Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 4

Split?
The problem with a merger is that it makes a huge article even bigger. On the other hand, it makes sense for "death sentence" and "capital punishment" to go the same article. I suggest both merge and split - i.e. split with new distinctions which genuinely divide the article into sensible coherent smaller ones, which can then be further improved.
 * Capital punishment / death sentence (sociology, history, legal aspects, etc.; i.e. everything except ethics and religion)
 * Capital punishment / death sentence (ethics of...)
 * Capital punishment / death sentence (religious views on...)

No.1 should be the main article, with subsections which use prominent redirection to sub-articles like this:

Ethics of capital punishment Main article: see ethics of capital punishment

...so I added the split notice as well. Caravaca 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that some subjects could be split out into separate pages - perhaps two pages corresponding to your #1 and your #2 and #3 together. However your template says that you want to make this page into a disambiguation page only which I would oppose. Rmhermen 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment isn't the right title. In some counties in the past, Capital punishment refered to particular type of death penalty. The page's title should be changed to "Death Penalty". FWBOarticle

Public opinion - NPOV dispute
User 71.107.80.90 is an anonymous but probably well-informed pro-death penalty campaigner. The user has made numerous deletions of anti-death penalty views from this article (vandalism?), sometimes replacing these with pro-death penalty views. References included by 71.107.80.90 stand up to verification, so accuracy is not disputed. However 71.107.80.90 does not appreciate that Wikipedia also has an NPOV policy: i.e. you can't just delete opposing views because you can provide evidence to support your own side. In order to prevent escalation in to an edit war, I have temporarily left the latest edit to this section by 71.107.80.90 as he desires it to be. 71.107.80.90 is possibly identical to user User:ER_MD. I'm also noting that the huge text dump following my post was added by 71.107.80.90. IMHO, this is a hostile addition to the talk page, obstructing discussion by its sheer volume and weight. Note carefully that accuracy is not in dispute, but neutrality is. Caravaca 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Caravaca--the public opinion poll you site, if you read the DPIC webpage, is from a 1993 Greenburg/Lake and Tarrance Groups poll. I did more research and found the actual Gallop Poll and and put it below.  Its from the gallup.com that requires a temporary password so I cut and paste the contents of the article from the real data so people can see it.  Therefore the data I entered was the real data, not data the was purchased from a public interest compnay which everyone knows can be tailored for whatever political purposes desired.
 * Is neurtality really in dispute? I suggest counting the number of anti-deathpenalty links and the removal of supportive death-penalty arguments.
 * As an example:
 * 1) the poll numbers are strongly pro death penalty so the line of "difficulty with the interpretation of opinion polls" gets added? Why not just add the straight information like I did?  There is no difficulty, or do you just not like the numbers?
 * 2) Deterence argument: "death penalty increases murder rates by brutalising society" That is pretty blatantly opinionated.
 * 3) Hipocratic oath is an underhanded argument--the oath is only historical in nature. Otherwise abortion would have to be illegal. So the argument here is not appropriate since it is not clear and not really valid.
 * 4) Removed a reference to "actual" versus "legal" innocence??? How about that for bias in favor of the DP.
 * This article is way away from NPOV. My edits preserved those arguments, got rid of unnecessary inflammatory stuff, and added supportive arguements.  Now it looks like supportinve arguments are removed again and anti-death penalty statments are back in.  So much for NPOV.  I think vandalism could be characterized by what you are doing-- Like stating that the numbers are from a Gallup poll when they are from Greenburg/Lake. ER MD 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

''Comments above anonymously added by 71.107.80.90. 71.107.80.90 then signed himself as ER MD several days later.''

If you wish to discuss anything with me, please remove your anonymity and read Wikipedia policy first. Once you are respectably identified and tolerant, I'll be happy to devote a little time to this. Thank you. Caravaca 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Caravaca: you state that you are looking for NPOV. Why is it then that you are intolerant of contrary views? Take a look at the number of references against the death penalty versus supportive information. Do you think there is balance? Why would you remove references or statistics (or use statistics from unknown and fringe polls from 1993.) that don't agree with your position? Also, who writes in the this "deontologic" pespective or "a priori" or "empirical studies"??? No encyclopedia that I have ever seen is written in this form. The real issues concerning the death penalty are written on the "issues section" of the DPIC.org or on prodeathpenalty.com. I perused "virtue ethics" and I don't see even how it even fits into the debate. Makes no sense. In addition, you throw in "argumentum ad logicam" with the hippocratic oath. Obviously your bias is dominant on this subject.ER MD 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, now that you have identified yourself as ER MD, here's a reply.


