Talk:Carlos DeLuna

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos DeLuna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Crime and Criminal Biography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Execution date

The Chicago Tribune has published DeLuna's time of death as "a few minutes after midnight on December 7" and the Columbia Human Rights Law Review has published December 8. As of this writing this article treats the CHRLR as the definitive source and says December 8, but there is an obvious discrepancy here. Bigturtle (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! Also, the official State of Texas Department of Criminal Justice website states December 7, 1989, as the execution date. (See this link: [1].) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the death date should be changed; the TDCJ is the custodian of the correct date, as they were there. So it has been done. Bigturtle (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV controversy

Since the release of the Columbia study, this article has taken on a pro-DeLuna bias. The goal of a WP article is neutrality and verifiability. The article needs to be purged of biased claims like, "the release of the study has strengthened his claims of innocence."Bellczar (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, this is an accurate description of the circumstances surrounding the case. The release of the study has shown that there is a stronger argument for DeLuna's innocence than was previously acknowledged. Notice that the text you are objecting to does not say that DeLuna is in fact innocent. It merely states that the Columbia study makes the argument for DeLuna's innocence stronger than it was before. To assert otherwise would be to claim that the Columbia study had absolutely zero impact or significance whatsoever — and that would be a biased claim. Terence7 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of June 5, 2012, there is no pro-DeLuna bias in the article. If anything, the article is biased against him, leaving out many of the valid arguments made by the Columbia team while referring mainly to the trial transcript. -- TexasDawg (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing in the article up till now, is any explicit mentioning of the question of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". (In dubio pro reo is what makes the difference here between due process or a miscarriage of justice.) - Yes, I see that the debate is circling all around that, but no one makes the point. So please add some kind of a summary from a legal angle. (Sorry that I can't do that as I lack the expertise and am no native speaker of english.) -- 109.250.229.184 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard after a conviction. -- GertBySea (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]