Jump to content

Talk:Capital punishment in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistic lacking a proper citation

[edit]

The sentence "Australia banned capital punishment on a state-by-state basis through the 20th century, and today, the practice is widely condemned by most Australians."'s citation is not valid as it does not provide any statistic, just an unproven statement.

The comment "stralia banned capital punishment on a state-by-state basis through the 20th century[...]" is a widely know fact, and therefore does not really need a citation. But I agree, that to say "the practice is widely condemned by most Australians[...]" needs a citation. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military executions

[edit]

The article needs a description of the manner in which the military (both pre-federation British and post-federation Australian) executed those it condemned to death (hanging, firing squad, etc.) and, moreover the details of the last military executions. 129.94.117.150 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treason

[edit]

Has the Australian law, in relation to the penalty capital punishment for treason, ever been repealed? 129.94.117.150 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe the 1973 act abolished it for all federal crimes (including treason). Word for word the relevant section says:
"A person is not liable to the punishment of death for any offence." http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A00004
The states of course had their own legislation and given they predate the Commonwealth have their own treason statutes. I believe NSW was the last state to abolish capital punishment (by law) in the mid-80s but (at the risk of stating an un-researched opinion) nobody seriously believed treason charges would be laid for some time before that. Tigerman2005 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

[edit]
Old Melbourne Gaol gallows

Before user 93.185.104.30 was blocked for sockpuppetry he contributed the same spiel about Ronald Ryan on four different pages:

This spiel should be removed because of many errors in the text, the references supplied do not neccessarily support the more controversial points.

The text I put as a replacement is far more general and relevant to the topic


Victoria’s first executions occurred in 1841 when two natives were hanged outside the site of the Melbourne Goal for the killing of a whaler in the Westernport district. [1]

Ronald Ryan was the last man executed at Pentridge Prison and in Australia. Ryan was hanged on February 3, 1967 after being convicted murder in 1965. Ryan was the last of 186 executions.

Not all those executed were murderers, Albert McNamara was hanged for Arson in 1902 and David Bennett hanged in 1932 was convicted of raping a four year old girl. [2]

The number includes the triple murderer Edward Leonski, executed by the U.S. Army in 1942. [3]


The beam used to executed the condemned prisoner was removed from Old Melbourne Gaol and installed in D Division at Pentridge Prison by the condemned child rapist David Bennett. It was used for all 10 Pentridge hangings. After Victoria abolished capital punishment in 1975 the beam was removed and reinstalled at the Old Melbourne Goal.[4] Purrum (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by Bepopalula. Suspected sockpuppet.

[edit]

User Bepopalula has been running a biased campaign on these pages trying to include unnecessary information about the execution of Ronald Ryan. The information has been added to the following articles...

In all cases, the information is a rambling attempt to show that Ronald Ryan was wrongly convicted and executed. It is poorly written, badly cited, largely subjective, and does not belong in any of the articles it has been repeatedly put in to.
Bepopalula has repeatedly replaced the info, and his edit summary claim that my (and others') attempts to remove this are labelled as vandalism.
While preparing this response, I noticed that the concerns had already been raised previously with regard to user 93.185.104.30, who made identical changes to the exact same four pages. Can administrators take note of my concerns and take appropriate action as needed. Thanks--Dmol (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this particular set of edits, but it must be said that one doesn't have to be a suspected sockpuppet and be biased to believe that Ronald Ryan was wrongly convicted. many very respectable people in Victoria feel that way. It's hard for me to feel like looking further into your complaints when you show such an equivalent bias yourself. If you can present your case a little more constructively, highlighting unacceptable edits, etc, you may have more success than simply accusing people with whom you disagree of bias. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less whether Ronald Ryan was guilty or not. But Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss it. Mention of the continuing controversy is perfectly acceptable, but not a long rambling one-sided essay on pages that are not even on the same topic is not acceptable. Nor is labelling perfectly acceptable edits as vandalism just because the other user does not agree. Please read over the history of the edits to see what I mean. I am quite happy to have this info added provided there is consensus and that it is trimmed and verified. I should have mentioned in my earlier post that the other user is banned, and so is now editing against usage policy.--Dmol (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it may be an inappropriate campaign about Ryan, but it was you who said it was biased! (I'll have a closer look at the history when I get some more time. )HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am no suckpuppet. The constant accusations of suspected sockpuppetry are an attempt to stop users from contributing or reverting vandalized edits. Please be aware that every Wikipedia article relating to Ronald Ryan has very often been vandalized within the last two years, mostly by User Purrum, followed a short time later by another user who vandalizes the article in exactly the same manner. All contributions based on citations and references might look similar BECAUSE the contributions have been extracted from similar citations and references. There is no bias nor campaign about the guilt of Ronald Ryan, it is the personal views of a few users. Bepopalula (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The speil about Ronald Ryan does not belong on this page Purrum (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for coming in late, only just noticed this discussion.) I also have no strong opinion on Ryan's guilt, but... Escapeeyes has been socking away on Ronald Ryan since June 2009. In the last year and a half he's been the subject of six sockpuppet investigations resulting in at least ten account blocks; in between sock accounts he's made heavy use of open proxies. Every time he shows up, he vociferously denies having any connection to all the previous socks (despite obvious similarities in edit style, agenda, and in some cases checkuser). When blocked, he then switches back to complaining from open proxies, still denying all charges. The reason he's shown up on this and similar pages is because he spent so long socking at Ronald Ryan that it's now under long-term semi-protection, so he can't edit there any more (for a while we also had to semi the talk page).