 * I rearranged pre-existing ethical arguments of others to clarify the types of argument already being used.
 * an obvious attempt to control the issues/debate. A real section would be one in support and one against.ER MD


 * You anonymously and systematically deleted many anti-DP views at about the same time (see WP:WROE and borderline WP:VAND).
 * which ones?


 * You replaced some anti-DP views with pro-DP views. Even if you can support your pro-DP views with sources, this is still a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * there is no pro-DP views in the section. only your slanted view of your opposition. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Public Opinion section under discussion here, I modified your edits by placing your pro-DP view alongside the old anti-DP view. Surely that is fair?
 * opinion section looks better now. It just has facts associated with the statistics even though the link to the greenburg survey is still there. ER MD


 * You deleted the anti-DP view again.
 * Your version is still there (because I left it there), but I added a warning tag about the NPOV dispute. If you wish to demonstrate that you now follow WP:NPOV and WP:WROE, then perhaps you could revert your own deletion of User:Solar's views and put his view back in alongside your own?
 * As regards some of your earlier criticisms of other parts of the article, please note that I went back to the article and made a couple of short edits to accommodate your criticisms where I felt they were justified.
 * obviously...its pretty one-sided. so much for philosophy huh?


 * As regards your claim the references are slanted towards anti-DP, that's because the anti-DP contributors spent more time referencing their work. There's loads of unsupported pro-DP views in the article. If you want more pro-DP references, find some and add footnotes to the existing pro-DP views, but don't use low-quality ranting blogs - find some high quality academic articles, or quote from famous philosophers (check out the 17th/18th century ones for pro-DP views).
 * i did and i placed a reference link to it. You deleted it since you didn't like the argument. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow you seem to be holding me responsible for everything written in this article, just because I defended others. That is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit. I don't agree with everything said here, and I am sure there is lots of room for improving the article. I don't have time for everything, nor is that what Wikipedia is about. I reorganized a lot of things to add clarity, but it's up to others to do some more research now.
 * wikipedian spirit? reorganizing into issues which are not even discussed on the amnesty international or webpage. that doesn't make sense. ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As regards your most recent set of objections: you said that words like a priori, empirical, deontological and co. have no place in death penalty discussion. These are standard terms used in many academic fields, including ethics and law. Students will usually be introduced to these terms in their 1st year of studies in tertiary education, or may even know them from secondary education. There's nothing POV about using these terms. Nor is it over-intellectual. These are neutral terms which are used by people such as ethicists for structuring and clarifying complex chains and groups of arguments. If you don't understand them, go and read a lot of books on ethics (Wikipedia is not a substitute for an academic book). Similarly with virtue ethics: you can't guarantee that the Wikipedia article can replace a university education, although I am sure there are a good few ethicist-Wikipedians working on it!
 * no encyclopedia is written in this fashion. plain and simple.  ER MD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As an lawyer, I concur with user ER MD on this point. Wikipedia is often accessed by curious students at both secondary and tertiary levels who may have not yet studied philosophy.  If this were solely an article on philosophy, then those terms might be appropriate terms of art (for example, WP's mathematicians use math jargon all the time in the math articles), but capital punishment as an object of study is an interdisciplinary subject that attracts both experts and laypersons from many fields &mdash; philosophy, penology, law enforcement, jurisprudence, political science, medicine, etc.  Therefore, in order to keep this article accessible to a wide audience, I agree with ER MD that we should keep the jargon to a minimum. See also the KISS principle. --Coolcaesar 08:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't spend time on a prolonged argument here, so this is my final post on this issue. If you'd like more of my time, reinstate User:Solar's view first (and please remove your text dump below; a URL is enough). Thanks!
 * Caravaca 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted newspaper article. One should not use talk page as if it is an internet forum. Plus, please be aware of 32kb recommended limit. As of poll, of course anti death penalty would selectivly pick stats which only show decreasing support for death penalty. But the right response is not deleting that stats. Instead, try adding stats so the overall picture become more complete. If someone can pull the whole Gallop poll, please do so. Then we can end this debate. FWBOarticle

