Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 2

message: The following section is in historical error and needs to be changed.
:The Jewish view of all laws in the Bible, not just the death penalty, is based on the reading of the Bible as seen through Judaism's corpus of oral law. These laws were first redacted around 200 CE in the Mishnah and later around 550 CE in the Talmud. 
Since we know that the Tanakh was translated into Greek c. 250 BCE in its entirety, the Septuagint, the concept of anyone adding anything after that time is historically inaccurate. - David 18:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Inaccuracy 

message: I have also noticed that there are 6 links to anti death penalty groups, but none to pro death penalty groups.  This is definitely not NPOV, can someone please rectify this? - David 19:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalance in the links 

message: I busy with another article right now, but I would like someone to review this section of the article in light of my comments and suggest alternate wording to bring this in line with historical facts.  The quote from the article is:
:The Gospel of John (18:31) implies that it was impossible for the Jews to kill Jesus for the crimes of which he was accused, and that he was thus given to the Romans for trial.
The Jewish rulers were planning to stone Jesus to death (see Tractate Sanhedrin) for heresy, but did not because they were an occupied nation.  Roman law forbid them from serving the death penalty, so they took Jesus to the Roman governor and let him do the dirty work. - DavidR (was David) 12:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Law prevented 1st Century Jewish Capitol Punishment 

message: Death penalty is unhuman .It should be abolished
:It is human, but very primitive (crucifixion, mummified alive, gulliotine..) and no one has the right to judge on death. Therefore it should be abolished.
::Whatever your opinion is, it should be stated alongside contrary arguments to give a complete and hopefully objective picture of the situation. Thats the intention of a encyclopaedia.  14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un human 

message: Isn't this still practiced in the Middle East, contrary to the article?
:Yes. I am quite sure it is practiced somewhere in the eastern hemisphere.
----
* At least in the United States, poor people and those from ethnic minorities are more likely to be executed than whites convicted of similar crimes.
:The article Capital punishment in the United States has data which is actually contrary to this statement, that whites are in fact more likely to be sentenced to the death penalty and executed than blacks, when compared to the general prison population.  Of course, the percentage of black inmates on death row is still higher than the general population, but this clearly has nothing to do with unfair application of the death penalty; if there is any unfairness against minorities here (which is a controversial statement in itself), it is in enforcement or conviction, not sentencing.  Assuming the data is accurate, this statement needs to be revised. CyborgTosser
::Well...Capital punishment in the United States has data which says that whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks but not that they are more likely to be executed. Perhaps whites are more likely to win appeals -remember only 12% of those sentenced have actually been executed. I'll do some more checking on this. Rmhermen 16:54, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
:::Found what I was looking for. "blacks committed 51.5% of all murders between 1976 and 1999, while whites committed 46.5%." 49% of all death sentences went to whites while only 41% of all death sentences went to blacks. For those sentenced to death between 1977-2002, 15% of whites sentenced were executed, only 10% of blacks. So with statement from US page, whites are more likely to be sentenced to death for a similar crime and more likely to be executed than blacks (whites also are slightly more likely to be resentenced off death row (49% of death row population, 53% of resentences), so blacks are "most likely to spend a long number of years waiting on death row". When appeals finally run out these statistics may change.) I have no way of evaluating the "poor people statement", it is partially a false comparison because it compares a group which includes "poor whites" with the group of "all whites". If it compared poor people to rich whites (or rich anyone) it might well be true. I will remove the statement from the page. Rmhermen 19:00, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a specific section on the abolition movement including dates when various countries abolished capital punishment (or ceased to use it). AndyL 19:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a list exists in the german version of wikipedia. Greets  14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: JesseG 03:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: So what is acceptable death toll for capital punishment, 1, 5, 10, 100 or 1000 murder enough for dealth penalty?  Or are you just against context of crime? So a terrorist who commit 5 murders should be put to death but serrial murderer with 10 kills should be in jail instead?  Moreover, "at least the person is alive to be released".  Well what make you think that all falsedly convicted will be exonarated in the end.  Surely to spend the entire rest of life in imprisonment is too cruel because life is too precious.  The logic against death penalty apply equally against the life imprisonment.FWBOarticle 16:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decapitation by Sword 

