Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wrongful killing rate

Should discussion of the wrongful killing rate be included in this article, or only in the Capital punishment debate article? (diff) Why or why not? --James S. 10:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted in both articles: it's NPOV, and it's also simply untrue that "it's reasonable to assume that" there are any improper executions in the US. An exoneration from death row shows that the system is stopping false positives, not that the ones who make it through dozens of rounds of appeals before being executed are being improperly executed. Capital punishment opponents have yet to identify a single executed person who was innocent. Their best example turned out, through DNA evidence, to have been a liar and guilty guilty guilty. -- FRCP11 12:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The "wrongful execution rate" is an aspect about the debate. To be balanced, a discussion of wrongful executions (of which there have been zero known wrongful in the US) should include the cost to society of the failure to execute and/or properly imprison murderers. Since the reinstitution of the DP, there have been over a thousand prison murders in the US, and there have been over 13,000 murders by convicts released from prison and/or out on parole. Finally, the assumption that wrongful executions continue is not a fact and should not be presented as one. In reference to the UK entry, the first person mentioned admitted guilt in the murder of two people yet the British government granted a posthumous pardon? I don;t know the circumstances, but it sounds like a legal aspect about the execution as opposed the executions of a wrongfully convicted individual. That is why the "wrongful killing rate" will never be accepted in the 2nd paragraph of this article...irrespective of how many times a person with an extremely strong anti-DP POV inserts it. ER MD 01:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The depth of ER MD's thought on this topic is well-illustrated by this edit. --James S. 01:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You have to admit, that that was a great edit. You're just a frustrating person to deal with... Your POV is so blatant that you converted shock and awe to say that it was akin to terrorism. You are just so far beyond mainstream that you should be banned from editing on wikipedia. I'd probably bet that you believe that the US is a terrorist nation and that al Queda is comprised of freedom fighters, that 9/11 was justified, that there was a conspiracy of the US government blowing up the pentagon, and that the US was acting like a terrorist state after dropping the bomb on Japan. I'm also sure that you believe that allowing over 20,000 homicides is a fair price to pay to prevent the wrongful execution of one person. I don't and I doubt that few other people share your fanatacism. The amazing aspect, is there has yet to be one proven wrongful execution, yet you continue to say that there are more that 10 per year.ER MD 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it can be attributed, rather than asserted, it can be included. Right now it looks like OR and an assertion of absolute truth, which is against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. BTW, please stop edit warring guys. --MonkeeSage 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I added these sources: [1] [2] [3] --James S. 23:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
ER MD: I'm a Theonomist, so I'm pro-DP. That said, you need to stop deleting attributed and sourced POVs, that is a violation of WP:NPOV. The policy says that all relevant POVs and information must be added, so long as it is attributed (and where necessary sourced), and is not given undue weight. If you don't agree with the view expressed by the cited sources, find other sources and add their POVs to the article. Do not simply delete what you think is wrong. --MonkeeSage 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1) its in the wrong section and hence given undue weight especially by being in the second paragraph of the introduction. 2) its controversial and only half the story is being written. 3) the supposition of the "source supported" is not "supporting" what he is writing 4) DNA evidence is poorly documented/explained and is only a tangential reference. Hence, the two paragraphs do no belong and will continue to be deleted until opponents of the death penalty agree with a fair presentation of the info. Even if the US has had ZERO wrongful executions, it does not mean that I can make it the first line in the article even if it is source supported. James thinks otherwise, that he can present his anti-DP position anywhere. Look at his edits of shock and awe. Basically he equates the US to the terrorist nation. I don't think that his POV is mainstream, nor logical. He has a fringe POV and it comes out distorted on wiki. I will continue to remove and its not a violation of NPOV since its removal of POV in a section that should not have POV distortions. ER MD 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I wasn't aware of 3 and 4. I agree with you about 1. 2 would be corrected by counter-sources. Since the sourced information is being used wrongly, that constitutes a WP:V violation, so you are in the right to remove it. Sorry for the confusion. --MonkeeSage 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you claim that the sources are being used incorrectly? I'm not the only one who has contributed portions which ER MD continues to remove; for example User:Nickhk contributed the paragraph about wrongful killing in the U.K. --James S. 16:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This is James's edit of shock and awe in the second paragraph of the descriptor: "However, "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. To that extent, or from the perspective of the insurgent forces fighting conventional forces in military theatres such as the Middle East who frequently use terrorist doctrines or methods, or both, shock and awe is difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. Mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents ".
In my opinion, James should be banned from contributing to wiki... his commentary speaks for itself--its opinion and biased. James is fringe and needs to be marginalized.ER MD 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Shock and awe article already had a lengthy comparison to terrorism before I was recently asked to edit it. What does this have to do with this article, and whether the passages on thewrongful killing rate are source-supported? --James S. 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So the controversial and POV position gets placed in the introduction essentially stating that the "convential forces" are the real terrorists. Do you blindly follow whatever somebody says without thinking for yourself? If so go jump off the golden gate bridge. ER MD 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to continue to re-insert the obvious POV paragraph on wrongful killings IN THE INTRODUCTION. Perhaps it is acceptable later on in the article, but it does not belong in the introduction. It is clearly out of place and makes the introduction sound like crap. YellowPigNowNow 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate page