Death Penalty Worldwide Map
On the map, is it possible that we could differentiate between U.S. states, as laws vary between them. Just off the top of my head I know that there is no capital punishment in california and mortoriums in several states. At the least the state-to-state variation should be noted. Savidan 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is irrelevant in term of international comparision. FWBOarticle 09:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is extremely relevant. In the US, unlike just about every other federal system, murder is a matter of state law, not federal, so it would likely be impossible for Congress simply to outlaw it, something anti-death-penalty campaigners overseas don't seem to understand. The US Supreme Court was able to outlaw capital punishment at one point by using its constitutional power to strike down state laws, a power Congress does not have.  Also, California has a relatively high number of executions.  Of important note is that a huge proportion of executions are in Texas--I believe more than half of the country's total--again, something that's obviously relevant to the debate.  Meanwhile, even in other countries, if one department or region is practicing the death penalty disproportionately that would clearly be noteworthy in understanding the how the death penalty is carried out.
 * Ah, it is releant for someone interested in U.S. internal politics. It is against NPOV, which specifically rule out Anglo-American focus. FWBOarticle
 * I disagree completely. It's inaccurate to say simply "The US allows capital punishment," because in some places in some places the US allows it and in others it doesn't.  It's not having an Anglo-American focus to point this out. If, say, the death penalty was allowed in some parts of China and not in others then it would be appropriate to mention that too. But by chance the country in question is the US.  HowardW 1:38pm UTC, May 4, 2006
 * Given that anywhere in the United States, violating the wrong federal law can lead to a federal death penalty case, I would say that it is fair to say that the US is a country that has the death penalty, although the application varies state by state. Dpv 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Dpv. A map showing Death Penalty laws by state belongs in an article about US law, not one that deals with capital punishment on this scale.Emmett5 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some pointed out an error in the photo. China doesn't kill kids.  I found the appropriate alternative in Japanese version of wikipedia .  I don't know how to upload it to English wikipedia.  Can someone do it? please.... FWBOarticle 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethical view of DP
The section need to be cleaned up. If it is about philosophical ethics (which sucks in my view), it should be split into three section, consequentialist, deontological and virture. FWBOarticle 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I've spun off the Ethics section into a new article called Capital punishment debate as, I think, someone broadly suggested above. I hope no one objects because the article was obviously too long. In fact even without the ethics material the article is still looking a little unweildy. For the title I've imitated the Abortion debate article. But if anyone has a better suggestion we can hash it out on Talk:Capital punishment debate. Iota 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That goes against the Content forking guideline; therefore I am adding merge tags on the articles. --James S. 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agaist Merger Firstly, this is clearly not POV content forking. Both pro and anti death penalty are well represented in this article, while the original "Capital Punishment" article is also well balanced in presentation (in term of pro/anti). Secondly, this is also not content forking in the sence that it does not duplicate the conent. It is clearly intended to provide more detailed exposition of this more controvercial issue. Plus, the merging the article would increase the size of article to the level which clearly exceed the article size recommended for split (but not fork). FWBOarticle


 * The original split statement suggested ethics/non-ethics. While there is a lot of overlap in the actual articles as they have developed, there is not much coherent distinction between the non-overlapping portions, and in fact they contain vastly divergent balance when viewpoint statements pro-and-con are counted: The debate article has far more contrary view statements. If there are going to be two articles, shouldn't there be some objective measure of what goes in each?  Simply calling a fact "part of the debate" doesn't make it any less of a fact.  Likewise, facts surrounding the issue shouldn't be removed from the debate article. --James S. 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the original split was mainly about the size of the debate section reaching the reccomended split limit. And I'm not sure what do you mean by "objective measure"? Anything which has relavant to anti and pro capital punishment debate goest to the debate section. It is quite simple IMO. The main article has been edit war free since the split because all controvercial material, both anti and pro, has been branched out. And the debate article has been quiet since the section has been reanranged into priori, human right, legal and utilitarian argument. Plus, the debate article's size is 42kb. It has grown to big to be remerged into the main article.  There better be a very good reason(s) to upset the current stability of the two articles not to mention the featured article criteria of 32kb recommendes size of any article.  FWBOarticle

