Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 3

message: "The Republic of Ireland became one of the first countries in the world to constitutionally ban the death penalty by popular referendum in 2001 with the approval of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Irish constitution."
*The Federal Republic of Germany prohibited death penalty in its Basic Law in 1949.
*Costa Rica abolished death penalty in 1877, and its 1949 constitution states: "Human life is inviolable." and "No one may be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or to life imprisonment, or to the penalty of confiscation." Presumedly, death penalty is also prohibited by this statement.
*Even Czechoslovakia (now divided into Czech Republic and Slovakia) abolished death penalty in 1990 after the Velvet Revolution, and prohibited its use in the constitution in 1991 (by adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms). See 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia, Constitution of the Czech Republic. 
*To sum up, Ireland is nowhere near the first country to ban death penalty in the constitution. Amnesty International lists constitutional prohibitions of the death penalty; as of 1999, 38 countries have done so. (If my count is correct, 42 countries do today according to Use of death penalty worldwide.) - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)
:: Were these other bannings the result of referenda? The extract clearly states 'by referendum' not just your standard legislative ban. I'm guessing Ireland was indeed one of the first to ban the death penalty by this method as referenda are so rarely held. --LiamE 17:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the German Basic Law was written under US occupation, there were (and still are) no means of direct referenda to be hold in Germany. There is still one federal state in Germany (Hessen), which keeps death penalty as an option, but this law is overruled by Basic Law and therefore cannot be used. So far concerning the German part.  14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional prohibition of death penalty

message: Although most of the article is fine, I think the following paragraphs in "arguments against" should be prefaced with a caveat that they refer only to the U.S. (or be moved into Capital punishment in the United States):
* 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"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty. 
* In some cases the defendants are poor and therefore end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are distinctly mediocre; opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publically supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue.  In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.
(not of course to imply that no defendant outside the U.S. is ever represented by an inferior attorney) —Blotwell 9 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
:They should stay, but some qualification that they refer to the US only would improve the statements. - Solar 9 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
I have made the following changes in line with Blotwell's suggestion:
* Within US court proceedings low-income defendants end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are distinctly mediocre. Opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publicly supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.
* In the US 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"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty. 
- Solar 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amerocentricism 

message: If the listed numbers are from the 2004 Amnesty report , then it should be 108 and not 159. SouthernComfort 02:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it's from somewhere else: the same figure, 159, is cited by The Times in its coverage of the children executed in Iran for homosexuality - I'm not sure if the two boys were included in the total of 11 children executed in Iran since 1990. - Outerlimits 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran figures

message: Australia is currently shown in blue on the map, meaning that capital punishment has been totally abolished in that country.  I do not believe this is correct.  From my understanding, capital punishment is still available for the crime of Sea Piracy, as well as for crimes during times of war, though there has not been an execution in that country since at least the 1970s, and I believe it may be as far back as the 60s.  I believe that Australia should be re-coloured from Blue to Orange.  Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
:The Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 removed death as a punishment for any crime in Australia. Under the Crimes Act, Piracy has a punishment of life (though this may have been modified due to the Abolition act). War Crimes fall under the War Crimes Act 1945 which also doesn't mention the death penalty. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and the Map? 

message: in the german version
maybe you are interested. greatings --80.136.108.231 13:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell this graph is out-of-date. I don't suggest using it here. Rmhermen 14:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Please clarify, are the American juvinile offenders being sentenced to death while they are under 18 or for crimes they committed while under 18?  It seems somewhat muddy because the article starts talking about the execution of juviniles right after.  How many juviniles (not adults who were juvinile offenders) have been executed in the US?--70.36.65.250 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added punishment for under 18 years old 

