Talk:Capital punishment

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

The State vs. Judiciary

GreatKing and I have been changing this back and forth. I think it's more accurate to say that capital punishment is the most severe punishment that can be carried out by "the State" and he keeps changing it to "the judiciary." While I understand that the judiciary imposes the sentence, they are simply not the only branch involved in carrying out the punishment. I spoke with a group of fellow lawyers about this tonight and they all agreed that "State" is a more accruate line. I'm interested in what others think.JCO312 04:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my views. When someone receives down a death sentence, does the President/Governor say "I condemn you to die by haging/lethal injection, etc", does the legislature say "Mr X, we condem you to die" is it the judge, a member of the judiciary, who says that? The answer is obvious. The phrase "State imposed" is very misleading, as it makes you think that the three branches each play an equally important part in a death sentence. All the legislative branch does is make the death penalty legal, they have nothing else to say in a criminal case since their job is done. The executive branch only has the power to grant clemency, a very minor role. However, does a condemned man/woman spend more time fighting his death sentence in the courts (the judiciary branch), or in front of a state Governor or legislature. Who gets to stay an execution? Once again, the answer is obvious! "State imposed" is just so misleading and inaccurate as it gives the impression that the other two roles have a big role to play, when their role in a death penalty case is very small. That is why I support the phrase "imposed by the judiciary", and I hope others will be able to understand my logic.

Otherwise, JCO312, about your lawyer friends, they only gave their opinion, it does not mean that they are right. Also, their view might have been influenced by their opinion on the death penalty.

GreatKing 06:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the actual personnel who are responsible for controlling the physical person of the defendant from arrest through execution, about 99% of the time they are agents of the executive branch. That includes the arresting officer, the booking officer, the jailers, the court bailiffs (who are supplied by the sheriff, an executive officer), the various state prison guards responsible for GenPop and/or Death Row, and the executioner. Furthermore, the decision to seek the death penalty is made by the prosecutor, who is an executive branch officer. The machinery of the judiciary merely confirms the accusation of guilt and the sentence of death sought by the prosecutor. That's why most lawyers (myself included) see the death penalty as primarily carried out by the executive branch of the State. --Coolcaesar 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Although I understand your point GreatKing, I think you're unfairly minimizing the roles of the other branches of government. As Coolcaesar pointed out, the the actual carrying out of a death sentence is handled exclusively by agents of the executive branch. You ask who gets to stay an execution? Well, you're right that some judges can, but so can the governor. And I don't consider creating the rules by which an execution is carried out to be a "minimal" responsibility, but it's one of the roles of the legislature. I'm going to change it back unless others also agree with your edit. JCO312 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, CoolCaesar, you're wrong. Arresting officers, the booking officers, jailers, court bailiffs are not members of the executive branch, they are only employees of the State. You make the assertion that since the sheriff, a member of the executive, appoints them, that they must be apart of the executive branch too, which is incorrect: is the Chief Justice of the USA a member of the executive branch since he is appointed by the US President? You still make the same mistake once again: the prosecutor is an employee of the State, not the executive branch (and he does not always seek a death sentence, sometimes the jury imposes a death sentence, as you probably know: for example, Texas). The same thing goes for the executioner.

What I have just said clearly proves that executive's role in a death sentence is relatively small, as is that of the legislative branch.

As about your view (and that of "most lawyers") on who carries out the death penalty, I am afraid to say that the view you express are only your own and that of your "lawyer friends" (those you mentioned earlier) and not that of a "majortiy of lawyers".

GreatKing 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're totally wrong when you say that police officers aren't members of the executive branch. To put it simply, there is no such thing as an "employee of the State" who does not belong to one branch or the other. The departments that run prisons are under the executive. Employees of those departments are absolutely members of the executive branch. Same for executioners, prosecutors, etc. Do you not think that an FBI agent is a member of the executive branch, for instance? You're example of the Chief Justice does not "clearly prove" anything, except that there is a seperation of powers. The judiciary imposes the death sentence, the actual punishment is carried out by other branches. You're wrong to minimize the role of those other branches, and since still no one else has come down on your side, I'm changing it back. Also, no jury can sua sponte impose the death penalty if it isn't a capital case.JCO312 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

JCO0312, by denying that these officers, prosecutors, etc. are employees of the State, you are pretty much denying the fact that they are employed by the State. If the State pays them to work for them, they are clearly employees of the State - why not go ask a specialist in labour law? If you want a more tangible example, if I am employed by company X, logically I am an employee of company X - anyone with commonsense would agree with me. As for departments, officers, executioners ..., they are not members of the executive, but they are the means by which the executive branch enforces the law and decisions: this shocking misconception is the reason why you hold this absurb point of view on who is behind a death sentence and who imposes it.

About my Chief Justice example, it proves that your assertion (that about officers, etc. being members of the executive branch since they are appointed by the sheriff) that you and Coolcaesar made is wrong.

And about people not joining my side, only 3 people are participating in this debate, so you can't just automatically assume that I am wrong. Therefore, I am changing it back to "judiciary" (I call this JCO312 logic)

And did I say that a jury could impose sua sponte a death sentence in any case? I think not, so don't put words in my mouth please!

GreatKing 09:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: look down at "Compromise: State vs Judiciary", I think you might like what you read there.

You're not understanding how I am using the word "State." I do not mean "state" as in "one of the 50 states of the Union." I mean "State" as in the government more generally. I never said that prison guards weren't employees of a State, of course they are. So are judges. That doesn't mean that they do not fall under the executive branch, which prison guards most certainly do. For example, you cannot be an employee of the State of New Jersey and not fall within one of the three branches. The more I've thought about this, the more I'm convinced that it is incorrect to say that capital punishment is "imposed by the judiciary." That's just not true. A death sentence is imposed by the judiciary; executions are imposed by people working for an altogether different arm of the government. So, while I appreciate your compromise solution, it doesn't solve my disagreement, and I'd still change it.

By the way, you're example does not prove that officers who are appointed by the Sherrif aren't members of the executive. You're saying that because in one situation an individual is appointed by one member of a branch into a different branch, means that it must always be the case. That's faulty logic. Here's the real question, what branch do you think prison guards and state police officers work for?

Oh, and I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you said, "You still make the same mistake once again: the prosecutor is an employee of the State, not the executive branch (and he does not always seek a death sentence, sometimes the jury imposes a death sentence, as you probably know: for example, Texas)." A jury cant impose it without a prosecutor seeking it. JCO312 12:15, 7 May 2006 (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)

Introduction

The intro needs to be cleaned up. Particularly the following:

In "capital punishment", "capital" comes from the latin noun "caput", which means head; therefore, to be subjected to capital punishment literally means to lose your head. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies either to supress political dissent.

Clearly, it does not "literally" mean to lose your head. Also, the second sentence says that capital punishment has been used by nearly all societies to "either" supress dissent, but never completes the sentence by saying what else it's been used for. JCO312 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone verify this?