The debate page needs to be completely re-written. Currently, it is a philosophical discussion and certainly POV based on its headings. A debate page if re-introduced should be limited to the issues that are brought up from teh anti-death penalty pages such as the DPIC and Amnesty international. The format need to be "arguments against" and "arguments in support". I have no problem with restarting teh debate section... There are adequate responses to the issues raised by these groups. Its a well known fact that the statistics used by the anti-death penalty groups are full of lies and the people who promogate these ideas tend to be liars. ER MD 11:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for this "well-known" fact? --James S. 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

International Organisations

There is still something wrong with the phrasing of this section:

France, Italy, Spain etc. have abolished the death penalty de jure within their jurisdiction. I dont know about signations of protocol 13, But having no international obligations doesnt mean they have abolished d.p. only de facto. It is different with Albania, Latvia etc. (There are some things merged which do not belong together, as far as i understand.) Could someone please be of any help? --Susu the Puschel 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Italy ammended its constitution banning DP in all cases, when ratifying protocol 13. for information on signing and ratifying 13, see http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=187&CM=7&DF=6/7/2006&CL=ENG

The only CoE members not to sign 13 are Russia and Azerbaijan. Countries that have signed but are yet to ratify also include: albania, armenia, france, italy, latvia, malta, poland, slovenia

All CoE members have signed article 6, which bans the death penalty in all cases except times of war. Russia is the only country not to ratify: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=114&CM=7&DF=6/7/2006&CL=ENG

I am removing the whole "wrongful killing rate"

Who put that up there??? I have never seen something so biased in my life. It isn't even true! It's just anti death penalty activists trying to promote their cause, and that's not what this is for.

I'm not too involved in this debate, but I just noticed someone creating a page called Capital punishment/With wrongful killing rate. You can't really do that - create a new page with an awkward name just because consensus is against you on a different page. Shouldn't that be VfD'd? Eixo 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
According to what guideline or policy? If that were true, then Capital punishment debate, which was created to fork off all of the "ethical" arguments (a direct quote from above) would need to be merged back in. --James S. 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Content forking. It says:
POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it.
As I said, I'm not a part of this debate, so I will not comment on whether the new article is POV or not. Neither do I know anything about Capital punishment debate. If it violates this rule then that should be deleted as well. We can not have parallel Wikipedias to suit people of different opinions. Eixo 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That is funny, because for the past several weeks I had been adding a merger proposa box to the two articles proposing a merge because of that very guideline! But guess who kept deleting it, along with the discussion of the wrongful killing rate? Hint. --James S. 18:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty nasty. His user page says he's a Republican...Mr. Cheney, is that you? Eixo 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL.. yep, I admit it. I vandalized James user site... But just like James, I don't think the rules should apply to me. :) ER MD 06:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to anti DP folks

Stop editing DP related articles to fit your personal bias. I have come across many articles that say executions in the US since 1976 have been proven innocent, innocents are executed every year, it is likely for innocents to be executed, etc. That is all 100% false. NO EXECUTIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE INNOCENT SINCE 1976. Only speculations. Antis, take your personal bias elsewhere. This provides facts on capital punishment, not your personal views.