I'm all for engaging with people who have the potential to become good-faith editors; I tried it with this guy over at Ronald Ryan for quite a while, despite his previous history. But Escapeeyes (aka Bepopalula, aka Onionshead, aka PurrumShotHodson, aka Ghost Of Hodson, aka BeyondReasonableDoubt, aka etc etc etc) has made it clear that he has no qualms about lying to other editors; the fact that he's not a very competent liar doesn't make it any more excusable (although 'suckpuppet' does seem quite apt). There is no point in expecting a bad-faith editor to meet you halfway.

In short, he's a turnip, and should be handled accordingly. --GenericBob (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by Purrum. Serial Vandal

[edit]

According to Purrum's views all 'factual' (not speil) contributions with citations and references relating to Ronald Ryan do not belong anywhere. Evidence of Purrum's past history records show Purrum's persistent disruptive edits and vandalism on everything relating to Ronald Ryan. Purrum claims to know that Ronald Ryan was guilty, even though hundreds of citations, references and news articles by criminal experts say otherwise. Whether Ronald Ryan was guilty or not is irrelevant, but the public has a right to be informed of the 'facts' of Capital Punishment in Australia. Bepopalula (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory look over the user's edit show that Purrum is a long established editor with a good record of edits. The allegations of vandalism have been made by a user who has also labelled my edits the same way as we have been removing POV information from articles where it does not belong. Again I encourage an administrator to look in to this action, or could someone advise us as to where Bepopalula could be reported.--Dmol (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Purrum's lengthy talk page is evidence of unreliable contributions resulting in Wikipedia requests for speedy deletion of many articles. User Dmol considers this as good record of edits. There is ample evidence in Purrum's lengthy history records of contributions that prove the overwhelming number of persistent disruptive edits and vandalism on everything relating to Ronald Ryan. This is not an allegation as suggested by User Dmol, but in fact the truth. As for me, I have done nothing wrong, my history records of contributions proves this. I have added original contributions relating to Ronald Ryan made by other users, which Purrum has vandalized time and time again over the past two years. I ask administrators to look at the evidence and the false allegations against me. Bepopalula (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you describe what a fiery debate is ? Purrum (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Roy Morgan Poll

[edit]

I just deleted the discussion of the Roy Morgan Poll for the following reasons. 1) It appeared to be original research (NOR). It had been flagged for citation since April 2010 2) It was not an accurate description of the poll results. The Port Arthur massacre was outside the period being discussed and the discovery of the Milat murders in 1992 was half-way through the period with no significant changes changes to the poll results in evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul24682003 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the 2009 Roy Morgan poll give results of 1947 et al, public attitudes? And why are 14yr olds included in the polling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Carson (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NSW last state...

[edit]

I think the sentence about NSW being the last state to remove capital punishment needs to be explained a little clearer. The final crimes that were removed as capital offences (in 1985) were piracy and treason. I'm guessing nobody was convicted of either in the 20th Century and it seems more an oversight than anything else (from when NSW was self-governing and actually worried about pirates and acts of treason). Generally WA is named as the last state to abolish capital punishment in Australia as it was the final state to remove it for a 'regularly' committed/convicted crime (i.e. murder). Tigerman2005 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits about reintroduction of capital punishment.

[edit]

I've twice removed changes made by Jonesrick95 to the article Capital punishment in Australia, regarding claims that there is a push for the reintroduction of capital punishment in Australia. My reasons were well explained in the edit summaries, but have been reverted twice without explanation or discussion.

