Talk:Capital punishment

Archives
2003/2004 to end of 2005 (approx.) 2005 to 16 January 2006 February to May 2006 (approx.) February, March 2006 (approx.) March to mid April 2006 Mid to end of April 2006 End of April to mid May 2006

Map Edit

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

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

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

Voltaire

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

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

203.217.91.1 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

GreatKing 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Fallibility

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

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

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

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

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

New Compromise

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

Written by GreatKing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dpv 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not an argument??? you have got to be kidding me. Think about it for a while since its pretty easy to understand. Or let me explain... One one extreme: Cost: zero wrongful executions. Benefit: prevent recidivism and saves thousands of lives. On the other extreme: Cost: multiple wrongful executions. Benefit: Zero lives saved by executing murderers and preventing recidivism. Simple cost and benefit. Virtually every decision can be made along those line. Proponents simply argue that the cost of potential/proven wrongful execution is "vanishingly small"[4] in comparision to the lives saved by executing murderers. opponents argue that the cost is high: potential/proven executions of innocents versus very little benefit or no prevented homicides. Also you again fail to read what I wrote stating "letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them." That is not what I wrote, so I don't know why I am even discussing this matter with you. Either you do not care what the real point was or you intentially want to mischaracterize the position to further your argument. Finally, do you really need to read it in a journal to understand the concept? Seems to me that this is common sense and debate 101. ER MD 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreatKing 11:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Last Juvenile Edit

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

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

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

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

The arguments for and against sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of famous abolitionists/ retentionists

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

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

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

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

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

O.K. Done. Vapour

The title change: From Capital Punishment to Death Penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    d. Fatal. Obs. 

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

    e. Roman Law. Involving loss of civil rights. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, I found something interesting in Encycropedia Britanica.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title has been misspelled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments section (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess Amnesty International is not seriously involved in the debate in the United State. [5] Vapour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparent conflict between articles on juvenile execution

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

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

Requested Move back to Capital punishment

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

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

Survey

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

The Problem of the Innocent

So before you can even decide if you're for or against killing/punishing a person; how do you justify sending potential innocent lives to death? Can a system that elliminate these errors ever come about, or is it not possible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that even according to proponents of capital punishment, that there are innocent lives who are still given the death penalty. 24.23.51.27 06:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not for debating the topic. McKay 11:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, didn't this article used to have a debate section? With a link to Capital punishment debate? Now both have completely gone missing.... RHammond 04:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it back, renamed "Views pro and con" -- if anyone takes it out again, please remember to at least leave a link to the sub-article. RHammond 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty in China's special administrative regions

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

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

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