The discussion of the wrongful killing rate says nothing about who has or hasn't been proven innocent after execution (except in the U.K., where the cited reviews proved just that) but only that the DNA evidence has exonerated hundreds on death row in the past decade, and that DNA evidence is only available in a small fraction of capital cases. Both of those statements are fully supported by the innocenceproject.org source cited, which is a primary source because they have been doing almost all of that work. The fact that the wrongful killing rate is therefore likely to be higher than the exoneration rate is supported by simple Bayesian statistics: If you have 10 exonerations from DNA evidence per year, and DNA evidence is only available in less than half of capital cases, then that means, that the actual wrongful conviction rate is likely to be higher than the exoneration rate has been. The argument is pure, simple, and fully supported by sources.
The fact that death penalty supporters would rather delete it entirely, along with the unrelated historical exposition of the U.K. reviews, shows just how strong the argument is. I have dropped my proposal of merging in Capital punishment debate for this reason -- why bother, when there is a single argument so powerful as to inflame highly educated death penalty supporters into making absurd and puerile personal attacks? That's all opponents need.
I will continue to replace the discussion of the wrongful killing rate, without further justification here. --James S. 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
James, we may have to ask for arbitration if you continue to insert that paragraph IN THE INTRODUCTION. You don't seem to realize how POV it is, and how much it ruins the flow of the article. Let's work this out peacefully, please. YellowPigNowNow 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. Just because you believe it makes the introduction "sound like crap," as you wrote above, doesn't mean it isn't a source-supported summary of the exposition which you agree to. On one hand, I am glad that you are open to including some discussion of the wrongful killing rate in the article, but that you are also opposed t excluding it from the summary seems to me simply to expose your bias. How would you summarize the discussion? --James S. 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Does the introduction flow with your paragraph? No. Does the introduction without it sufficiently cover the main aspects of the issue? YES. Here's why: The "wrongful killing rate" is referred to in the pro/anti death penalty intro paragraph: "Opponents of capital punishment argue that capital punishment does not deter crime more than life imprisonment, violates human rights, leads to wrongful executions, and discriminates against minorities and the poor." Even when properly understood, the "wrongful killing rate" as you call it is still controversial. There are studies and interpretations of studies which do NOT support the idea that innocent people have been executed in recent years. (Which is the implication of the study you love so much.) Stating it as fact is misleading, but more importantly, putting an additonal paragraph on it in the introduction sets an anti-death penalty tone to the article that is inappropriate. It is already covered by the part I cited, and since it is such a controversial idea, it is really part of the capital punishment debate and is adequately covered by the appropriate intro. paragraph.Even if the pro-death penalty studies were inserted, I would still not be pleased, as both the pro and con sides to capital punishment are briefly described in the debate paragraph and there is no reason to bog down the introduction. YellowPigNowNow 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If telling the source-supported truth about the way things are "sets an anti-death penalty tone to the article that is inappropriate," then so be it. Do you have sources for studies and interpretations of studies which do NOT support the idea that innocent people have been executed in recent years? --James S. 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
DNA EVIDENCE HAS NOT FREED HUNDREDS FROM DEATH ROW. IT HAS ONLY FREED ABOUT 15. Read http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm and you will see most of those freed from DR were only released on technicalities, and the vast majority of them are still believed to be guilty. But to say that there will be "undoubtedly be innocents executed" is biased and false.
How about this: In debate, say that opponents of the DP believe that there is a risk of innocent people executed.
That's already in the next paragraph. This is getting absurd. YellowPigNowNow 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now you're being unreasonable, James. You missed my point entirely. You're too blinded by your activism to see anything else. I already made the point about the pro-death penalty side, and you still failed to see it. You're "wrongful killing rate" simply does not belong there. YellowPigNowNow 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Objections to discussion of wrongful killing rate

"Wrongful killing rate Based on the fact that newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exhonoration" 1. You spelled exonneration wrong, dumbass.