message: I think that the "redemption" point in the list of arguments against death penalty is misleading.
What I think it was meant to be written is different:
I think that death abolitionists like me state that life/40 years imprisonment are not made to make prisoners "better people" but to give them the possibility to think about what they have done. A chance that is taken away from them with capital punishment.
Otherwise somebody might think that abolitionists just want to brainwash criminals in order to coerce them to live like anyone else.
Sorry for my grammar mistakes ^^
CarrKnight
Carr_Knight@yahoo.com
:Shouldn't redemption be an argument in favor of the death penalty?  During a life imprisonment a person may change (or be redeemed), the continued punishment of such as person is cruel as they are now innocent.  Capital punishment while the person is still guilty or unredeemed avoids punishing the innocent, except in those unfortunate cases where they truly are innocent.--Silverback 02:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is presumptuous of the government to punish anybody, particularly people who are now innocent, it isn't God.  The role of the government is to protect society.  If it must kill or use life imprisonment as a deterrent, then kill the person while they are guilty, don't risk long term punishment of a redeemed (or cured) person, who is now, no more a threat to society, than you or I, that would be inhumane.--Silverback 16:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, don't you think people can change? You mustn't accept Christian culture if you think people can't change, and that they can't be innocent after such change.  But this is really about the role of government, whether its authority is moral, legal, or merely that of the guy with the biggest stick on the block.  What is legal and illegal changes over time, whether it is sexual, behavior, drugs laws, tax evasion, DUI, "justifiable" homocide, abortion, etc.  Do you really confuse this with right and wrong, is your morality determined by politicians in state or national capitals?  Do you think only individuals and not the government can do wrong?  What respect should you show for the law?  Should you submit like a sheep to a "punishment" for breaking the law, when the government itself did not follow the "law" during that conviction, for instance if you were denied a jury trial, or if the state witnesses against you did not really face penalty of perjury (as in the OJ Simpson trial?), should you respect the law in that circumstance?  Does lawless law have the right to punish others or any right to respect, or to be imbued with moral authority?  I guess I don't have any illusions about the law or government, it takes innocent life all the time and is straining at and breaking the limits and standards it has agreed to respect all the time.  It is a force in our life, that needs to be understood and reformed for our own safety, but to presume that its "punishment" means anything in the grand scheme of things is hubris.  Perhaps, it is serving a role, if it provides a little more safety and has a deterrent effect, but don't ask it to also "punish".--Silverback 08:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that is part of the point, although it is called capital "punishment", it isn't really punishment.  After people are dead it is over, and they are no longer being "punished".  Life imprisionment increases the cruelty and the likelyhood that the innocent will be punished instead of just killed.  So the term is not used correctly in this particular phrase, but you seem to focus on this punishment aspect as if the government were involved in implementing some kind of purgatory for contemplation of ones past wrong doings.--Silverback 07:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: You are using "detaining" as a euphemism for "caging, controlling and sensory depriving in a hostile environment for life".  In a typical year in the United States well over a million people die, and at least 10s of thousands of those are due to government policies such as delaying or denying access to life saving or potentially life saving drugs.  Many of these people face the knowledge that they are dieing before they die.  If it is OK for the government to kill these innocent people without even punishment as an excuse, they why not capital "punishment"?  But, since I don't believe in punishment by the government, I am not wedded to capital punishment, if some other country is willing to take them and we could have good assurance that they could not return, that would be fine.--Silverback 09:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redemption 

message: I'd change this myself, but do not dare, as this is possibly a rather heated subject.
Issues with arguments against DP
*The race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders;"
**I'd say it's pretty well established that the whole racial terminology is outdated by about 60 years, and for the sake of political correctness, this should be rephrased.
*It is not a deterrent because anyone that would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that wouldn't be stopped by any punishment.
**This needs a rephrasing - this way, it poses as an inarguable statement, a fact. Suggest adding "Some argue that..." in front, or similar, to give it a more agreeable look.
*With mandatory appeals and enhanced procedural and evidentiary requirements for capital cases in the USA, the cost of a death penalty case far exceeds (usually by a factor of ten) the cost of a trial and life imprisonment.
**Needs rephrasing. Also, as this is, it does not emphasize "the USA" enough. In many countries, the cost of imprisonment is astronomical compared to that of the US. For istance, I have encountered claims that a trial ending in death penalty can amount to around 2 million USD. This is barely enough to keep an inmate in a Norwegian prison for 14 years. Adding the cost of a trial, 10 years. Not exactly life imprisonment.
Issues with arguments for DP
*It is less cruel than prolonged sentences of imprisonment, especially under the conditions that would be popularly demanded for heinous criminals.
**Same as one of the above, this poses as a fact instead of a more open argument. Also, this should have "in certain countries" attached. While US and Japanese prisons are very rough, many countries have prison cells and conditions reminding of hotels.
--TVPR 12:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulleted pro\con list issues 

