording section 1.3 firs paragraph as follows:

The United Nations does not support or oppose the death penalty, although a vote on the issue by the General Assembly is expected before the end of the year. A resolution, presented by Brazil and New Zealand and sponsored by 85 countries, had been recommended for adoption by the third main committee, the one in charge of human rights related issues, with a 99 - 52 vote (33 abs.). The same committee previously rejected a number of amendments to the draft presented by various countries where death penalty is still in force. The resolution, whose text is aviable on UNGA web site, call member states to adopt a moratorium on the use of the capital punishment while moving towards a complete ban. The resolution should win a majority in the 192 member General Assembly ( 97 votes ) before being officially adopted by the UN.

--87.2.102.86 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statistic about youths

The sentence "Starting in 1642, an estimated 364 juvenile offenders were executed by the states and federal government of the United States.[22]" is misleading in that, prior to 1776, the states had not declared independence and therefore all laws were of Great Britain and any statistics coming between 1642 and 1776 may be attributed to Great Britain as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.181.192 (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True & based from the source given, the 4 that were executed between those years were part of the known area of British America. It'll be amended to show it as such. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Islamic Views

"(1) Treason / Apostasy (when one leaves the faith and joins the enemy in fighting against the Muslim community)."

Does this mean that apostasy is the same as treason in Islam? And that by leaving the faith one joins the enemy in fighting against the Muslim community? Or should this be split into (1) Treason (2) Apostasy  ? I am confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarymonstersandsupercreeps (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the country you're talking about. In secular-Islamic states (states where Islam is the predominant, but not state sponsored, religion), treason and apostasy are two distinct things legally. Treason is capital, Apostasy is not. However, in theocratic-Islamic states (states where Islam is the predominant AND state sponsored religion, e.g., Iran), church and state are one and the same. To turn your back on one, is to turn your back on the other. Church and State are the same organism. Hope this clarifies. Smit8678 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)