And I hope this isn't about an attempt to revive "brutal" "inhumane" and "unjust" aspect of death penalty into the main article as "fact". These issues has proven to be toxic in term of stability becaues each side wage POV edit war in the pretext of "factual" presentation. The issue was contained when it was attributed to Human right argument against the death penalty, which seem to have kept both side happy. FWBOarticle


 * I do believe that the brutality, inhumanity, and justice (and the frequent abject lack thereof) are crucial to both an encyclopedic exposition or a description of the debate, but that is beside the point. It does, however illustrate the problem with the split:  both articles are likely to grow in both overlapping and non-overlapping portions until they exceed the size of the original article at the point of the split.  But I'm not inclined to attempt the merge until the tags have been up and comments collected here for at least another week or three. --James S. 02:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The method of execution clearly belong to this page. On the other hand, whether these methods are "inhumane", "brutal" or "unjust" are matter of subjective POV by definition and should be discussed in the debate article. Therefore, the split clearly separated fact from opinion, avoiding duplication and helping to stablise two articles. Because the size of two articles cleary necessitate split no matter what, I hardly think merger to be a good idea. IMO, "The death penalty worldwide" should be expanded while "History of abolitionary movement" section should be forked out once it is expanded in detail and schoarship. FWBOarticle


 * I disagree that there are no objective measures of inhumanity, brutality, or justice. The wrongful conviction and execution rates are just such measures.  Do you really think that expanding the "worldwide" section while contracting the "history of abolution" section is neutral? --James S. 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"I disagree that there are no objective measures of inhumanity, brutality, or justice." I respect your right to hold this view. Unfortunately, this site do not hold such view. Please read NPOV which specifically state that this site's editorial policy do not take such stance. Attempt to assert that Death penalty or Abortion (or certain type of death penalty or abortion) is or is not unjust/inhumane/brutal is anathema to this site. NPOV require that we distinguish between metaphysical (POV, opinion) and emperical matter. Rate of execution is emperical fact. Whether such rate is "unjust" is a POV. I "personally" hold that death penalty applied to adultry (or drug trafficking) is unjust but I accept that many do not agree with me. I also accept that Wikipedia is not my personal soapbox. Important question in Wikipedia is not whether such views are "correct" but whether such views and arguments are properly "attributed". "Wrong"full is metaphysical/existential concept while statistical attribution of the type of crimes (treason, national security, adultry, murder, drug trafficking), in which death penalty has been applied, are emperical observation. And please do no use "estimate" which is propagated by anti death penalty group as "fact". We so far has only allowed "verifiable" and "reliable" statistics, such as Gallop Polls or statistics which has been released by various governments or U.N. (which AI used to assemble their stats). As of "the history of abolution" it is problematic because it is arguably an (anti death penalty) POV forking from "history of death penalty". Currently, the secton is not even a coherent section in itself. Your non NPOV argument further convince me that the separation of these two articles are, indeed, appropriate. FWBOarticle


 * If someone was executed for a crime s/he did not commit, NPOV expression would be, "the person was wrongfully executed" rather than "the person was unjustly executed".  Wronglfully could refer to both procedure, evidence, fact or idea of justice so it is NPOV, while "unjust" is a POV. FWBOarticle

I believe the debate is pretty much dead. I will remove merger tag. FWBOarticle


 * You have clamed that "this site do not hold such view" when you referred to my view that the wrongful execution rate is an objective measure of injustice, inhumanity, and brutality. There have been no sourced edits suggesting that the view is uncommon; in fact, it is at least as common as Christianity. Therefore, the view is notable and the dispute persists.  There is no evidence that the deterrent rate of capital punishment justifies any wrongful executions, which have obviously been far too common, unjustly depriving scores of their most fundamental right. And for this, we get a deterrent which can't be shown to be statistically superior to life imprisonment?  Please do not ask me to refrain from making sure that the notable view is properly clear, and please do not ask me to refrain from replacing the merge tags or merging the articles, or to refrain from replacing your unsourced deletion of information about the wrongful execution rate.  Thank you. --James S. 11:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful execution rate is an objective measure of people who were exected for crimes they didn't commit. In wikipedia, you are supposed to avoid using words like "most influential", "unjustly executed" and so on. Instead, you ought to make factual reference. In case of wrongful conviction, you can simply state the fact that someone has been executed for a murder which s/he didn't commit. Whether that has been unjust, inhuman, brutal is still POV. For example, if such mistake was due to self incrimination or perjury then pro death penalty side might consider that judicial system was not to be at fault. Anti death penalty (you, i assume) side might consider that justice was at fault because death penalty is inherently wrong. And it is not question of whether you or me is right wrong. Important thing is to recognise the pluralism of opinion. Please try to see the other side of argument. Edit based on perspective that one hold unassailable truth never works in wikipedia. FWBOarticle