"of about one person per year since 1992[2] in the U.S, and the fact that DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases" 2. There are other ways of proving guilt in capital cases.

"it is reasonable to conclude that wrongful killings occur even more frequently." 3. THAT IS YOUR OWN F***ING OPINION, AND THAT DOES NOT BELONG HERE.

"In the UK, a reviews, often prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exhonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953 (when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year), with compensation being paid. Timothy Evans was granted a posthumous free pardon in 1966. Mahmood Hussein Mattan, convicted in 1953, had his appeal quashed in 1998 and George Kelly, who was hanged at Liverpool in 1950 had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2003. Derek Bentley had his conviction quashed in 1998 with the appeal trial judge noting the original trial judge had denied the defendant "the fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen"." If you really want to post the last paragraph, go post it in the article "Capital Punishment in the UK". It does not belong on the main capital punishment page.

Stop posting this crap. This is your own personal bias and does not belong on a neutral artical.

I have tried to get James to see this reasonably, but he refuses. We may have to go to arbitration, but I'd really rather not have to go that route. YellowPigNowNow 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the best plan is to delete all the changes that James makes since its got to be a lot of work to copy and paste his POV into an article. Eventually, I think he will get tired and leave. Right now, I know of Shock and Awe and Uranium trioxide. I'll keep on deleting any and all edits that he does... It only takes a few seconds to delete the changes and there are extremely few people who agree with him. Anybody know of any other pages that he edits? ER MD 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
James also likes to write about depleted uranium. Looks like he wrote the section on its health effects. I'll delete some of that POV tomorrow. ER MD 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... I'm learning about wikipedia more and more... and unfortunately it is seriously flawed. It appears that James S. is in an arbitration where other people have found him to be a complete pain in the ass as well. [[4]] Maybe he has a fixed IP address so he can be banned permanently. ER MD 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This fool even says on his profile that he wants to "help build a more neutral wikipedia" LMAO. Onetwobomb

I deleted wrongful killing in intro. No citation whatsoever. And citation from anti death organisation cannot be presented as a neutral POV/Fact. Vapour

There are not supposed to be citations in the intro. And even pro-death penalty organizations admit DNA evidence has exonorated a long list of death-row prisoners. --James S. 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the statement "It is reasonable to conclude that wrongful killings occur frequently" is NOT a fact it is an OPINION. And the great britain stuff can go under capital punishment in the UK on the list on notable executions in the UK. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Deep Breaths