message: I think that the following sentence: "This is often due to the fact that qualified medical professionals are prohibited from taking part" is wrong. Please see 
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v024/24.2legraw.pdf
:The general situation with regards to capital punishment and medical professionals in the US and many other areas is that medical professionals are prohibited from taking part. The information was originally quoted from Amnesty International. I have also found the following: The American Medical Association ethical guidelines state that "a physician should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution" and provides a list of actions that are prohibited. The American Nursing Association states that "participation in executions is... contrary to the fundamental goals and ethical traditions of the profession."  Also Lethal injection-the intravenous administration of a tranquilizer, a muscle relaxant, and cardioplegic agent for the purpose of judicial execution-is the standard method of capital punishment in the United States. Since 2001, lethal injection has been used in 189 of 191 (99%) executions and is the chief method of execution in 37 of the 38 states that have the death penalty, as well as for the federal government and military. The American Medical Association's (AMA) opinion on capital punishment is found in section E-2.06 of its Code of Medical Ethics. The AMA states that "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution." Participation is defined to include "monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding execution." Because pronouncing death requires a physician to monitor an inmate's vital signs, either via electrocardiogram or stethoscope, it is, therefore, forbidden by the code. Certifying death, which does not require monitoring but does require the physician to sign a death certificate, is allowed in the AMA guidelines. Opinion 2.06 also makes specific reference to lethal injection, and forbids the following: "selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel."  I think that clears things up with regards to the US. - Solar 13:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualified medical professionals 

message: The following statement was added today to the last line of the Christian section of the article:
"This, however, does not take into account the stance of most conservative Christian scholars that Jesus' teaching verified His authentication of the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus said; "...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (OT), till all be fulfilled."
As I am not a Christian the claim "the stance of most conservative Christian scholars" in my mind requires at least some form of source. Furthermore the quotation from the Bible "...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (OT), till all be fulfilled." to my mind is totally ambiguous and does not show Jesus clearly supporting the use of violence and/or capital punishment when compared to Jesus saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". This is clearly a nonviolent position, and is the reason for the criticism in the last paragraph of the Christian section of the article.
If anyone thinks the above statement should stay please include citations to Christian scholars who believe Jesus personally advocated Capital punishment or violence. The present statement shows that some groups have criticised the conservative Christian position, as it seems out of line with the teachings of Jesus himself, which is relevant and should stay. - Solar 11:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Christian Scholars 

message: Does the map consider that?  Because in the UK it is a capitol offense, or so I read from an AP story on support for the death penalty following police shootings.
:Treason has not been a capital offense in the UK since 1998 and the passing of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 . Evil Monkey - Hello 06:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and Treason 

message: Just as "lethal injection" is a euphemism for "poison;" so too "capital punishment" and "death penalty" are euphemisms for "state-sponsored homicide."  Even the very phrase "death penalty" or "capital punishment" carries within it the concept that homicide is a form of penalty or punishment.  But what other penalty or punishment ceases the existence of the Will in question?  Much of this article reveals strong systematic bias, unquestioningly referring to criminal bandit organizations as "countries," and claiming a broad popular swath of support for an action that the overwhelming majority of human beings would refuse to commit themselves. - Naif
:Naif, "Poison" is non-specific, including naturally occurring compounds, oral and topical, etc. Lethal injection is specific and accurate. The rest of your comments are similarly inaccurate and POV. I personally believe that the death penalty and capital punishment are barbaric in the extreme, but that does not give me the right to suggest any WP article become my personal soap box, or encourage inaccurate and inflammatory terminology. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Killer, you are correct, your belief that the death "penalty" and capital "punishment" are merely barbaric does not give you the right to suggest a WP article become a challenge to orthodoxy because you already have the right irrespective of your beliefs.  But let me define this argument more closely: I oppose calling criminal bandit organizations or ethnic militias something that places them in the same level as a concept/organization like Canada.  Doing so inherently legitimizes the banditry and homicide of said CBOs. -Naif 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I thought encyclopedias didn't have biases. This article is full of inflammatory language and anti-capital punishment undertones. I haven't decided which way I stand, but its rather disappointing to see such a bias in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.47.161.130 (talk • contribs) .
:Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. It may be helpful to editors if you give some examples of the problems you see in the article, or seeing as Wikipedia is a wiki, be bold and fix the problems. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awfully anti argument 

