Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 8

Proposed merger with Death penalty paradox
Hi there,

There's a new stub page called Death penalty paradox. It's not bad but it is short and sourceless. I propose to merge it into this one, unless someone thinks that this paradox deserves a page of its own. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, provided that it gets cited. Otherwise, it should be nominated for deletion.Emmett5 03:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed merger
I am against the merger of [Capital Punishment] into [Death Penalty Paradox] as I am afraid to say that the Death Penalty Paradox argument is irrelevant as it is based on a fundamentally erroneous perception of what is an execution.

An execution, as defined in the first paragraph of [Capital Punishment], is the severest sentence, imposed by the judiciary, that a person can receive for a crime know as capital offense and that is intended to terminate that person's life in a lawful place. However, in [Death Penalty Paradox], the assertion made is as follows: "An intentional killer of an inncoent person is called a murderer". These words from the article in question are self-explanatory. However when you look at the second assertion made (" "When and if there would evidence that a capital punishment was excuted upon an innocent person, the persons responsible for that execution are by their own standards considered "murderers" and thus should be killed" ".) - the words have been quoted verbatim - it is obvious that the notions of execution and murder are thought to be synonymous. I must make myself plain that an execution is not a murder. An executioner carries out a sentence which aims to terminate the life of the condemned, but it is not murder, since the sentence is a legal form of punishment, whereas murder is illegal. It is because of this fundamentally erroneous perception of what an execution is that the death penalty paradox is flawed and that therefore, it does not constitute an adequate argument against capital punishment and that therefore it should not be included in the "Capital Punishment" article

It is for this reason that I oppose the merger.

I hope that others will join me in the dissenting camp.

GreatKing 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a statement against the paradox. It doesn't convince me that the article about it shouldn't be merged.
 * Perception - any perception - of what an execution is is a point of view by definition. This is not what the argument is about at all.
 * If you think that the argument of the paradox is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant, you're welcome to nominate Death Penalty Paradox for deletion. Google, however, proves that the "paradox" exists as a statement of the abolitionists, whether it is wrong or right. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that: "An executioner carries out a sentence which aims to terminate the life of the condemned, but it is not murder, since the sentence is a legal form of punishment".
 * Yet the stub says that IF such prisoner is later found to be innocent, than there is a moral issue at hand, having executed a non offender of the law. Problem. I also oppose the merge. (and Amir's innuendo about its deletion candidacy)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make myself clear: If it would be proposed for deletion, i would object. If i was misunderstood, then i send my sincere apologies to Diza.
 * My point was that GreatKing's arguments were against the article itself and not against the merger. The article is reasonably valid, as far as common sense goes, it's just too short and poorly sourced to be a separate page, hence my merge proposal. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Amire80, I am against the merger because I believe that the death penalty paradox is flawed and that therefore it has no place in an article on capital punishment. That is what I said in my opposition to it. Also, Amire80, I am probably one of the most commonsense people you will meet in your life, and also very logical and rational. Even though abolitionists use the death penalty paradox to contradict proponents of capital punishment, I do not challenge that, but I do not think that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to put this argument in the Capital Punishment article as it is flawed.

Diza, let me remind that in the case that you have just talked about, even if the person is innocent, he was still executed in a process called an execution and that therefore the executioner should not be killed as this form of punishment is State-sanctioned, whereas murder isn't.

GreatKing 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet again - the current article about Death penalty paradox doesn't say that the paradox is necessarily right. It merely says that it is sometimes used as an argument against capital punishment.
 * Some people will say that all abolitionists are inherently wrong, and so shouldn't be mentioned at all anywhere. And maybe this is even true, but there are quite a lot of abolitionists in the world, and i think that you shall agree that denying their existence is not common sense.
 * The paradox can be merged into this article under the section about abolitionism, and a sentence can be added which goes something like this: "Proponents of capital punishment consider this paradox inherently flawed, explaining that a lawful execution cannot be called a murder." (It should be sourced, though).
 * (And i am not necessarily calling you a proponent of capital punishment.) --Amir E. Aharoni 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Amire80, obviously the argument is right because otherwise nobody would use it if it was wrong (except that it seems as though I have proven it wrong).

Furthermore, I am not denying the existence of abolitionists, I just believe that the paradox argument should not be included because it is wrong and flawed. However, I do accept your compromise: I will be more than willing to push for the addition of the Death Penalty paradox in the abolitionist section and the challenging by retentionists of the paradox if and only if both arguments are appropriately sourced.