 * In controversy, both points of view need to be represented. Seperating them into different articles is a bad idea, and leads to two misleading articles instead of one comprehensive article.  If there were no controversy, then there would be one neutral view.  Please do not assume that the view you hold is neutral simply because it is the one you hold. --James S. 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not pro death penalty (or anti) if that help you to change the perspective about this debate. Plus, I didn't split the articles in the first place. The problem is that, whenever you make argument, you fail to refer to wikipedia policy and guideline.  For example, Featured article criteria number 5 specifically state that the article have to be an appropriate size, which is set at 30kb-35kb. (see Summary style). Moreover, NPOV does not state every opinion and facts get equal presentation. In fact, controvercial aspect of any issue are always relagated at the bottom or in separate article.  You can argue for equal representation of anti and pro argument. You can't argue for equal representation of particular aspect of topic especially when objectivity of each sides of opinion/facts are in doubt.  FWBOarticle


 * There have been plenty of featured articles far above 35kb, I am sure. Why do you think that "controvercial aspect of any issue are always relagated at the bottom or in separate article" -- I can find no support for that.  If both sides are in doubt, that makes the case for equal representation stronger. --James S. 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is ingenious presentation of fact. 35kb is where you start thinking about trimming or spliting articles. Then this "reccomended" size can be streched to somewhere around 45kb. But once the article become +50kb, the article become unreadable. This is not a POV. It is based on well researched studies which shows that adult attention span can deal only around 30-35kb of text in wikipedia term and this studies are cited as a reason why wikipedia article should be concise. Rarely, an article can pass featured article nomination process when it's size is like 60kb. Sometimes a featured article, once passed might bloat and go pass 60kb but in that instance, the article often get nominated for removal from featured article status.  Merging two article in this instance bring the size to +90kb. So your merger suggestion has zero chance of winning in VfM process. As of why controversy is almost always relegated to the bottom of the article in Wikipedia is due to the fact that NPOV mandate that facts always take precedent over POV. Moreover, so called facts presented in controversy are often advocacy statistics presented by pro or anti side in deliberate attempt to skew argument on one side. Therefore, such "facts" can not be considered as credible or neutral. That is why controversy almost always get relegation. FWBOarticle

I hope this reference kill your argument. In this instance, both pro and anti facts and POV are forked out in accordance with guideline. If "brutal" "unjust" and "inhumane" wrongful conviction are selectively revived, then that would make the left out content (such as economic statistics, legal facts, statistics of economic damage incurred by murder) as a victim of POV forking. You can't selectively revive wrongful conviction stats, because it amoung to reverse POV unfork. You can't merge entire article because it is patently in violation of wikipedia policy and guideline. FWBOarticle

This doesn't violate content forking. The original article is already too long, and should be shortened, rather than lengthened. I'm removing the tag. -- FRCP11 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone verify this?
I have discovered that it is possible, in Switzerland, that you may be executed ONLY in wartime, and ONLY if you have committed high treason.

Thank-You,Booksworm 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Booksworm,
 * The Swiss Military Penal Law had the Death Penalty for war times until 1992. Then the Death Penalty was abolished for all crimes. see e.g. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng
 * Susu the Puschel 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
The intro needs to be cleaned up. Particularly the following:

''In "capital punishment", "capital" comes from the latin noun "caput", which means head; therefore, to be subjected to capital punishment literally means to lose your head. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies either to supress political dissent.''