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

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

Hi Booksworm,

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

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

About Latin America abolition of death penalty

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

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

Removal of important information due to bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fallibility

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

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

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

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

Public opinion - NPOV dispute

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

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

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

As an example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which ones?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caravaca 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Split?

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

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

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

Ethics of capital punishment

        Main article: see ethics of capital punishment

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

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

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

Death Penalty Worldwide Map

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

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

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

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

I disagree completely. It's inaccurate to say simply "The US allows capital punishment," because in some places in some places the US allows it and in others it doesn't. It's not having an Anglo-American focus to point this out. If, say, the death penalty was allowed in some parts of China and not in others then it would be appropriate to mention that too. But by chance the country in question is the US. HowardW 1:38pm UTC, May 4, 2006

Given that anywhere in the United States, violating the wrong federal law can lead to a federal death penalty case, I would say that it is fair to say that the US is a country that has the death penalty, although the application varies state by state. Dpv 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Dpv. A map showing Death Penalty laws by state belongs in an article about US law, not one that deals with capital punishment on this scale.Emmett5 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Ethical View of DP

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

Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This doesn't violate content forking. The original article is already too long, and should be shortened, rather than lengthened. I'm removing the tag. -- FRCP11 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of at least two executed innocent

User:ER MD removed the following:

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

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

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

1. Ruben Cantu
2. Larry Griffin

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you get 0.2%?

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that there has never been anyone proven innocent since 1976. The Chronicle's Cantu story has a lot of holes and information left out that points to Cantu's guilt. Anti DP folks have spent a lot of time searching for this mythical "innocent" man who was executed, and they are wasting their time.

Quality of Article

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

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

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

Penateuch or Old Testament

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

Intro wrongful executions statistics controversy

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

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

I read the Timothy Evans article. While Mr. Evans' landlord, John Christie, confessed to killing Mrs.Evans, he denied killing their daughter, the crime for which Mr. Evans was hanged. Did Mr. Evans receive a fair trial? It doesn't appear so. Did he kill his daughter? We may never know. This case is not a strong one for an innocent man being executed.

However...did Mr. Christie kill anyone after he was hanged? Absolutely not! I would have a lot more faith in the effectiveness of life sentences if no murderer had ever escaped or been paroled and then killed again. Mr. Christie did not spend taxpayers money being housed and fed for decades while he studied law and made appeal after appeal. Larry660 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I completely disagree that it is a moot argument. More effort is put into exonerating those that are alive than those that are dead. Statistics are a perfectly acceptable argument for something so long as the inherent weaknesses of such statistical tests are explained. For example, you could say the p-value that somebody has not been falsely convicted is p=<.01. In other words, there is less than a one in one hundred chance that nobody was wrongfully executed. Anglo American statistics are fine so long as they are presented as such and noted that they likely don't generalise. It is important to present the research you have and not give up because you haven't figured out the whole world. A study can't be neutral if people are being wrongly executed; certainly that would be an argument against.

Lastly FWBOarticle, stop pretending you have a NPOV. It is clear you are blocking an important idea that doesn't match your POV based on faulty logic. You have made a content fork, but it's the best for the time being in terms of article flow because your philosophy in the debate article has bloomed too much. I'll put some balance when I have a few spare hours. Blue Leopard 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"The death penalty in arts and media" section

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

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

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

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

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

Apostacy

Why was this section removed?

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Section

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merger debate is all about ressurecting Wrongful Conviction

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

Neutrality dispute

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

This is a complicated subject, with a long history. Nobody expects articles on these sorts of historical, ethical, and detailed legal topics to be short. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the article is too big, a better split than general/debate needs to be found, because the elements of the debate permiate the entire general issue, and general aspects are heavily involved in the debate. The wrongful execution rate is an important general aspect, in addition to being part of the debate. It is all too easy to say something you don't like is merely part of the debate, instead of addressing it directly, especially when there is no counter-argument forthcoming. It seems to me that the fact that the wrongful execution and wrongful conviction rates are a measure of injustice, brutality, and inhumanity is obvious from first principles, and some people say that is a biased classification even when they know that it is obvious. What makes people lie so blatantly? Why do people support killing when they know that the wrong people are getting killed? Is there any evidence that the wrongful execution rate is not a measure of injustice, brutality, or inhumanity? Those words have objective definitions, and the rate of wrongful executions meets them all. The word execution is ambigious, and a euphamism, or weasel word, for killing. We are supposed to be writing in plain language, not weasel words. --James S. 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I laugh... this is almost comical. I love how James writes the "wrongful EXECUTION rate" then later states that execution is AMBIGUOUS!!! What a retard! The anti-death penalty pages use "execution" but he wants only his POV presented. What a f%&king idiot. This guy does not have common sense and is so blatantly biased its just a laugh to watch. ER MD 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. See WP:CIVIL. --James S. 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not apologise to James. No need of profanity here. It was a laugh to watch when you kamikazed with James with your name calling. FWBOarticle

Agreed and implemented ER MD suggestion to replace "wrongful execution" with "wrongful killing." --James S. 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This way, we can use "execution" for the state-sanctioned form, and agree that when the wrong person was executed, they were accidentally killed, and not properly executed, after the fact, right? --James S. 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd Revert

Reverting edit three times within 24 hours is a violation of wikipedia rule. Slightly modyfing the content of tag is no excuse. You may not be familiar with wikipedia policy so I won't report you as long as you remove the tag by yourself and leave it for another 24 hours. Please behave and learn more about wikipedia policies and guideline. FWBOarticle

I haven't broken 3RR -- I haven't even come close. Several sections have been edited several times in the past 24 hours. This is a content dispute based on bias differences. I believe my stance is justified. Please do not remove the POV dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. --James S. 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my Engrish bit more carefully. I specifically refer to your tag revert. Each time, you reverted to your version of tag. Anyway, I reported it just a while ago so the admin can decide. Good luck and see ya. FWBOarticle

Please note that the dispute tag text is diferent from when it was inserted as a {{disputeabout}} factual dispute tag; I've tried to remove subjects of the dispute as balanced edits are folded in. --James S. 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin will decide whether a slight modification can be used as an excuse. Plus, what count is the original state before you inserted your excessively long tag. 3rr are there to favour status quo. That is why the edit would be in the orignal state at the end of third revert. I specifically wrote "3rd revert" for you but you reverted anyway without explaining your position. Plus, you have made 6th revert (or 4th according to your counting), so your defence is moot. Just self revert and wait for 24 hours. I'm happy to ask admin to forget about my report of your violation if you do so. FWBOarticle

My 2 cents

After reading the fine and intelligent comments posted here and reading about the wrongful convictions subject I have come to formulate this questions:

- Already a person by the last name of Cantu is widely believed to be innocent... why the state of texas cowardly hides and does not admit its FUCK UP???

only "widely believed" in the anti-death penalty camp--go read a pro-death penalty webpage and get the full story. "Believed" also implies not known for certain. Fact of the matter is that Cantu was a criminal and had actually attempted murder in the past. The evidence wasn't the best to say that he did it(he probably should have got life) but then again there is only speculation that he didn't do it.

