Talk:Hanging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Hanging: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Physiology of a hanging (see death erection)
  • More comprehensive coverage of the various "drops" used (see this external site [1])
  • Clarify actual causes of death as determined by postmortem examination
  • more on the suicide aspect of hanging
  • Children Dying by Accidental hanging -

See Also - Choking Game External Link [2]

text implies hanging is not a form of capital punishment in the U.S. Not so, it is the default form of infliction of the death penalty in Washington State where it was used at least twice during the 80s and 90s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.113.125 (talk • contribs) .

Should discuss hanging in United States and other countries than U.K. --Daniel C. Boyer

There's a certain amount of duplication with Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. I think most content should be merged in with that article. Mintguy (T) 23:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is certainly quite anglocentric. The timeline of penalties should certainly be moved, and probably the stuff about quartering/public executions too PRB 14:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[[3]] has quite a bit of text especially on US use. It would seem a good source or reference link. --blades 17:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Short, long and standard drops, and suspension hanging

I would have edited the article itself to reflect my following comments but couldn't due to the protection.

As it stands, the article refers to the short-drop and long-drop methods but makes no reference to the "standard drop" or "suspension" hanging. Suspension hanging involves no drop at all - the subject/victim is raised into the air by the rope around his neck. (This is the type illustrated in the Iran picture.) As I understand it, the standard drop was the type used in the U.S. from at least the middle of the 19th century.

The British Home Office produced a surprisingly detailed pamphlet on this subject in the mid-20th century with the macabre title Setting the Drop. Much material on all this can be found at this external site [4].

Strangulation issue: perhaps the most neutral term is "asphyxiation". I believe that the routine autopsies performed on persons hanged in the U.K. ordinarily gave the cause of death as "asphyxia", notwithstanding that the long-drop method was used. Wulfilia 08:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is ironic that the law in Britain until 1808 has the death penalty for attempting suicide August 07, 2005.

The contention that (after the institution of hanging methods that caused severing of the spinal cord at the cervical level C1 or C2) "(Actually strangulation remained the cause of death, but as the prisoner was rendered unconscious by the drop while this was happening, this was undoubtedly a kindness to both the victim and the witnesses)" seems wrong. After the spinal cord is severed there will be no spontaneous attempt to breathe (the phrenic nerve stems from cervical roots C3, C4, C5, below the transection), and I don't think strangulation can really be said to occur in the absence of an attempt to breathe. I'm also not certain that it's correct to say the "drop" causes unconsciousness: unconsciousness probably results from brain hypoxia. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Can the page really be right when it uses "seconds", as in the record being seven *seconds* from the time a prisoner leaves his cell until death? Surely this should be seven *minutes*?

Seconds is correct. In British prisons the prisoner was kept in the "condemned cell" next to the gallows so there wasn't far to take the prisoner. In the case of James Inglis it's probably not correct to say he was "pronounced dead" in 7 seconds, but it is recorded that he was very eager for his execution to take place, and practically put the noose around his own neck; the drop did take place that quickly. The British judicial system didn't believe in delaying executions for an unconscionable period as happens now in the US -- if you take a look at murderfile.net you'll see that for most of the period of the death penalty in the 20th century, executions usually took place between 3 and 7 weeks after the trial (the main exceptions being the executions at Shepton Mallet in 1943-1945, which were of US military personnel, where the execution was sometimes delayed for several months). -- Arwel 18:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There appears to be a fair bit of information about asphyxiation vs spinal damage, but little or none (mention) of the effects, causes etc of interrupting blood circulation.

I think that's because most hangings induce death by asphyxia, one way or another. I know of no postmortem findings attributing a hanging death to circulatory interruption. (I don't mean there aren't any, just that it is less common.) Wulfilia 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the mechanism of death

While I was a medical student we were taught at the forensic department that the mechanism of death in hanging is neither bloackage of the airway passages or (usually) damage of the phrenic nerve . The obstruction of the interior jugular veins which are superficial enough requires little effort and is the most usual meachanism of death in hanging. The blockage of the venous drainage of the brain leads to cerebral oedema and reduces cerebral perfusion rate (thus cerebral hypoxia and death). The other mechanisms (the obstruction of the airway or the deeper possitioned carotids) are also possible but require far more force. (There are many instances of suicides that the victims' feet actually touched the ground and I know one incident where the suicide was lying having only his head hanging).

