Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 6

message: After reading the fine and intelligent comments posted here and reading about the wrongful convictions subject I have come to formulate this questions:
- Already a person by the last name of Cantu is widely believed to be innocent... why the state of texas cowardly hides and does not admit its FUCK UP???
:: only "widely believed" in the anti-death penalty camp--go read a pro-death penalty webpage and get the full story.  "Believed" also implies not known for certain.  Fact of the matter is that Cantu was a criminal and had actually attempted murder in the past.  The evidence wasn't the best to say that he did it(he probably should have got life) but then again there is only speculation that he didn't do it.
- If ever an executed person is proven innocent... is the goverment liable? do they have any responsability, morally and ethically to the family of the person they just wrongly executed??...
- It is accepted in most religions around the world, that life is a gift given by a superior power ( Allah, God, Jehova, etc ) who the hell is the state of texas and the US government to override beliefs that have survived for 1000's of years??? who the hell are they to decide who lives and who dies????
- Eventhough there is strong evidence in several US states that innocent people have been put to death,,,why don't these states order an investigation or something to finally let the truth come to light???? why do they hide behind their " inmunity" which they can shove up their asses?? just because stupid " district attorneys" wanted to rack up their conviction rate and then they do not admit their mistakes...they should all  burn in hell.....
my 2 cents —This unsigned comment was added by 66.212.201.23 (talk • contribs) .
:: I agree with the rest... keep the "Blind, Torture, and Kill" alive... He definately benefits society. ER MD 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 cents 

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

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

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

message: 1. Adding "an irrevocable" to punishment is REDUNDANT when it follows execution.  It seems to me to be a clear attempt at adding POV.
2.  The "wrongful death rate" information is already in the article, and placing a paragraph on it in the intro ruins the flow and balance of the introduction.
3. The third paragraph of the introduction is perfectly balanced as is.  Adding another anti-death penalty sentence to it ruins the 50/50 neutrality that exists in the paragraph.  The paragraph simply states the arguments on each side.  Adding a rebuttal to the first argument to the paragraph seems to me to be another attempt at adding POV.
4.  The "neutrality" warning that keeps getting placed is silly, because the explanation justifying the warning seems to be about a debate concerning capital punishment itself, not this article. The addition of the warning is especially ridiculous (and hypocritical) when the one who keeps placing the warning is the one who keeps adding POV sentences to the article in areas where the article is perfectly neutral. YellowPigNowNow 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James is not required to think about his edits.  He believes he is right and therefore the rules do not apply to him. Again reverting his changes... ER MD 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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