- If ever an executed person is proven innocent... is the goverment liable? do they have any responsability, morally and ethically to the family of the person they just wrongly executed??...

- It is accepted in most religions around the world, that life is a gift given by a superior power ( Allah, God, Jehova, etc ) who the hell is the state of texas and the US government to override beliefs that have survived for 1000's of years??? who the hell are they to decide who lives and who dies????

- Eventhough there is strong evidence in several US states that innocent people have been put to death,,,why don't these states order an investigation or something to finally let the truth come to light???? why do they hide behind their " inmunity" which they can shove up their asses?? just because stupid " district attorneys" wanted to rack up their conviction rate and then they do not admit their mistakes...they should all burn in hell.....

my 2 cents —This unsigned comment was added by 66.212.201.23 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the rest... keep the "Blind, Torture, and Kill" alive... He definately benefits society. ER MD 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, keep a cool head, please! Excessive profanity, sarcasm, and punctuation marks are not helping change anyone's point of view, nor do they contribute to editors seeking to improve this article.Emmett5 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Killing versus Execution

This is one of the most amazing things I have seen...somebody trying to completely take over a subject to write their point of view. I will continue to revert because on one level I find it fascinating and then on another level I find it funny. Do the following: wiki both execution and killing. Also go to amnesty international's webpage and the death penalty info center webpage. They both use "wrongful execution rate" Changing it to the "wrongful killing rate" only demonstrates that your beliefs are outside of mainstream thought. ER MD 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That was your suggestion, to make it consistent, because execution is an ambiguous term. I, too, will continue to revert for the same reasons you state: you are obviously trying to push your point of view. You do not want to include balanced treatment of the wrongful killing/execution rate because you know that even one wrongful killing is indefensible when the deterrent effect is indistinguishable from life imprisonment. I have that simple, moral, plain fact on my side, and you keep trying to suppress it. If it didn't bother you so much, you wouldn't keep trying to suppress it, would you? --James S. 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

James you are a complete pencil dick retard. You sound like the guy on the payground who got their ass kicked every day. As for your reverts..I will switch to a revert a week because you are just an idiot! Do you not realize that "execution" redirects to capital punishment? Or is your head too far up your ass? Do you not realize that all of the anti-death penalty groups refer to it as the "wrongful execution rate." "Wrongful killing rate" is your invention and it just demonstrates your fringe knee-jerk reactions. Morality is not on your side... you have yet to name one person in the US that has been proven to be innocent after execution. It does bother me that they allow people like you to write in Wiki since you destroying the article into an anti-death penalty blog. Not one of your entries have been supported by other people. You opinions are so thin and there is no depth to your analysis or writings. Stick with the molecular analysis as evidenced by our talk page... Seems like you even piss people off writing about chemicals. ...but I am not surprised. ER MD 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're still here, and you're still pretending to be an MD, good for you!--64.12.116.73 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow² ER MD, you must be quite inspiring that all these random people with 2 or 3 edits keeps showing up and reverting to your version, and since you're an ER MD in LA, CA you wouldn't know anything about this, but most of the anon users doing this, the 168.216.0.0 - 168.216.255.255 users, they're editing from a high school in west virginia, being an ER MD in LA, CA of course you'd know nothing of this--152.163.100.73 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow all the idiots are out now claiming that I'm in West Viginia. Take a look at this IP moron. Sounds to me that most people agree that the above two people and of course James are complete and utter retards. ER MD

In that case, you really need to get a new systems admin, because even though the ip is registered to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, it seems that the ip is being used for other things, also if you're in LA, shouldn't the domain be registered to the SCAL office, not the NCAL one? isn't that a rather long commute? also how exactly are an ER doc if they don't even operate an ER? next time hack a more convincing ip--152.163.100.73 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• well hello there, 162.119.232.101| bathsquid.peosnap.navy.mil:8888 (squid/2.5.STABLE3)--152.163.100.73 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow is right. This disscussion has some of the dumbest people around. Seems like that above proxy was from 2004--another great catch imbecile. I somehow hacked into another IP...please--you give me way too much computer credit since I am only a user and the last time I wrote a program was in 1988. I must only presume that people are jealous of the fact that I have one of the coolest jobs around that makes awesome money. I'm not going to waste time doing a proxy--for one, I don't know how, and two, I don't even see the point since I run an up-to-date firewall/antivirus prog and that is it. James must attract morons to his cause with paranoid delusions of grandiosity. Unfortunately, the fact remains that people running queries on an IP are a bunch of tools. The only reason that I am here is because I enjoy writing, economics, and debate. I also edited a few medical pages but that may not been seen unless you are an administrator. You are all the retards (James included)... ER MD 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are irrational, you edited from an ip assigned to a chain of HMOs in northern california, that doesn't even have an emergency care center, and the ip in question has clearly been compromised that it's even showing on a list of known proxies. To top that all off the last, what page full of people, to come along and revert to your version were all editing from a gradeschool in virginia, generally they make you actually graduate from HS before they let you take an MCAT, no?--64.12.116.73 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow you are the dumbest fucking idiot ever. Instead of your stupid ws.arin.net why don't you try ip2location.com. As for the location in Virginia with the other tracker--that is where VERIZON is headquartered! Put the IP that I used at work into ip2location.com and it comes up LOS ANGELES. My personal IP is Long Beach, CA. Query that queer boy. You dumb fuck. Speaking of idiots...why are you so retarded that you have to use AOL. And what is your obsession with me? Are you that jealous? Did you aspire to be a doctor but failed? I look forward to you agreeing with me that you are the dumbest fucking idiot ever. I had to say that twice because maybe it didn't get through your thick skull. More about me: I make about 270K per year, live in a million dollar home, drive a performance package BMW, and have a hot girlfriend. All at the age of 31! :) ER MD 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, if you are really a medical doctor, then answer this: Who discovered the dietary essentiality of magnesium and potassium? What makes those minerals significant in relation to the genders? --James S. 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