GreatKing 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that (although from where I stand you didn't prove it was wrong, you just put forth a different view. When talking about capital punishment there is no right stance) --Shaoken 07:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my static opposition to the Merge: I fail to see your logic in this falsification. state arrpoved executions gain their power from state laws, this ongoing debate is all about changing the law, and since laws are (or at least should) dervied from the intrensic morall values of a public of individuals, stating that these morall assertions (that some individuals have) final logic regarding execution is false ,thus making this arguement true and vaild. Yet there is a hidden assumption here, that is that state laws are representive of the people's will under a democratic consensus of morall values, an assumption that in the US at least is constitutional. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that if it deserves a page at all, it should be merged. All of the arguments advanced against merging it appear to me to really be arguments against having it on Wikipedia at all.  Also, I changed back the "imposed by the judiciary" to "imposed by the State" because, once again, it's just more accurate.  It's certainly true that a court and jury impose the penalty, but it's carried out by a part of the executive branch, clemency goes through the executive, and the legislature is involved in crafting the law.JCO312 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise: State vs Judiciary
JCO312 and Coolcaesar, I am prepared to make a compromise, in order to end this deadlock.

I am prepared to accept your inclusion of "the State", as long as some like this is written:

"The death penalty is a State-sanctioned punishment that is imposed by the judiciary ..."

I still stand by my view that the judiciary's role is the most important in the death penalty process, and that the executive and legislative's role are relatively small. I hope that you are satisfied with the place I have given them in my proposed sentence - it certainly is better for "the State" to appear there than for it to be totally absent, what do you think?

GreatKing 09:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In a different compromise attempt, I changed it from "state" to "government." It's just not correct to say "judiciary," as I explained above, because the judiciary does not impose each part of capital punishment, only the sentence part, and using the phrase "imposed by the judiciary" suggests (incorrectly) that the entire process is carried out by that branch.


 * I'm going to attempt to more clearly explain why "imposed by the judiciary" is wrong. I'll use Pennsylvania as an example since it's a commonwealth, and I can avoid the confusion of using the word "state" to explain two concepts.


 * Pennsylvania has a lot of employees. They all work in one of the 3 traditional branches of government, one of you which you've properly identified as the judiciary.  Judges, court clerks, etc., fall under this branch.  Legislatures and their aides fall under the legislative branch.  Nearly everyone else falls under the executive branch, as employees of an agency that reports to the governors office.  When you said up top that I was arguing that prison guards are employees of the executive branch and therefore NOT employees of the State you made a fundamental mistake.  No one can be an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and NOT be part of one of the branches.  In PA the state-wide prison system is run by a director, who is a part of the governors cabinet, so the employees fall under the executive branch.


 * So, when you say the judiciary imposes capital punishment, it suggests that each stage of the process is handled by someone who falls under the judicial branch of government. That's plainly wrong.  The judiciary, as you point out, conducts the trial and sentences the person, and handles the appellate process.  If this article was just about the death sentence process you would be right, but it's not.  It also includes the execution process, which is handled EXCLUSIVELY by people who are within the executive branch of government. I hope, GreatKing, that you'll read and consider all this, because I think you're basically just trying to say that the judiciary imposes the sentence, but the way you're phrasing it overstates that.JCO312 12:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The sate and judiciary needs to be removed. Technically the military can do it so specifying the governmental entity is incorrect. Saying that the government hands it down is superfluous since it is pretty much already known, but someone could very well write it. Also saying that it is the most severe form of punishment is also not true. Keeping a person alive and torturing them is much more severe than a painless lethal injection. ER MD 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The last time I checked the military was not a seperate entity from the government. And once again nobody seems to understand what I mean when I say "State imposed."  I do NOT mean the "State of Texas."  I mean the State as in the nation-state concept.  Sheesh.  I think I agree that taking out the most severe form of punishment line is warranted, but of course, I think you're wrong that torturing someone is "more severe" than killing them.  Both are POV, so I suppose neither is appropriate here. JCO312 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I finally figured out what GreatKing's issue is. He or she hasn't studied political philosophy as well as the law of agency. Basically, a thorough understanding of the separation of powers and agency are a precondition to correctly understanding the roles of the parties to an execution vis-a-vis each other and the executed.  I also agree with JCO312 that GreatKing is unable to understand the essential difference between the legal concept of a U.S. state and the philosophical concept of state as embodied in phrases like city-state and nation-state.  That important distinction is taught in high school freshman history courses across the U.S., which strongly supports the inference that GreatKing either did not go to college, or did not attend a good college with strong breadth requirements (like the University of California).  --Coolcaesar 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tone down the sense of superiority Coolcaesar. This isn't an essay class at University of California) and belittling GreatKing is unnecessary.  --Nickhk

Actually, Coolcaesar, had you bothered to have a look at my profile, you would know that I am 16 years old.

Also, Coolcaesar, every time I have refered to "State", I always meant the political structure (government, ...) not the geopolitical entity (like the state of Texas). As you can see, I have always used the word "State", not "state".

And one more thing that I have to mention, this concerns JCO312, do not forget that others countries exist: what an American thing to do! It would be nice if we tried to use other countries to debate, not just center ourselves on the US. You might want to know that even though Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, this "status" has no constitutional implications, therefore we could correctly refer to Pennsylvania as a state. I also find that by using the word "State" or "Government", you are unfairly minimalising the role of the judiciary in death penalty cases, even more with the latter term.