YellowPigNow and ER MD, please review WP:CIVIL. Do not call fellow editors "dumbasses", even if you think they are. Do not revert unrelated edits as retribution for changes you don't like in some other article. Such behavior is disruptive, and can lead to blocks. James S., please review WP:NOR. It is impermissable for you to insert your own syntheses or conclusions into articles, as you have done here. If you persist in this behavior, you will most likely be blocked from editing. Nandesuka 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, Nandesuka, please show where I did anything like that? I should not be lumped in with ER MD. I have not reverted unrelated edits as retribution for changes I didn't like in some other article either, so that also does not apply to me. YellowPigNowNow 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank god for that. This Talk page is filled with insults. I think some people need to back off (especially ER MD). Keeping this article NPOV is alright (even if it's next to impossible), but launching attacks on another member just crosses the line. And for your claims of being an MD, with your attitude I doubt any sane person in the country would hire you. I know I wouldn't put my life in your hands. But that's getting off topic. Save all the insults for somewhere else (or better yet just keep them to yourself) and don't come in here with your high and mighty attitude. Both you and James have acted like children in here and it needs to stop. --Shaoken 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a break from this page. But if you can't tell Shaoken, people have been reverting James's edits for the last month. First it was "wrongful killing rate" which he invented and is actually the definition for the legal clause in the penal code. "wrongful execution rate" is the correct term--it only took about a month for James to figure that out--probably after about 50 reverts. Everything which I have stated earlier has been proven to be true and supported by other editors. If I sounded like an ass, that is because I was dealing with an extreme POV pusher with lots of knowledge, but minimal intelligence. Just read his talk page to see his agenda. Look at James's edits for 1)depleted uranium-- moves health concerns to the second paragraph when its obvious that depleted uranium main usage or concern is not a health one and he dedicates 5 pages to some theortical air combustion. 2) uranium trioxide--which i had no idea what it was until I read his talk page then found out that somebody was pissed at him for inserting the aforementioned theortical chemistry which is not supported by the literature (hence James is in an arbitration for that, and it is obvious that the person he is battling is the expert) and somehow it has health concerns as its second topic in that issue--like the main purpose of the compound is to poison people. 3)gulf war syndrome--probably the only place where his urainium trioxide "theory" should exist since in it not a supported concept (I'll beleive anyone else before I believe James) Note how the second paragraph is related to this uranium trioxide air combustion theory. Do you see a trend? 4)Shock and awe--equates the U.S. with terrorism and nobody know the difference because of the casualty rate. Even if you agree its a POV statement. Not surprising his theory on uranium and gulf war syndrome appears there as well. Are you shocked? Finally when it comes to 5) Capital punishment, guess what gets changed? Yep, the second paragraph to "wrongful killing rate" and the first sentence to "state-sanctioned killing." At that time, James also removed a bunch on information he did not like in the article..another violation of NPOV. Not to much his assertion that there have been ten wrongful executions in the US per year since the re-institution of the death penalty when there hasn't been ONE proven case. This is the stupidity that multiple editors have been fighting on this page for some time. For you to jump in with your opinion only proves that you are ignorant about what has been going on, especially since you are posting her for the second time. Just watch and see the retarded things James will try to do to push his POV. As for lives in my hands, you don't want a panzy. I'm good at what I do because I am bold. The last person you want taking care of you in the ED (emergency department) is a weak hand-holder. I've done some horrible things to patients in order to keep them alive... things that would make other sick to their stomach. I've cracked a chest in a patient who was seconds for death and clamped a lung segment. He felt me cut his chest open from front to back while he was barely awake and had a heart rate of 180 with a systolic of 30mm Hg and was fish-breathing. There was zero time for anesthetics. I inflicted an unbelievable amount pain, but I saved that guy's life. Luckily, he barely remembered it. If you came in at night with an upper GI bleed you want me because I will get the consultants in. Its obvious that you only understand health care with naiveity... especially when in comes to the ER. So the conclusion is that James persists to place POV, undue weight, and innappropriate references in the article. Ever so often, I will remove the "work" or POV that James has inserted. I encourage others to do the same.ER MD 07:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the tone you used, but I will admit that James has made POV edits. I'm quite interested in getting a debate with some people on Capital punishment, and I would like to hear your view in full. --Shaoken 08:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: James has been banned because of his POV pushing edits. [[5]] ER MD 05:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Crzyfrd

At least two out of 19 edits were in a different article. Assume good faith. Assume good faith. Assume good faith. --James S. 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like he's either pro or anti-DP. Oh well, I hope he doesn't put his personal view in front of the truth (NO COMMENTS!) --Shaoken 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

moved wrongful executions down to debate

you can keep it down there it's fine with me.

Removal of protection

I believe that protection should not be removed until we can actually write something that is not grossly biased. First of all, I believe we should modify the opening sentence in this article: "Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is governmental execution as punishment for a crime often called a capital offense or a capital crime".

I will explain why we should re-write this sentence:

- the assertion that an execution is government is erroneous as the government (which is vested with the executive power) cannot order an execution: only the judiciary can.

To keep this article unbiased, I also believe we should add some more statistics about executions and polls on people's attitude towards the death penalty, preferably conducted by several media organisation. We should also add two sections (which existed before but were removed): one explaining the viewpoint of abolitionists and one explaining the viewpoint of retention. These ideas seem interesting. I do not mind any feedback.

Until we are capable of preserving the impartiality of this article, the protection should stand and should be extended to all Wikipedians, not just unregistered and new members.