James, you continue to prove your ignorance and stupidity. I'd probably bet you are the moron with the AOL account claiming that I'm in Virginia. If you have any life exeperience or know any doctors you would know that very few if any docs could tell you the answer to your unimportant question. I can only presume that you are a grad student making 20K a year because a professor would have more common sense and life experience than you. That or you are stuck on stupid. Also, only a student would come up with such a retarded question with zero implications to medical treatments (virutually nobody walks around with abnormal potassium levels or magnesium level unless they have medical problem and are taking drugs--although periodic hypokalemic paralysis is the only condition that I could think of right now that would be genetic). Let me tell you what we use Magnesium for... 1)Torsades de pointes -- look I even edited the page on Feb 20th Jackass. 2) Prolonged QT 3) Atrial tachycardia 4) hypomagnesemic patients (typically secondary to sepsis) 5) Severe COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and severe asthma (both conditions if they are about to go into respiratory failure(typically asthma) or ventilatory failure (typically COPD)--as a means to try and avoid intubation). As for potassium we only get concerned if it is too high. Death from low potassium is a very rare event and it must be very, very low... as in less that 1.3 in my experience and typically in patients with pre-existing CAD (coronary artery disease). High potassium is the main concern. At a level under 6 without EKG changes the treatment is kayexalate, if there are any EKG changes of a K level above 6 its one amp of IV calcium chloride (even if the textbooks state calcium gluconate), then one amp of D50, IV regular insulin 10 units (or more if they are diabetic, less if they have renal failure since insulin is cleared by the kidneys), albuterol since the beta agonist shifts potassium into the cell, and then kayexalate (and of course IV fluids such as half normal). The ultimate treatment if you cannot bring down the potassium level is dialysis. Obviously people with end stage renal disease on HD would get this treatment as sson as possible. Again James S. you are only proving your extreme ignornace. ER MD 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

168.216.147.124 (talk · contribs) and a whole bunch of his friends seems to be rather fond of your version, no matter what database you use, it's still registered to the WV Department of Education--64.12.116.73 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers are: nobody knows yet for the first two, and males are likely to be deficient in potassium, while females are likely to be deficient in magnesium. Right here in the U.S. of A. Another question: What are the symptoms of deficiency? --James S. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe you haven't realized this yet, but he's not going to answer the question, he'll just call you a retard, then copy/paste yet another section out of one of the ten gazillion sample med school application essays, available on the internet--64.12.116.73 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You two are really fucking stupid. ER MD 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I so don't care about this anymore--205.188.117.73 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(back left) Answer: Magnesium deficiency results in irritability, and potassium deficiency is implicated in cardiovascular disease. What real M.D. wouldn't know that? --James S. 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually James you are wrong..learn more about potassium and magnesium.ER MD 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the scholarly medical literature supports my position. Mahan, L.K. and Escott-Stump, S., eds. (2000) "Median daily magnesium intake for males and females in the United States compared to the 1998 RDAs," Krause's food, nutrition, and diet therapy, 10th ed. (Philadelphia: Saunders Harcourt) p. 121. If people like you were more familiar with the dietary conditions in their own countries, and familiar with the symptomatic implications, then maybe M.D.s would be able to recommend the proper corrective actions, decreasing general irritation of the population, and leading to less need for state-sanctioned killings, and less need for emergency medicine. But then your skills wouldn't be so much in demand, would they? In any case, you are economically conflicted so your opinion should be disregarded. --James S. 00:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

James you are embarassing yourself. The RDA is premised on eating a stardard deviation above what is actually needed therefore ensuring that there is not a deficiency. "The recommended intakes of essential nutrients must, therefore, by definition, exceed the requirements of practically all healthy persons." (Introduction to Clinical Nutrition Sardesai page 2 in my 1998 edition) Even if you do not eat the RDA for most nutrients, you will not manifest deficiency symptoms. James face the facts... You are a pinko liberal with no concept of reality since you are still in school while daddy is paying your bills. The fact that I pay out about 80K in taxes to support your worthless graduate degree in basket-weaving makes me sick. Emergency medicine will always exist because there are idiots like you who think that taking echinacea cures all woes. I must prove you wrong again... Quote from my med school nutrition book (Introduction to Clinical Nutrition page 86-87): "Because of the wide distribution of magnesium in plant and animal products, primary deficiency of magnesium is rare in individuals with normal organ function. The fall in circulating magnesium concentration is seen only with extreme depletion." The fact that you would even give credence to the above study demonstrates that you do not even understand what you are talking about. Comparing intake to an artifical number generated by researchers to guarantee that deficiency does not occur is worthless research. Again, walk away embarrassed bitch. Look, I called you a name again. Go cry to admin. ER MD 11:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your perspective as someone who primarily treats those who have fallen so far as to end up in the emergency room is valuable, but I urge you to consider that it might be a unique perspective. Perhaps our differences are partly due to our different perspectives. Do you agree that if people recieved the recommended levels of magnesium, that the incidence rate of symptoms including irritation in the population would decrease? Do you agree that such symptoms contribute to the crime rate, and therefore also the demand for your services? Again, please try to debate in a polite fashion. --James S. 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed insertion

"Some supporters of capital punishment, even the highly educated, are reduced to name-calling when confronted with the implications of their position." Diff1, diff2. --James S. 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go crying to mommy... bring it up with admin and they can see your stupid edits. I have not been contacted yet since most people probably agree that you are an idiot, that your POV is fringe, that your distort pro-death penalty positions, have an extremist anti-death penalty position, and converting back to your edits incessantly is actually violating wiki policy more than me calling you a f#$k face. ER MD 00:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Diff3. --James S. 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Takes three seconds to delete your work. ER MD 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And my work too but for some reason you do not feel the need to comment on this. Perhaps you could explain why or reinstate the UK commentary Nickhk

Does China execute persons aged less than 18?

A recent version of the page claimed that China both did not and did execute people under 18 years of age. Can we get a fresh source on that, please? --James S. 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

James: The difficult aspect with you is that you are a far-left liberal who incorrectly thinks that you are morally superior and smarter and therefore can add whatever you think is right even if it is not a supported view. As an example, you can write that you think that capital punishment violates human rights, but you can't write that capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing even if it actually is. The NPOV position is that capital punishment is the legally imposed sentence of death, or simply "execution." Read a newspaper, even the rags written in SF state that the "state of California executed Tookie Williams... etc." Likewise, the "wrongful killing rate" is your invention so go write it on your blog. It is not a recognized argument found in any anti-death penalty webpage. Finally, there has yet to be a case of a proven wrongful execution in the US since the reimposition of the death penalty. You can't use statistics to try and prove that one has occured. If you understood statistics more, then you would know that statistics are useful when the numbers are very large and there is the potential for a lot of variation. With only a few more than 1000 executions, it would be easy to review all of the cases and find one wrongful execution. Its been done, and the answer is there is not one proven case. So in reference to your hurt feelings, you can take your POV and go write a blog. It's not going to get published here. In fact, I take pleasure in reversing your edits. ER MD 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. That's like saying you've never made any mistakes because you don't have any malpractice judgements. Or that people without any tickets never speed. There are plenty of expositions on the wrongful execution rate on anti-death penalty sites, and the statistics are unanswerable, which is why you simply keep deleting them instead of adding balance which you have done to points which do have valid counterarguments. --James S.