Clearly, it does not "literally" mean to lose your head. Also, the second sentence says that capital punishment has been used by nearly all societies to "either" supress dissent, but never completes the sentence by saying what else it's been used for. JCO312 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The State vs. Judiciary
GreatKing and I have been changing this back and forth. I think it's more accurate to say that capital punishment is the most severe punishment that can be carried out by "the State" and he keeps changing it to "the judiciary." While I understand that the judiciary imposes the sentence, they are simply not the only branch involved in carrying out the punishment. I spoke with a group of fellow lawyers about this tonight and they all agreed that "State" is a more accruate line. I'm interested in what others think.JCO312 04:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my views. When someone receives down a death sentence, does the President/Governor say "I condemn you to die by haging/lethal injection, etc", does the legislature say "Mr X, we condem you to die" is it the judge, a member of the judiciary, who says that? The answer is obvious. The phrase "State imposed" is very misleading, as it makes you think that the three branches each play an equally important part in a death sentence. All the legislative branch does is make the death penalty legal, they have nothing else to say in a criminal case since their job is done. The executive branch only has the power to grant clemency, a very minor role. However, does a condemned man/woman spend more time fighting his death sentence in the courts (the judiciary branch), or in front of a state Governor or legislature. Who gets to stay an execution? Once again, the answer is obvious! "State imposed" is just so misleading and inaccurate as it gives the impression that the other two roles have a big role to play, when their role in a death penalty case is very small. That is why I support the phrase "imposed by the judiciary", and I hope others will be able to understand my logic.

Otherwise, JCO312, about your lawyer friends, they only gave their opinion, it does not mean that they are right. Also, their view might have been influenced by their opinion on the death penalty.

GreatKing 06:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at the actual personnel who are responsible for controlling the physical person of the defendant from arrest through execution, about 99% of the time they are agents of the executive branch. That includes the arresting officer, the booking officer, the jailers, the court bailiffs (who are supplied by the sheriff, an executive officer), the various state prison guards responsible for GenPop and/or Death Row, and the executioner.  Furthermore, the decision to seek the death penalty is made by the prosecutor, who is an executive branch officer.  The machinery of the judiciary merely confirms the accusation of guilt and the sentence of death sought by the prosecutor.  That's why most lawyers (myself included) see the death penalty as primarily carried out by the executive branch of the State.  --Coolcaesar 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Although I understand your point GreatKing, I think you're unfairly minimizing the roles of the other branches of government.  As Coolcaesar pointed out, the the actual carrying out of a death sentence is handled exclusively by agents of the executive branch.  You ask who gets to stay an execution?  Well, you're right that some judges can, but so can the governor.  And I don't consider creating the rules by which an execution is carried out to be a "minimal" responsibility, but it's one of the roles of the legislature.  I'm going to change it back unless others also agree with your edit. JCO312 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, CoolCaesar, you're wrong. Arresting officers, the booking officers, jailers, court bailiffs are not members of the executive branch, they are only employees of the State. You make the assertion that since the sheriff, a member of the executive, appoints them, that they must be apart of the executive branch too, which is incorrect: is the Chief Justice of the USA a member of the executive branch since he is appointed by the US President? You still make the same mistake once again: the prosecutor is an employee of the State, not the executive branch (and he does not always seek a death sentence, sometimes the jury imposes a death sentence, as you probably know: for example, Texas). The same thing goes for the executioner.

What I have just said clearly proves that executive's role in a death sentence is relatively small, as is that of the legislative branch.

As about your view (and that of "most lawyers") on who carries out the death penalty, I am afraid to say that the view you express are only your own and that of your "lawyer friends" (those you mentioned earlier) and not that of a "majortiy of lawyers".

GreatKing 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're totally wrong when you say that police officers aren't members of the executive branch. To put it simply, there is no such thing as an "employee of the State" who does not belong to one branch or the other.  The departments that run prisons are under the executive.  Employees of those departments are absolutely members of the executive branch.  Same for executioners, prosecutors, etc.  Do you not think that an FBI agent is a member of the executive branch, for instance?  You're example of the Chief Justice does not "clearly prove" anything, except that there is a seperation of powers.  The judiciary imposes the death sentence, the actual punishment is carried out by other branches.  You're wrong to minimize the role of those other branches, and since still no one else has come down on your side, I'm changing it back.  Also, no jury can sua sponte impose the death penalty if it isn't a capital case.JCO312 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

JCO0312, by denying that these officers, prosecutors, etc. are employees of the State, you are pretty much denying the fact that they are employed by the State. If the State pays them to work for them, they are clearly employees of the State - why not go ask a specialist in labour law? If you want a more tangible example, if I am employed by company X, logically I am an employee of company X - anyone with commonsense would agree with me. As for departments, officers, executioners ..., they are not members of the executive, but they are the means by which the executive branch enforces the law and decisions: this shocking misconception is the reason why you hold this absurb point of view on who is behind a death sentence and who imposes it.