message: That needs some improvement. It's heavily Europe-centric, yet manages to omit any mention to the Roman Jus gladii or the medieval high justice. It has nothing at all about other ancient cultures (Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, ...), and nothing on the history in the Arab or Asian countries. And what about Native Americans (both South and North America)? Lupo 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, Lupo - I myself am working (slowly) to get the religion section a bit less lopsided - I've added Buddhism, and put in a request at the Islam project page for someone to add that. In other words, go for it - you're absolutely right! KillerChihuahua 12:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually am bold :-) But I just don't have the time to do the research needed, sorry. Got a few other things in my WP-queue, plus a real life! Lupo 12:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Massive sympathies, I'm right there with you. Well, hopefully one of us will find the time - I'm sticking to religion here until that's a little less one-sided though. KillerChihuahua 12:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: There are also unusual methods of execution, some of them I made up:
*There was a historical figure who told one of his prisoners to drink coffee because he thought it was poisonous. The prisoner drank coffee, but didn't die until much later.
*A better and more humane way, one that the Singaporeans should have used on Van Tuong Nguyen instead of hanging, would be to have the prisoner eat fast food. It won't kill the prisoner instantly, but it will speed up his death, especially if the prisoner is not allowed to do any exercise.
Scott Gall 11:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual methods 

message: I reckon most of the History section can go there too. TheMadBaron 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Quite unlikely for Wikipedia, this article is biased.
Problems I see:
- The arguments "for" are being relitivized immediatelly, unlike the arguments "against". It is not correct.  - 
see e. g. "Deterrence — it may deter other people from committing capital crimes. Many studies (see above) rebut this claim, while others provide support for it. "
and "Prevention — it prevents offenders from ever returning to society (life sentences hold out the possibility, however remote, of eventual release), thereby preventing them from committing further crimes." This argument is no longer salient in States with life without parole statutes.
- "Life imprisonment is very expensive."  - This argument is presented half-heartedly, it misses a substantial part: for whome the life imprisonment is expensive, i. e. for the tax payers, including the victims, who have to come up for the murderer's living and medical care.
- Cases of judicial mistakes are mentioned as argument against. However, nothing is mentioned about the cases of judicial mistakes concerning paroles, which mistakes actually claimed lives of further victimes of offenders released from prison based on wrong opinions of psychologists and judges.
- Another argument for can be that some jurisdictions do not know life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
:Concur that the "studies" statement is weasely and needs to be rephrased. Suggest: "Results from studies are inconclusive."
:Concur also Prevention needs tidying and clarifying. Suggest: "Prevention — it prevents offenders from ever returning to society, as opposed to life sentences with possibility of parole. This argument is not (relevent, used, germane, applied, salient) in (jurisdictions) which have life without parole statutes.
:KillerChihuahua?!? 14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that this article is not about Capital punishment in the United States, but shows the global perspective. Your comments above seem to refer mainly to the US. - Solar 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose, mine or anon's? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased against 

message: At least Iraq is out of date on the map we provide people, can somebody fix this and hopefully doublecheck on any other countries that seem out of place?  Much thanks! Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfortunate that the map is undated but it appears to be correct in showing Iraq as a country which uses the death penalty. Rmhermen 02:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map is out-of-date

message: I'm in the process of searching for 2005 figures. However, I was wondering whether anyone believes there is a strong case for ordering the list by 'per millions' rather than raw numbers. It seems that would be a more accurate reflection as Kuwait's number for instance is extremely notable, as is that of Belarus. It gives a slightly incorrect view to present the raw figures as larger countries experience a form of 'inflation'. What about reordering the 2005 list once found? Alternatively, would anyone object to listing by absolute figures and 'executions by millions' as well? --Davril2020 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Death Penalty Table