Did I just see you write the "wrongful execution rate". Holy shit... what made you change it from the "wrongful killing rate."????? Your POV is so far up your ass that you are blinded by bacteroides... :) Face the facts, you are not interested in balance, you only want your point of view. The "wrongful execution rate" is part of the debate and belongs in the debate section especially for the conjecture which you proposed, and still, in the US you have yet to prove ONE wrongful execution. PLEASE just give me the name of ONE person since the reimposition of the death penalty! JUST ONE!!! Learn more about statistics before you try to distort them. And speaking of lies, the anti-death penalty crowd is the biggest liars around. Present your argument in the debate section. I propose a "arguments against" and an "arguments in support" section. Use the issues that are accepted positions from the anti-death penalty pages and allow two points of views. Otherwise, you will continue to revert and I will continue to revert. :) 71.107.64.180 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that all the little exhonoration money there is goes into trying to save those who are still alive. Nobody wants to spend money to exhonorate the already-executed, and district attornies fight such attempts tooth-and-nail because they don't want to go down in history as the first documented wrongful executioners. Anyway, this is very U.S.-centric. There are documented wrongful killings in the U.K. (which you deleted without explanation a few days ago.) Do you think the U.S. justice system is so superior to the U.K.'s that our larger system never makes mistakes? The statistics are plain as day: about ten death row exhonorations per year for the past decade from DNA alone, and DNA is available in less than 10% of the cases. Try to spin that, I dare you. --James S. 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

read the evan case: "When Evans was shown the clothing taken from the bodies of his wife and child, he was asked whether he was responsible for their deaths. He replied with a simple “Yes.”" So much for wrongful execution. The guy was a murderer. The DPIC is well know to lie about the statistics for reversal. As for DNA evidence, I've already discussed this with you and you had NO reply.

"Testing DNA for evidence in past cases is fraught with problems. As an example, a DNA test can confirm a conviction such as the "wrongfully convicted" "innocent" Roger Keith Coleman. It can be equivocal as in a partial match indicating either DNA degradation or contamination. It could be a complete mismatch which may not mean anything--we have a bunch of DNA from other people all around us--so the type of evidence (i.e. blood versus hair, vs. semen, etc. must be investigated) Or it can implicate another person whose DNA has already been run. Obviously, the only benefit of DNA is either confirming the guity, implicating someone else, or demonstrating that an absolute integral aspect of the case shows DNA that is not the convicted. True, DNA has shown that other people have been convicted for crimes commited by other people--so you are partially correct and I encourage you wo add that in on the DNA testing section. The interesting aspect about your argument is that DNA is a doubled edged sword. By arguing for overturning past convictions, you must also admit that cases tried from here on out will be much more precise since the juries will be able to weigh the DNA evidence. Therefore, DNA not only may prove wrongful convictions in the past, but it makes all future convictions much stronger and hence is an argument which supports the future application of the death penalty. Having read your user profile, I noticed that you support the ACLU. With that in mind, I doubt that you will present both sides of the argument if you opt to write a section on DNA evidence." Again: GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE IN THE US. Last year there were 60 executions and you claim that 10 were wrongful. That makes you fucking stupid. 71.107.64.180 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

James... again you try to revert and force the page to your distorted POV. Notice how nobody else has attempted to revert back to your point of view. The concensus is not on your side, so stick to the edits on uranium chemistry. Its appears that you have some knowledge, but you have neither intelligence nor wisdom. You are a complete idiot. :) ER MD 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You spoke too soon. I hope your patients have the benefit of more careful reasoning. --James S. 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch it!!!May I remind you of the civility rules!!! lol 71.107.64.180 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "You are a complete idiot" and "I hope your patients have the benefit of more careful reasoning" then you make my case for me. --James S. 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

James... this is my third day off so I am enjoying destorying your weak arguments while I clean up the house. My recommmendation to you is this: Get out of grad school. The housing market has skyrocketed, and the stock market (especially the Russell 2000 index) has posted some awesome gains. Not to mention my IGE and EEM ETFs. The quicker you realize that you are fighting a losing battle, the sooner you will be able to figure out how you can actually contribute to society as opposed to your continual leeching of government funds supporting your wimpy ass. Its expensive to live in California, so why don't you try to make a living as opposed to trying to keep convicted murderers alive. 71.107.64.180 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment about reverting

Please, folks, when you revert due to vandalism, be sure to revert to the immediately preceding good copy of the article. If you go back too far, we end up losing the good additions and edits that have been made to the article. YellowPigNowNow 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that...

Did you know that when China executes someone, their family pays for the execution, incl. paying for the bullets if the execution is by firing squad ? Martial Law 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Please think about your edits

1. Adding "an irrevocable" to punishment is REDUNDANT when it follows execution. It seems to me to be a clear attempt at adding POV.

2. The "wrongful death rate" information is already in the article, and placing a paragraph on it in the intro ruins the flow and balance of the introduction.

3. The third paragraph of the introduction is perfectly balanced as is. Adding another anti-death penalty sentence to it ruins the 50/50 neutrality that exists in the paragraph. The paragraph simply states the arguments on each side. Adding a rebuttal to the first argument to the paragraph seems to me to be another attempt at adding POV.

4. The "neutrality" warning that keeps getting placed is silly, because the explanation justifying the warning seems to be about a debate concerning capital punishment itself, not this article. The addition of the warning is especially ridiculous (and hypocritical) when the one who keeps placing the warning is the one who keeps adding POV sentences to the article in areas where the article is perfectly neutral. YellowPigNowNow 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

James is not required to think about his edits. He believes he is right and therefore the rules do not apply to him. Again reverting his changes... ER MD 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to be a summary. The discussion of the wrongful killing rate has evolved into one paragraph in the summary and two in the body, because the entire topic was removed when the debate article was split of (based on "ethics," whatever that means.) There is simply no reason to scrub away any mention of wrongful killings. I reluctantly agree with most of the other points. --James S. 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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: [4] [5] [6] --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)

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. [[7]] 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. [[8]] 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)

Proposed merger with Death penalty paradox

Hi there,

There's a new stub page called Death penalty paradox. It's not bad but it is short and sourceless. I propose to merge it into this one, unless someone thinks that this paradox deserves a page of its own. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, provided that it gets cited. Otherwise, it should be nominated for deletion.Emmett5 03:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed merger

I am against the merger of [Capital Punishment] into [Death Penalty Paradox] as I am afraid to say that the Death Penalty Paradox argument is irrelevant as it is based on a fundamentally erroneous perception of what is an execution.

An execution, as defined in the first paragraph of [Capital Punishment], is the severest sentence, imposed by the judiciary, that a person can receive for a crime know as capital offense and that is intended to terminate that person's life in a lawful place. However, in [Death Penalty Paradox], the assertion made is as follows: "An intentional killer of an inncoent person is called a murderer". These words from the article in question are self-explanatory. However when you look at the second assertion made (" "When and if there would evidence that a capital punishment was excuted upon an innocent person, the persons responsible for that execution are by their own standards considered "murderers" and thus should be killed" ".) - the words have been quoted verbatim - it is obvious that the notions of execution and murder are thought to be synonymous. I must make myself plain that an execution is not a murder. An executioner carries out a sentence which aims to terminate the life of the condemned, but it is not murder, since the sentence is a legal form of punishment, whereas murder is illegal. It is because of this fundamentally erroneous perception of what an execution is that the death penalty paradox is flawed and that therefore, it does not constitute an adequate argument against capital punishment and that therefore it should not be included in the "Capital Punishment" article

It is for this reason that I oppose the merger.