About my Chief Justice example, it proves that your assertion (that about officers, etc. being members of the executive branch since they are appointed by the sheriff) that you and Coolcaesar made is wrong.

And about people not joining my side, only 3 people are participating in this debate, so you can't just automatically assume that I am wrong. Therefore, I am changing it back to "judiciary" (I call this JCO312 logic)

And did I say that a jury could impose sua sponte a death sentence in any case? I think not, so don't put words in my mouth please!

GreatKing 09:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: look down at "Compromise: State vs Judiciary", I think you might like what you read there.


 * You're not understanding how I am using the word "State." I do not mean "state" as in "one of the 50 states of the Union."  I mean "State" as in the government more generally.  I never said that prison guards weren't employees of a State, of course they are.  So are judges.  That doesn't mean that they do not fall under the executive branch, which prison guards most certainly do.  For example, you cannot be an employee of the State of New Jersey and not fall within one of the three branches.  The more I've thought about this, the more I'm convinced that it is incorrect to say that capital punishment is "imposed by the judiciary."  That's just not true.  A death sentence is imposed by the judiciary; executions are imposed by people working for an altogether different arm of the government.  So, while I appreciate your compromise solution, it doesn't solve my disagreement, and I'd still change it.


 * By the way, you're example does not prove that officers who are appointed by the Sherrif aren't members of the executive. You're saying that because in one situation an individual is appointed by one member of a branch into a different branch, means that it must always be the case.  That's faulty logic.  Here's the real question, what branch do you think prison guards and state police officers work for?


 * Oh, and I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you said, "You still make the same mistake once again: the prosecutor is an employee of the State, not the executive branch (and he does not always seek a death sentence, sometimes the jury imposes a death sentence, as you probably know: for example, Texas)." A jury cant impose it without a prosecutor seeking it. JCO312 12:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

About Latin America abolition of death penalty
Which is the source about that Latin America has abolished the death penalty due the democratisation and/or catholic thoughts? I am not sure about that. Is it maybe too difficult to see this as a more civilised form to punish human faults addopted by latin and european countries? Who can say that Mexico abolished slavery many time before the United States for the same reasons reasons? Or what are then the reasons? Is it too dificult to accept a very primitive paradoxal society in many ways in the U.S.? Of course slavery was a way to take advantage for the gained power of the ancient and modern U.S. And there must be a profitable gain to retain death penalty, maybe to spread fear, maybe just as a mirror of the decadent empire.


 * For one, in many occasion, capital punishment was abolished due to its rampantly abuse during junta regime. Secondly, in latin america, debate is not between liberalism and conservatism but between left and right. So presenting anti deathpenalty movement in Latin america in the context of humanism/liberalism argument is bit biased toward European/AngloAmerican way of thinking.  Plus, in my view, it is biased to censor out the influence of Catholicism in latin american society. FWBOarticle

Removal of important information due to bias
There use to be a table on the capital punishment page showing number of executions in 2004 for the top 12 countries. This table showed the United States had the 4th spot after China, Iran and Vietnam. Clearly this table looks bad for the USA and is damaging to pro death penalty groups. The table was then edited to show number of executions per 100 million of the population. This put the United States into 9th position and moved Kuwait to number one which only had 9+ executions compared to 3400+ that China had.

Clearly that method of showing data was crazy and only had one benefit, Hiding the fact the USA had the 4th highest number of executions in the world. This is biased and I replaced the table with the original version. This was several months ago and now I see the table has been removed completely (As far as i can see) It was an important table and very relevant to the death penalty issue.

The table should be re added with the 2004 figures, Or possibly the 2005 figures but the page is losing valuable information by not including it. Here is the table I am talking about.. If it is on the site still and i just cant find it I apologise, But it should be fairly easy to find and possibly needs moving to the main page.

(This is just to show the data that was displayed before, The table is not correctly formatted to look its best)

Yep, looks great. More detailed statistics are always welcome. FWBOarticle