So I suggest reform of this article's section. If you do not object, or do it your self I may change the article in a few days -Leftytherobot 6 march 2006

[edit] hanging as military capital punishment

I'd be interested to see a reference to hanging within the military; is it still available as a method of capital punishment to the US military, or the UK military for example? jamesgibbon 5 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

The assertion that "hung, drawn and quartered" is "grammatically correct" on the grounds that the victim isn't killed by the hanging seems silly. I believe that a common formula pronounced in the sentencing to hanging went something like this: "you will be hanged from the neck until dead".(in other words, a non-lethal outcome was recognized as possible with any hanging). Hanging no more guarantees death than electrocution (people electrocute themselves everday in household accidents, and live to tell the tale) so to assert that "hang" when applied to the torture method is a different word, with a different past tense and past participle, than "hang" when used for the definitive killing act, provides a poor rationalization for exempting "hung, drawn and quartered" from the rule applied to "hanged until dead". [hangs head in consternation] -- You know, I can't believe I even wrote that. Must be tired. Never mind....

Whoever wrote this, I have to agree. Perhaps a simpler expanation is that it's just too damned awkward to say "Hanged, drawn, and quartered." Exploding Boy 05:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Try clicking the link I provided and take some elementary school-level grammar lessons. Then stop complaining about things you know nothing about. --L. 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] questionable claim

(referring to the painful perturbations caused by the short-drop) This could be a protracted affair and was primarily for the entertainment of the watching public: surely this entertainment was a side-effect. Doops | talk 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] grammar

There are many basic mechanical errors at the end of the article which I indended to fix but am blocked from doing so. Could those who are not blocked fix those? User:Squige 02:52, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably that "hanged by the neck until you are dead" formula is the cause of our modern hanged/hung distinction. It probably wasn't clear, back in the day before standardization, whether the verb was a strong one or a weak one; the formula got made with it as a weak one; the verb, however, got regularized as a strong one; and then we step in on the scene and "discover" a new grammatical rule to explain this. But of course the wikipedia is no place for research; so I'll keep my speculations to the talk page. Doops | talk 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

This article should probably be locked for a while, until the anonymous user who keeps beefing up the Singapore section goes away, or concensus is reached about it. As pointed out in comments on the reversion edits:

  • The additions are seriously POV.
  • Capital Punishment in Singapore already exists, and is a better place for some of this information.
  • The Van Tuong Nguyen issue is already mentioned on this page under "Recent Hangings".
  • As the anonymous poster is aware, there is also an article on Van Tuong Nguyen, where some of this information would be better included.

Evidently, the anonymous user feels that something needs to be said on the issue, but is going about it in the wrong way. This has become a major edit war, taking up at least ten of the most recent entries. Anonymous editor, please discuss your edits here and we can see if we can all work out how to progress. PRB 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me start - This sentence seems OK, as it relates specifically to hanging, and not capital punishment in general:
"Hanging remains the primary form of capital punishment in Singapore. Local laws mandate the death penalty for drug trafficking above certain quantities."
This commentary should probably not be here:
"Whether recent debate and international pressure resulting from the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van will lead to changes remains to be seen."
PRB 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I just cleaned up the section before noticing the text here or looking at the history page. What do you ppl think of the outcome?--Huaiwei 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There's an anon user who keeps on resubmitting an extended entry about Singapore...have already reverted three times, and contacted him/her on the talkpage, but to no avail...could someone take a look? Bjelleklang - talk 08:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a nomination in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the problem persists.--Huaiwei 12:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoops just realised it has already been nominated 2 days ago.--Huaiwei 12:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Also left a coupple of messages at WP:AN, which apparently have gone unnoticed so far... Bjelleklang - talk 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If this keeps on, I'll lock the article until things calm down. If it starts back up, feel free to leave me a message. Inter\Echo 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Protected the page. Talk this out. I see very little dialogue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon(s) do not seem to want to talk. Many editors have tried contacting them on their talk pages and there is a commment in the article itself pointing to this talk page. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore II - the protection issue

For the past days, various anon users have tried to add the following:

Singapore has an extensive history of hanging, currently employing mandatory state-sponsored killings as punishment for various crimes. The government controlled media of Singapore relinquish attention from anti-death penalty movements which are graphically stirring in the country since the execution of a 25-year old Australian, Nguyen Tuong Van, who was hanged on December 2, 2005 despite pleas from Australian politicians, religious leaders, cultural leaders, diplomats, Amnesty International and numerous other international pressure to allow a stay.