I hope that others will join me in the dissenting camp.

GreatKing 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a statement against the paradox. It doesn't convince me that the article about it shouldn't be merged.

Perception - any perception - of what an execution is is a point of view by definition. This is not what the argument is about at all.

If you think that the argument of the paradox is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant, you're welcome to nominate Death Penalty Paradox for deletion. Google, however, proves that the "paradox" exists as a statement of the abolitionists, whether it is wrong or right. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that: "An executioner carries out a sentence which aims to terminate the life of the condemned, but it is not murder, since the sentence is a legal form of punishment".

Yet the stub says that IF such prisoner is later found to be innocent, than there is a moral issue at hand, having executed a non offender of the law. Problem. I also oppose the merge. (and Amir's innuendo about its deletion candidacy)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear: If it would be proposed for deletion, i would object. If i was misunderstood, then i send my sincere apologies to Diza.

My point was that GreatKing's arguments were against the article itself and not against the merger. The article is reasonably valid, as far as common sense goes, it's just too short and poorly sourced to be a separate page, hence my merge proposal. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Amire80, I am against the merger because I believe that the death penalty paradox is flawed and that therefore it has no place in an article on capital punishment. That is what I said in my opposition to it. Also, Amire80, I am probably one of the most commonsense people you will meet in your life, and also very logical and rational. Even though abolitionists use the death penalty paradox to contradict proponents of capital punishment, I do not challenge that, but I do not think that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to put this argument in the Capital Punishment article as it is flawed.

Diza, let me remind that in the case that you have just talked about, even if the person is innocent, he was still executed in a process called an execution and that therefore the executioner should not be killed as this form of punishment is State-sanctioned, whereas murder isn't.

GreatKing 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet again - the current article about Death penalty paradox doesn't say that the paradox is necessarily right. It merely says that it is sometimes used as an argument against capital punishment.

Some people will say that all abolitionists are inherently wrong, and so shouldn't be mentioned at all anywhere. And maybe this is even true, but there are quite a lot of abolitionists in the world, and i think that you shall agree that denying their existence is not common sense.

The paradox can be merged into this article under the section about abolitionism, and a sentence can be added which goes something like this: "Proponents of capital punishment consider this paradox inherently flawed, explaining that a lawful execution cannot be called a murder." (It should be sourced, though).

(And i am not necessarily calling you a proponent of capital punishment.) --Amir E. Aharoni 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Amire80, obviously the argument is right because otherwise nobody would use it if it was wrong (except that it seems as though I have proven it wrong).

Furthermore, I am not denying the existence of abolitionists, I just believe that the paradox argument should not be included because it is wrong and flawed. However, I do accept your compromise: I will be more than willing to push for the addition of the Death Penalty paradox in the abolitionist section and the challenging by retentionists of the paradox if and only if both arguments are appropriately sourced.

GreatKing 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that (although from where I stand you didn't prove it was wrong, you just put forth a different view. When talking about capital punishment there is no right stance) --Shaoken 07:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my static opposition to the Merge:
I fail to see your logic in this falsification. state arrpoved executions gain their power from state laws, this ongoing debate is all about changing the law, and since laws are (or at least should) dervied from the intrensic morall values of a public of individuals, stating that these morall assertions (that some individuals have) final logic regarding execution is false ,thus making this arguement true and vaild. Yet there is a hidden assumption here, that is that state laws are representive of the people's will under a democratic consensus of morall values, an assumption that in the US at least is constitutional. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if it deserves a page at all, it should be merged. All of the arguments advanced against merging it appear to me to really be arguments against having it on Wikipedia at all. Also, I changed back the "imposed by the judiciary" to "imposed by the State" because, once again, it's just more accurate. It's certainly true that a court and jury impose the penalty, but it's carried out by a part of the executive branch, clemency goes through the executive, and the legislature is involved in crafting the law.JCO312 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise: State vs Judiciary

JCO312 and Coolcaesar, I am prepared to make a compromise, in order to end this deadlock.

I am prepared to accept your inclusion of "the State", as long as some like this is written:

"The death penalty is a State-sanctioned punishment that is imposed by the judiciary ..."

I still stand by my view that the judiciary's role is the most important in the death penalty process, and that the executive and legislative's role are relatively small. I hope that you are satisfied with the place I have given them in my proposed sentence - it certainly is better for "the State" to appear there than for it to be totally absent, what do you think?

GreatKing 09:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In a different compromise attempt, I changed it from "state" to "government." It's just not correct to say "judiciary," as I explained above, because the judiciary does not impose each part of capital punishment, only the sentence part, and using the phrase "imposed by the judiciary" suggests (incorrectly) that the entire process is carried out by that branch.

I'm going to attempt to more clearly explain why "imposed by the judiciary" is wrong. I'll use Pennsylvania as an example since it's a commonwealth, and I can avoid the confusion of using the word "state" to explain two concepts.

Pennsylvania has a lot of employees. They all work in one of the 3 traditional branches of government, one of you which you've properly identified as the judiciary. Judges, court clerks, etc., fall under this branch. Legislatures and their aides fall under the legislative branch. Nearly everyone else falls under the executive branch, as employees of an agency that reports to the governors office. When you said up top that I was arguing that prison guards are employees of the executive branch and therefore NOT employees of the State you made a fundamental mistake. No one can be an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and NOT be part of one of the branches. In PA the state-wide prison system is run by a director, who is a part of the governors cabinet, so the employees fall under the executive branch.

So, when you say the judiciary imposes capital punishment, it suggests that each stage of the process is handled by someone who falls under the judicial branch of government. That's plainly wrong. The judiciary, as you point out, conducts the trial and sentences the person, and handles the appellate process. If this article was just about the death sentence process you would be right, but it's not. It also includes the execution process, which is handled EXCLUSIVELY by people who are within the executive branch of government. I hope, GreatKing, that you'll read and consider all this, because I think you're basically just trying to say that the judiciary imposes the sentence, but the way you're phrasing it overstates that.JCO312 12:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The sate and judiciary needs to be removed. Technically the military can do it so specifying the governmental entity is incorrect. Saying that the government hands it down is superfluous since it is pretty much already known, but someone could very well write it. Also saying that it is the most severe form of punishment is also not true. Keeping a person alive and torturing them is much more severe than a painless lethal injection. ER MD 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked the military was not a seperate entity from the government. And once again nobody seems to understand what I mean when I say "State imposed." I do NOT mean the "State of Texas." I mean the State as in the nation-state concept. Sheesh. I think I agree that taking out the most severe form of punishment line is warranted, but of course, I think you're wrong that torturing someone is "more severe" than killing them. Both are POV, so I suppose neither is appropriate here. JCO312 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I finally figured out what GreatKing's issue is. He or she hasn't studied political philosophy as well as the law of agency. Basically, a thorough understanding of the separation of powers and agency are a precondition to correctly understanding the roles of the parties to an execution vis-a-vis each other and the executed. I also agree with JCO312 that GreatKing is unable to understand the essential difference between the legal concept of a U.S. state and the philosophical concept of state as embodied in phrases like city-state and nation-state. That important distinction is taught in high school freshman history courses across the U.S., which strongly supports the inference that GreatKing either did not go to college, or did not attend a good college with strong breadth requirements (like the University of California). --Coolcaesar 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you tone down the sense of superiority Coolcaesar. This isn't an essay class at University of California) and belittling GreatKing is unnecessary. --Nickhk

Actually, Coolcaesar, had you bothered to have a look at my profile, you would know that I am 16 years old.