message: In part about arguments in favour of death penalty, the article states:
: Just as the virtuous deserve reward proportionate to their good deeds, so too the vicious deserve punishment proportionate to their bad deeds. One might even hold, with Kant, that respect is shown to the criminal as someone who has chosen a particular path in life by visiting the appropriate punishment on the criminal.
This HAS to be documented. Where did Kant ever support the death penalty? I'm no expert on Kant but I do know that he was against ever lying, as the maxim of that action when raised to a universal law would be self-cancelling and would make the very concept of truth and trust impossible. I don't see Kant aproving of capital punishment, and I am very curious to be proven wrong.
Eje211 14:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant and death penalty 

message: I'm not a huge fan of ratings and warnings usually, and I even think that many of them backfire. 
Still, I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether this entry -- and particularly its list of all the other entries describing methods of capital punishment -- is something that some people should be warned about.
I'm a 37 year-old man with plenty of life experience, but I have been physically and emotionally shaken to my core for several days now by the list of execution methods -- as I think is appropriate, given the subject matter.
I'm not sure how I would have reacted to a warning being placed on the list when I first visited, and I suspect that it simply would have compelled me to read on.
However, this simply reveals what I think is bothering me, and that is the "blood lust attraction" of these entries.  Something in me -- and maybe in others -- makes me curious to know about all the various methods of savagery that people have invented to inflict on each other.  Then, after I do so, I feel like I've been beaten up.
Perhaps this is a reason for me to oppose my own suggestion. That is, perhaps I should welcome the fact that some people may be attracted to these entries out of natural curiosity, only to be appalled by them to the point that they are willing to consider seriously their own views of capital punishment.
Nonetheless, on this day when the very last episode of Star Wars (of all things) is set to debut, I wonder if we shouldn't be thinking even more broadly.  Specifically, I'm reminded of the time when I was 9 years old and my father took me to see the first Star Wars. All I could remember afterwards was the scene in the cantina on Tatooine when Obi Wan cut off the arm of some creature ... and the severed arm was prominently displayed on screen. 
The severed arm of that imaginary creature in a fictional movie haunted my dreams for years. And so I am worried about what a 9 year-old kid today reading about "sawing" and "stoning" and "pressing" is going to dream about.
*You are surfing to a page about killing people, plain and simple. If you cannot deal with that subject, you should not come to the page. Period. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?)
I AM dealing with it.  My point is that some other people may not be equipped to do so.  I'm not suggesting censorship here, as you could have gathered if you had read my comments with a little bit more of an open mind. What I am saying is that capital punishment, and cruelty in general, are very serious subjects, about which some people may need some help to "deal."  If your own kid read this stuff and was incredibly disturbed, would your only reaction be for them to "deal" with it? I hope not.  And I think it's quite the case that some grown-ups will need some help too.
:I hate to say this but if you're a 37 year old (man or woman doesn't matter) with life experience and are that badly shaken you're got other problems. I'm not saying that this kind of thing shouldn't shock and disturb you, they should but if you're really that badly shaken you clearly have no idea of the kind of pain and suffering that goes on every day whether inflicted by people or not. The world is a horrible place. It disturbs me that a 37 year old doesn't know that...
I'm not sure about the fuck stick who added the commentary directly above this (starting with "I hate to say"), but he is 100% jackass.  I was very glad to see that someone was affected by these articles.  To whoever started this section: I hope that your sense of humanity remains intact.
*n00bs, go killing, toturing, imprisonment, and mental breakdowns. MKULTRA, that'll scare the shit out of you. Gold Stur 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this warrant some kind of a reader warning? 

message: The bible stories at the bottom are interesting but in my opinion they should be seperated into a different topic and someone needs to add other religious views, e.g. Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish etc
N.b when I said topic I meant topic, not article
:Pagan was just added by  194.89.192.24, but the content was history, not neopagan - moved to the History section.
:World religions: 
Christianity                        	2,039 million	32% (dropping)
Islam                               	1,226 million	19% (growing)
Hinduism                            	828 million  	13% (stable)
No religion                         	775 million  	12% (dropping)
Chinese folk rel.                   	390 million  	6%
Buddhism                            	364 million  	6% (stable)
Tribal Religions, Shamanism, Animism	232 million  	4%
 
: I added Buddhism, I have asked for Islam to be added. I am researching Hindu but would appreciate it if anyone with any knowledge add that. NeoPaganism is about the same level as atheists at 2% of world population, a little more if Wicca is counted separately. As NeoPaganism includes many groups, though, any entry must acknowledge that, and probably include the Rede of "Harm none". 
:Note also that Judaism, already covered, is at less than 1% (14.5 million).  KillerChihuahua 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views