Like many Asian countries, Singapore has an extensive history of capital punishment, currently employing mandatory execution as punishment for various crimes. The only execution method currently employed is via hanging using the long-drop method. There is little evidence for a change in policy such as the adoption of lethal injection, with the Singapore Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng informing the Parliament of Singapore that the government "had previously studied the different methods of execution and found no reason to change from the current method used, that is, by hanging".[5]

Hanging remains the primary form of capital punishment in Singapore. Local laws mandate the death penalty for drug trafficking above certain quantities. Whether recent debate and international pressure resulting from the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van will lead to changes remains to be seen.

Singapore is one of the few countries in which citizens who hold contrary views to the death penalty are liable to criminal charges as well as state sponsored harassment. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent backlash against artistic displays vilifying 'state sponsored murder' as the artists put it, with officials destroying the artworks within hours of the displays opening.

Despite the fact that many of them are told on their own talkpages, they continue. They also disregard the following comment in the article source: Do not add material to this section that does relate specifically to the application of hanging in Singapore. This section is not designed for commentary and criticism of capital punishment in Singapore in general. Please discuss on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanging#Singapore

In my opinion, Hanging describe the recent events pretty good, and I see no need for a further debate on Singapore in this article, especially not as Capital punishment in Singapore already has a section that debates many of the same issues, and that could very well be expanded with a part about the recent hanging in particular. Hence, I see no need for more information about Singapore in this article as it currently stands. Bjelleklang - talk 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of sockpuppets. I will warn (in comments) they will be blocked on sight. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
He is back as Dfgert (contributions - talk) Weregerbil 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
And also as Cvbdfg... Bjelleklang - talk 13:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
And Fghrty, Ghjtyu, Poiuyt. Hey, I just figured out the pattern in those sock names :-) Type them on a qwerty keyboard. Weregerbil 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
All of them are blocked now:
  1. 2006-02-18 03:26:22 Natalinasmpf blocked "Fghrty (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
  2. 2006-02-18 03:26:08 Natalinasmpf blocked "Ghjtyu (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
  3. 2006-02-18 03:25:28 Natalinasmpf blocked "Cvbdfg (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
  4. 2006-02-18 03:25:15 Natalinasmpf blocked "Poiuyt (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)

— Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Singapore additions

Hello to the anons and others adding to the singapore section. Please note the discussion above on gaining a consensus as to the content of this sectoin. If you have a different opinion, rather than trying to force it on the page (it won't work, there is a lot of people watching for it and it is considered borderline vandalism without consensus) please discuss here your view on how we can develop this section. novacatz 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sockpuppets who have vandalised the Singapore section of this article

This is a list of all socks who have vandalised the Singapore section of this article and replaced with their own POV version.

Blocked IPs / socks struck out.

For the record, Jachin (talk • contribs) was the first to insert the Singapore section, which was POV right from the start. [6] However, he has made other useful contributions before and after the edit so he is not in the below list. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames

  1. Cvbdfg (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) - indef blocked
  2. Poiuyt (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) - indef blocked
  3. Ghjtyu (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) - indef blocked
  4. Fghrty (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) - indef blocked
  5. Dfgert (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  6. Mnblkj (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

[edit] IP addresses

  1. 203.218.45.205 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  2. 203.218.82.127 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  3. 219.77.100.138 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  4. 219.77.103.193 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  5. 203.218.81.155 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  6. 219.77.104.75 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) - blocked till 12 March 2006
  7. 219.77.104.25 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  8. 203.218.81.243 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  9. 219.77.96.87 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  10. 203.218.82.34 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  11. 203.218.81.140 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  12. 218.102.64.49 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  13. 203.218.81.203 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  14. 219.77.104.63 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  15. 203.218.47.245 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  16. 218.102.61.41 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  17. 218.102.61.4 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  18. 203.218.232.152 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  19. 219.77.104.46 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  20. 203.218.47.45 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  21. 203.218.232.54 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  22. 203.218.82.92 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  23. 203.218.47.147 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  24. 203.218.45.31 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  25. 219.77.100.133 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  26. 203.218.80.70 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  27. 218.102.79.210 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  28. 203.218.81.29 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  29. 219.77.103.211 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  30. 219.77.104.160 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  31. 203.218.81.92 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  32. 203.218.80.254 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  33. 203.218.47.76 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  34. 203.218.46.98 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  35. 203.218.81.180 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  36. 219.77.100.240 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  37. 218.102.79.204 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  38. 203.218.80.21 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  39. 219.77.96.101 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  40. 84.19.182.23 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  41. 203.218.45.205 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  42. 213.216.199.14 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  43. 80.190.243.61 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  44. 130.161.82.41 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