Also, Coolcaesar, every time I have refered to "State", I always meant the political structure (government, ...) not the geopolitical entity (like the state of Texas). As you can see, I have always used the word "State", not "state".

And one more thing that I have to mention, this concerns JCO312, do not forget that others countries exist: what an American thing to do! It would be nice if we tried to use other countries to debate, not just center ourselves on the US. You might want to know that even though Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, this "status" has no constitutional implications, therefore we could correctly refer to Pennsylvania as a state. I also find that by using the word "State" or "Government", you are unfairly minimalising the role of the judiciary in death penalty cases, even more with the latter term.

GreatKing 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that there is no constitutional difference between a state and a commonwealth. Turns out that after graduating from college and law school, and prosecuting cases on behalf of the "commonwealth," I already knew that. I used the term because I assumed you weren't understanding my point. You would, nevertheless, techincally not be correct to call us the "state of Pennsylvania." Thank you for also reminding me of the existence of other countries. In those countries, the judiciary does not carry out executions either. Your proposed phrase "imposed by the judiciary" doesn't just minimize the role of the other branches, it incorrectly ignores them. As I've said before, you would be correct to say that a death sentence is imposed by the judiciary, you are flat out wrong to say that capital punishment is. JCO312 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What I just cannot understand is your pesistence in saying that the executive's role is quite considerable in a death penalty case, when the judiciary's involvement in the case is nearly constant. You justify your view by saying that prison guards, executioners, etc. are members of the executive branch ("The departments that run prisons are under the executive. Employees of those departments are absolutely members of the executive branch" The State vs. Judiciary section). You still keep on making the assertion that they are members of the executive branch: they are under the orders of the executive branch.

I know things might work differently in the USA, but let me remind you that other countries do exist and that in countries such as France or Australia or the UK, prison guards, wardens, prosecutors, etc. are not members of the executive branch, or any other branch, but employees of the State. The aides of members of the legislature are not members of the legislative branch.

You see, your problem is that because you keep on using American examples. Consequently you are shutting yourself off to the fact that a majority of countries do not operate like the USA: this is why your view is so flawed, you keep on insisting that since prison guards, etc. are (supposedly) considered to be members of the executive, or that aides of legislators fall under the legislative branch in the USA, you seem to think you can legitamately and unilaterally impose your view in this article. The truth of the matter is that you are so convinced that you are right and that I am wrong that you REFUSE to acknowledge my point of view, you REFUSE to answer my questions or contestations of your point of view. Everytime you challenge my views, I have always responded, you haven't. Everytime you tell that I am unfairly minimising the role of the executive and legislative branches in a death penalty case, I responded. But when I claim that you unfairly minimise the role of the judiciary, you simply choose to ignore it. In "State vs. Judiciary", you said "I am interested to hear what others think". Yet you still keep on changing what I write, even though only one person has joined you (Coolcaesar), even though consensus has not been reached yet on a solution, even though there has not been a sort of "vote" or decision by a considerable number of Wikipedians on whether "State" or "judiciary" should be used.

All this confirms is that you have reached the height of hypocrisy, narrowmindedness and selfishness.

GreatKing 09:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And I have one more thing to say, irrelevant in a debate on the death penalty. Tell me, JCO312, if all employees of the State are necessarily members of a branch, to which branches do nurses, teachers, firefighters, surgeons and garbage collectors belong?

GreatKing 10:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you mean a doctor employed by an NIH or the equivalent. They belong to the executive. People who work for executive agencies are executive employees. Garbage collectors are likely municipal employees, but the structure is the same at those levels. You haven't asked any questions or made any assertions that I haven't responded to. You think that 1) you can be an employee of the government and not fall under a branch, and 2) that the judiciary is solely (or at least nearly solely) responsible for capital punishment. Both those positions are factually wrong, and so as a result I changed your edit. Legislative aides are most certainly legislative branch employees. They are paid out of the budget of the legislature, they are hired within that branch, they report to the leaders of that branch. The same is true for employees of the other branches. Moreover, even IF you were correct about these people being simply employees of "the State" your edit would still be incorrect, because it would still ignore the role that they play, which is significant in the overall scheme of capital punishment.

On another note, I understand that CoolCeasar attacked you personally earlier. If it makes you feel better as a result to call me a hypocrite or narrow minded, so be it. It betrays a certain immaturity to have to result to such ad hominem attacks. Your position on this issue is unfounded and incorrect. So long as it continues to be, I intend to continue to edit this page to make it correct. That's nothing personal, and I hope you understand that. JCO312 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid to say that you have been hypocritical and narrowminded. You mentioned earlier that you want to hear what others have to say, yet you still unilaterally impose your view in the article because only one person agrees with you. You mentioned earlier that people who work for executive agencies are executive employees, but it does not mean that they are the executive branch: this is your view that you have reiterated many times. Aides of legislators are legislative branch employees, but you keep on saying they are members of the legislative branch, I have been arguing the exact opposite. And about the role that the two branches (executive and legislative) play in the scheme of capital punishment, I still stand by my view that they are small and could be considered as insignificant: this is the reason why there is a deadlock

Another problem you have is that you do not acknowledge at all that most countries in the world function differently to the US (strange, how you did not respond to this earlier on?). You state that the director of Pennsylvanian prisons has a seat in the Commonwealth Governor's Cabinet. That does not mean that in other countries around the world the director of prisons is a member of the executive, or even sits in the governor's cabinet. You just cannot understand that not all countries work like the US, and that your whole view is based on how your country works, not how most country works. Your view is unrepresentative of of the way that a majority of nations work because you center yourself 100% opn the US (look at your Pennsylvania director example), never have I heard youAnother problem you have is that you tend to avoid the hard question (never have you answered any of the issues raised in this paragraph or earlier on), all you have done in this discussion is answer the easy ones

And also, I am not attacking you out of anger or frustration, all I did was call a spade a spade.

GreatKing 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this page is getting kind of hot. I'll add my two cents (the currency in both Australia and the United States). JCO312 and Coolcaesar are correct to say that capital punishment is a state-imposed punishment, rather than a judicially imposed one. That, in fact, is what separates capital punishment from murder, at least in the eyes of the law: the fact that the state imposes it. As for the branch question; here's how it works: the legislature (legislative branch) decides that a certain crime deserves to be punishable with death; the police (executive branch) catch someone committing that crime; the jury (with some input from the judge [judicial branch, obviously]) finds him guilty and then decides if he should be executed; finally, after the prisoner's appeals are exhausted, the executioner (again, executive branch) puts him to death.