The sentence - "However, no person of significant stature or influence has advocated the death penalty for quite some time since the last execution in 1967." has been removed and replaced with - "There are small groups that are campaigning for bringing back the death penalty such as 'Australians support the death penalty', or 'Death Penalty is needed in Australia which has 3,801 supporters' ".

My problems with these edits are as follows.

The original claim is not disproven by the new information. Other than the usual bleatings every time there's a terrorist event or a child murder, no significant politician, political party, or group currently supports the reintroduction of the death penalty.

The new information does not have any reliable sources, and is just using Facebook groups as its source. These are not reliable, and should not be allowed.

The new information does not indicate any widespread support for any campaign.

Can some other disinterested parties have a look at this and make some recommendation or edits. I'll replace the Facebook refs with CN tags and tag it Dubious to bring discussions here.

Thanks.--Dmol (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its very funny you talk about my deleting of The sentence - "However, no person of significant stature or influence has advocated the death penalty for quite some time since the last execution in 1967." yes I did and I saw nothing wrong with it too. and its also funny that you deleted my post that was against the post. in the sentence - ""in recent years politicians have voiced calls for bringing back the death penalty such as the case of George Christensen (politician) on 2011 [5] an again on 2015 [6] and Jacqui Lambie on 2015 as well [7]

all I was doing was post the fact that they do have groups that support bringing back it. and if you Noted I said that they are Small groups Small Groups not large but small.

so I saw nothing wrong with the posts I have aiding to the page, and it also seems to me that you don't like the fact that I putted the fact that they have two sides in this debate. Jonesrick95 (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two insignificant politicians are hardly evidence of any sort of mainstream demand for a policy change. Facebook is not a reliable source for any information. --Dmol (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

says you that they are not significant to me and other people they look very much significant people they are the best know supporters for bringing back the death penalty since 1967 so you can't use that statement of However, no person of significant stature or influence has advocated the death penalty for quite some time since the last execution in 1967. I would like to have somebody else to look at this matter because your biased. Jonesrick95 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not properly sourced so they don't stand. If it is reported in a reliable third party source fine, otherwise no. ----Snowded TALK 09:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you tell me what's a reliable third party source Jonesrick95 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is all laid out here ----Snowded TALK 07:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing it Timjones86 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "ned kelly australian bushranger timeline page 2". Kellycountry2000.com. 17 February 2009. Retrieved 18 August 2010.
  2. ^ [| Prisoner Hanged]
  3. ^ [Leonski guilty, sentenced to Death]
  4. ^ http://www.oldmelbournegaol.com.au/old_melbourne_gaol
  5. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-31/mp-refuses-to-condemn-death-penalty/2738172
  6. ^ http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/24/death-sentence-terrorists-nats-mp
  7. ^ http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/20/bring-back-death-penalty-lambie-says
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capital punishment in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capital punishment in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Capital punishment in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capital punishment in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSW last state...(part 2). And SA.

[edit]

(As above: 1955 or 1985)

There is no reference for the NSW bit. And I’d love to hear the story for why the penalty for arson in naval dockyards was still punishable by death (after 1955). Intentional, or just too difficult for the legislators at the time?

Also the SA bit says 25 people (Maria 1840), but the [17] reference says 26 people. Curiously it’s 24 in Chronicle of Australia 1993, and is not cited in Macquarie ...Events 1997. MBG02 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maria (brigantine) page says 25 and lists them. MBG02 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External territories

[edit]

The article talks about the ACT and NT, but what about the other territories?

It's clear from the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 (Cth) that the Commonwealth abolition of the death penalty applies to all territories, with the exception (see s 3(3) of the original Act) of Papua and New Guinea.

With regards to the Territories of Papua and New Guinea - perhaps it's worth talking about Australia's role in capital punishment in PNG and linking to Capital punishment in Papua New Guinea?

As for the remaining territories: the Jervis Bay Territory and several of the uninhabited external territories follow ACT law (at least at present), and I'm *guessing* would have had the death penalty (unused, one would presume) from when the Commonwealth assumed control until 1973, either under applied ACT laws or under whatever previous legal arrangements existed.

The three permanently inhabited external territories, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island, have had a more complex history, which has definitely involved executions on Norfolk Island.

This would be interesting to document if for nothing but completeness. ajdlinux | utc 08:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_punishment_in_Australia&oldid=1212407232"