[edit] Things to add upon unprotection

Moved these into the main article upon unprotection. --Marcus 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

I've blocked this article from editing by unregistered users and those with few edits. The frequent identical undiscussed modifications amount to vandalism in my opinion, though the same section or part of it could be added after discussion, subject to consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Strong evidence of malice"

The article claims that '"strong evidence of malice" in children aged 7–14 years old' was punishable by death. I could be mistaken, but as far as I know this is misleading. Children between 7 and 14 could be executed *for a capital crime*, like an adult, if there was strong evidence of malice in the commission of the crime. Megalophias 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation of article

I have reorganised large parts of the article. In particular, UK-specific parts of history were moved to "Hanging by country - UK" section. Also I have inserted a properly sourced reference to the Singapore's unwarranted (IMO) modification of an artwork that commented on its mandatory death penalty policy. This was a part of the anon's preferred "state-sponsored killings" version and I believe that not all POV ought to be thrown out, per what Tony Sidaway said above, hence the Singapore insertion. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted suicide

Attempted suicide as a capital offense has always seemed a very stupid idea to me. JIP | Talk 10:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Suicides By Hanging: Judas Iscariot

The Wikipedia entry for Judas Iscariot does note the fact that the New Testament records two completely different traditions regarding the end of Judas Iscariot's life. The one mentioned in this article is the highly romantic story from the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which a remorseful Judas returns his thirty pieces of silver to the Temple authorities and hangs himself, whereupon the Temple authorities declare that the money cannot be accepted back because it is tainted with blood, and they therefore use the money to purchase a "potter's field" in which to inter the remains of strangers and the indigent - the field aquiring the name "Field of Blood" because of its connections with the betrayal of Jesus.

A completely different story is pictured in The Acts Of The Apostles, in which a seemingly remorseless Judas Iscariot keeps his thirty pieces of silver and uses it to buy his own field, from which he apparently derives both pleasure and profit until he meets a completely accidental demise by tripping and falling (possibly over a precipice?!, meeting the ground with such violent force that his abdomen bursts. In this story, the field receives its "Field of Blood" label because of the rather gruesome end of its owner.

I think it would be fair to amend the mention of Judas to include disclosure that the story of his suicide by hanging is only one of two conflicting accounts of his death. I would not do it myself, because a) I am not sure how to word it in such a manner that Fundamentalist Christians would not take offense, and b) I personally feel that it would introduce a digression completely outside the scope of the subject of the article. Shoshani 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

As it stood the article was more of an historical reference to the histories of GB and US hangings.
Merge and moved Recent hanging with capital punishment
Sorted Historical references and current references by country
Removed needless detail from the UK and US sections of historical date - kept references to the existing main articles by country
Updated and added to historical and current hangings
--User:greroja Aug 14, 2006


[edit] Image a bit off topic?

The image of Atefeh Sahaaleh in this article though vaguely related to the history of hanging, seems quite off topic. If there was a separate article which lists people who have been executed by hanging then it would seem appropriate but the presence of this image in this article seems a bit closer to propaganda than encyclopaedic practices
I agree... the image was leftover from the rewrite. I don't know about propaganda... but its inclusion adds nothing to the article Updated and added to historical and current hangings
--User:greroja Aug 15, 2006

[edit] But what is it?

It seems to me that nowhere in the article does it actually say what hanging is - it goes from a very vague "form of execution" straight to the kinds of hanging and the detailed medical effects. Shouldn't the introduction include something along the lines of "Hanging involves placing a noose around the condemned person's neck and removing all other forms of support", or "Suspension of the body weight from the neck" or something similar?

If you agree, could someone with better writing skills please add something along these lines? Pennoze 05:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada deletion

I don't understand this deletion: [7] . The comment directs us to Capital punishment in Canada, but the info there appears to be exactly the same as was deleted here. In addition there's the unsubstantiated sentence, "One unpublished execution too place on January 3,1972 for military crimes." If that's documented, the Canada info should be restored to reflect it. If not, the Canada section should be restored as is. Either way, it shouldn't be deleted. - PhilipR 01:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bailey

Enough with Billy Bailey. The article mentions him in the same contexts, and links to his article, three separate times. Should we consolidate mentions of him and only include one link, if possible? Vbdrummer0 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps erronous statictics

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan there are 78 people in death row, but in this article, 88 people.. so which one is up-to-date? And maybe we should just link to the "Capital punishment in Japan" page...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/n/Talk%7EHanging_9b90.html"