And, yes, this describes the American system. But it's sort of silly to say that it's American-centric: America is the only major Western democracy to execute people, so where else would you look for procedure? In other major countries that still execute criminals, the procedure is, shall we say, less formulaic? In those places (e.g. Saudi Arabia or China) there is even less judicial control. Indeed, I don't think one could even say that China has an independent judiciary, and they execute more people than any other country! So to call their death penalty "judicially imposed" would be even less correct.

So, for my part, state-imposed is the only form one could use in the article and be correct. But if you don't believe me, submit the dispute for mediation. This page describes the procedures people follow in such a case. You seem to have already tried the "talk to the other parties involved" step and the "Discuss with third parties" step (i.e., me). So, GreatKing, if you can't accept my and Coolcaesar's suggestion that JCO312 is correct, mediation is your next option.

Finally, I agree with JCO312 that the ad hominem attacks are rude and against the spirit of Wikipedia. You should debate ideas, but stop short of attacking other users.

--Coemgenus 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was writing this at the same time as Coemgenus, so theere may be some duplication of our points.

GreatKing, I don't want this to turn into an edit war over one word, but I really don't think you can say capital punishment is purely judicial. Yes a judge (or in some places a jury) imposes the senence, but it takes the whole apparatus of State to, a) give that option, b)carry out the sentence.

Since I'm in the UK I'm certainly aware that are/were different ways of doing things in relation to capital punishment. Of course, the UK, and many Commonwealth countries do not have the rigorous level of separation of powers that the US has, but even so to adapt JCO312's example to the UK (or more specifically England and Wales), the Prison Service (now merged with the Probation Service) is an executive (here executive means that it has a level of policitcal independence) agency of the Home Office, which as a cabinet level department, would be considered part of the Executive branch in political theory. When the UK had the death penalty, carrying out the sentence would have been the responsibility of this area.

I prefer State to the original wording of government, as that is more likely to be (mis-)interpreted as referring to the Executive branch. David Underdown 12:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was never taught in Civics 101 that executive meant "political independance". Is the Queen supposed to be politically independant or is she supposed to act on the advice of her PM? Since this defintion is incorrect I believe that Underdown's remark should be disregarded. Even though the Home Office is apart of the executive, it still does not mean that those who work for it are members of the executive (JCO312's view), but are employees of the State (or public servants, if you are more familiar with that term.

Also, I have found more evidence that JCO312 is wrong: "In the United States, the Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." This was directly taken from Civil Service. This proves that those work for the executive (like prison guards), or the legislative (like aides for example) or the judiciary, are not members of any branch (JCO312's PoV). This quote explains that employees work in/for these branches, but are not apart of it.

user:GreatKing

No, it proves that members of all three branches may be Civil Servants (civil service is a type of employment, not a branch of the government). And even if your point is correct, GreatKing, doesn't that mean that those who do the executing are not members of the judiciary, and thus that your phrasing is incorrect? --Coemgenus 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again I was writing at the same time as Coemgenus, so there is some duplication between our points. Must stop doing that...

I was trying to avoid confusion there, and obviously failed. In the UK Executive Agency is a specific category of government bodies which have some day to day independence, and I was trying to separate that from the more general concept of the executive branch.

The way I read that snippet you found from the US Civil Service is not that they do not belong to any branch of the goverment, merely that all non-political appointments in the US, regardless of branch, come under the remit of the Civil Service.

Anyway if all Civil Servants are state employees, public servants or whatever, surely that strengthens the case for describing capital punishment as being imposed by the State, rather than assigning it to an individual branch.

By the way, I am a UK Civil (or to be strictly accurate, Crown) Servant, working for an Executive Agency (not the Prison Service, or any other Home Office EA). David Underdown 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't avoided answering anything, and again, I'm getting a little tired of your downright rude attitude. I used American procedures as an example. You keep saying that other countries do things differently, so please, enlighten us, which countries handle capital punishment in the way you've suggested? In which country do judges act as executioners? Since we're on the subject, would you consider the people who actually carry out the execution to have a "minimal" role? Do you suppose that the people who were granted clemency from various executive authorities over the last 10 years would view that act as "minimal?"

Your point about civil servents is meaningless. Is it your position that because they use the words "appointed IN THE executive, legislative or judicial branch" that they are not members of that branch? Regardless, since now 4 people, including my own "hypocritical, narrowminded, selfish view," believe that it should be "State imposed," I'm changing it back. JCO312 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding, I've never argued that. All I have said is that there is no such thing as State employees who are members of one branch or another branch.

In that case your argument about "executed by the judiciary" is even more incorrect, since now "State" employees are involved. You earlier called me selfish because I keep changing the page with only Coolceasar supporting my position. 4 people say it should be State, you are the only one who says it should be otherwise. If you're going to go around calling others hypocrites and selfish, better to avoid those traits yourself. JCO312 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to have taken my advice about agreeing to consensus, or even about submitting to arbitration, so I'll set that up now. In the meantime, let's not change the page anymore. I know that some of you are new users, and may not be aware of the three-revert rule, but it's probably been violated today. And that includes edits made while not signed in to your user name. So let's everyone be cool, leave the page alone for a bit, and wait for a ruling on this. --Coemgenus 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I though that in the interest of the discussion I would post the following piece of the Wikipedia article on the "executive"

Role of the executive

It is usually the role of the executive to:

Enforce the law. To achieve this the executive administers the prisons and the police force, and prosecutes criminals in the name of the state.

Conduct the foreign relations of the state.

Command the armed forces.

Appoint state officials, including judges and diplomats.

Administer government departments and public services.

Issue executive orders (also known as secondary legislation, ordinances, edicts or decrees).

As it says, it is the executive branch that is responsible for law enforcement, including the prosection of criminals and the adminstration of prisons. Perhaps that will clear some of this dispute up. JCO312 03:09, 11 May 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)

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)

YOUR URGENT ATTENTION AND ACTION NEEDED:

Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi has been sentenced to death by hanging. WHen she was 17 she defended herself and her niece when three men tried to rape her. One of them died from stab wounds.

Now Nazanin is Iranian. In a western country she would probably be acquitted or get a short prison sentence, as the death was obviously committed in self-defense. Also as a 17 years old, she could be treated as a minor. In Iran however, the minimum age for the death penalty is 15 years for males, and nine years for females.

Oh by the way if she had let the men rape her, then she may have got 100 lashes for being found guilty of having pre-maritial sex.

Overseas pressure can and often has saved people from the death penalty. If enough people pressure their Governments to register concern, it will have an impact.

read more: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.40 (talk • contribs)

Moved from main article. -- Vary | Talk 13:08, 20 May 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. You're 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"[10] 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