GreatKing 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is allowed in general is governmental (executive or legislative), application in a specific case is judicial, and even then there is normally provision for pardon or commutation on some grounds, which may be granted as a purely executive matter. In the most general sense it is government sanctioned. David Underdown 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But "governmental execution" implies that the government has ordered it, which is not the case. An execution is certainly not an executive matter as it is the judiciary that orders death sentences. The government only has a minor role, with its power to commute death sentences or to pardon.

GreatKing 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with him. The way it's formated implies that the government orders the executiion. I say change it so it says that the judiciary branch orders the executions.

I disagree. The phrase "government execution" does not imply that it is the executive branch. Certainly the judiciary is part of the government. I do agree that "government execution" is an awkward phrase. Perhaps it should be replaced with "Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of an individual by the State as punishment for a crime often called a capital offense or a capital crime". JCO312 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

GreatKing's edits

First up, I'm happy with most of your latest edits. However, I'm not quite sure why you've consistently changed blood feud to bloody feud, a blood feud is undoubtedly bloody, but if you look at the Feud article, you'll see that blood feud is the normal name.

Whilst the debate section does duplicate the 3rd para to some extent, I think it is useful to highlight it again further down the article (the first fews paras seem to form an introduction which is then expanded upon), and point to the article on the debate itself. I'm also not quite sure why you dleeted the first para under Wrongful Executions, saying that anti-death penalty groups argue that the death penalty may be applied in a discrimanatory fashion does seem a relevant point, although perhaps it would be better placed under a reinstated Debate section (and the article does not say that they are correct which would be POV, just that this is one of their arguments). In fact now that I check again I see that that point was also made in the debate section, so restoring that would remove objection on that front too (and double-checking that the websites referenced there are also included in the list of links at the end). David Underdown 12:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


First of all, about "bloody feuds", I thought that that was incorrect, that "blood" should be an adjective, not a noun. It's funny though.

About the debate section, I believe that it should become section 3, with the retentionnist movement and abolitionist mouvements as subsections 3.1 and 3.2. In the abolitionist mouvement sub-section, we could mention abolitionists' viewpoint on wrongful executions, which justifies their opposition to capital punishment.

If anyone has any objections or has any suggestion about the major upgrades I'm going to undertake in this artcile, please let me know on this page.

GreatKing 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


I think it's worthwhile at least mentioning Lex Talionis in the article, it wasn't something I'd heard of before, and putting it in helps put Capital Punishment in context. Maybe not such an extensive para as previously though. David Underdown 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I still think the first paragraph should change. I think "judiciary" should be replaced by "the State" because I think it's generally more accurate (all branches have some role in the process). I also don't see why it's necessary to point out that it's a punishment for a crime known as a "capital crime or capital offense."
Additionally, the first paragraph still says that capital punishment "literally" means to lose ones head, because of the etimology of the word. That's simply wrong. Decapitation "literally" means to lose ones head, but it's the only method that results in an actual lose of the head as far as I know.
The line about how the death penalty has been used is misleading, because it suggests that historically it was only used to punish political dissent, and that's just a ridiculous proposition. Lots of societies used capital punishment as a way of punishing all manner of crimes, and not simply to punish those opposed to the government.
Finally, I'm not aware of a lot of capital punishment proponents who argue that it's a financially economic way of dealing with criminals. I don't know who put that in there, but it seems more like a way of setting up an attack against the death penalty later in the article, rather than a real justification. JCO312 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Juvenile capital punishment

I edited this section to include the fact that the Roper decision made the execution of 16 and 17 year olds unconstitutional; the execution of people 15 or younger had already been held unconstitutional in 1988. I still think this section needs more work, particularly the beginning which seems to suggest that the United States still permits the execution of minors. Does anyone have information about what countries currently permit the execution of minors, as opposed to which countries have done so since 1990? JCO312 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Removed Robespierre. Although he was against the Death Penalty to begin with, he later changed his stance and became a supporter of it. He even sent Danton to the Guillotine. --Shaoken 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/Talk%7ECapital_punishment_Archive_7_5149.html"