GreatKing 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that there is no constitutional difference between a state and a commonwealth. Turns out that after graduating from college and law school, and prosecuting cases on behalf of the "commonwealth," I already knew that. I used the term because I assumed you weren't understanding my point.  You would, nevertheless, techincally not be correct to call us the "state of Pennsylvania."  Thank you for also reminding me of the existence of other countries.  In those countries, the judiciary does not carry out executions either.  Your proposed phrase "imposed by the judiciary" doesn't just minimize the role of the other branches, it incorrectly ignores them.  As I've said before, you would be correct to say that a death sentence is imposed by the judiciary, you are flat out wrong to say that capital punishment is.  JCO312 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I just cannot understand is your pesistence in saying that the executive's role is quite considerable in a death penalty case, when the judiciary's involvement in the case is nearly constant. You justify your view by saying that prison guards, executioners, etc. are members of the executive branch ("The departments that run prisons are under the executive. Employees of those departments are absolutely members of the executive branch" The State vs. Judiciary section). You still keep on making the assertion that they are members of the executive branch: they are under the orders of the executive branch.

I know things might work differently in the USA, but let me remind you that other countries do exist and that in countries such as France or Australia or the UK, prison guards, wardens, prosecutors, etc. are not members of the executive branch, or any other branch, but employees of the State. The aides of members of the legislature are not members of the legislative branch.

You see, your problem is that because you keep on using American examples. Consequently you are shutting yourself off to the fact that a majority of countries do not operate like the USA: this is why your view is so flawed, you keep on insisting that since prison guards, etc. are (supposedly) considered to be members of the executive, or that aides of legislators fall under the legislative branch in the USA, you seem to think you can legitamately and unilaterally impose your view in this article. The truth of the matter is that you are so convinced that you are right and that I am wrong that you REFUSE to acknowledge my point of view, you REFUSE to answer my questions or contestations of your point of view. Everytime you challenge my views, I have always responded, you haven't. Everytime you tell that I am unfairly minimising the role of the executive and legislative branches in a death penalty case, I responded. But when I claim that you unfairly minimise the role of the judiciary, you simply choose to ignore it. In "State vs. Judiciary", you said "I am interested to hear what others think". Yet you still keep on changing what I write, even though only one person has joined you (Coolcaesar), even though consensus has not been reached yet on a solution, even though there has not been a sort of "vote" or decision by a considerable number of Wikipedians on whether "State" or "judiciary" should be used.

All this confirms is that you have reached the height of hypocrisy, narrowmindedness and selfishness.

GreatKing 09:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And I have one more thing to say, irrelevant in a debate on the death penalty. Tell me, JCO312, if all employees of the State are necessarily members of a branch, to which branches do nurses, teachers, firefighters, surgeons and garbage collectors belong?

GreatKing 10:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume that you mean a doctor employed by an NIH or the equivalent. They belong to the executive.  People who work for executive agencies are executive employees.  Garbage collectors are likely municipal employees, but the structure is the same at those levels.  You haven't asked any questions or made any assertions that I haven't responded to.  You think that 1) you can be an employee of the government and not fall under a branch, and 2) that the judiciary is solely (or at least nearly solely) responsible for capital punishment.  Both those positions are factually wrong, and so as a result I changed your edit.  Legislative aides are most certainly legislative branch employees.  They are paid out of the budget of the legislature, they are hired within that branch, they report to the leaders of that branch.  The same is true for employees of the other branches.  Moreover, even IF you were correct about these people being simply employees of "the State" your edit would still be incorrect, because it would still ignore the role that they play, which is significant in the overall scheme of capital punishment.


 * On another note, I understand that CoolCeasar attacked you personally earlier. If it makes you feel better as a result to call me a hypocrite or narrow minded, so be it.  It betrays a certain immaturity to have to result to such ad hominem attacks.  Your position on this issue is unfounded and incorrect.  So long as it continues to be, I intend to continue to edit this page to make it correct.  That's nothing personal, and I hope you understand that. JCO312 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid to say that you have been hypocritical and narrowminded. You mentioned earlier that you want to hear what others have to say, yet you still unilaterally impose your view in the article because only one person agrees with you. You mentioned earlier that people who work for executive agencies are executive employees, but it does not mean that they are the executive branch: this is your view that you have reiterated many times. Aides of legislators are legislative branch employees, but you keep on saying they are members of the legislative branch, I have been arguing the exact opposite. And about the role that the two branches (executive and legislative) play in the scheme of capital punishment, I still stand by my view that they are small and could be considered as insignificant: this is the reason why there is a deadlock

Another problem you have is that you do not acknowledge at all that most countries in the world function differently to the US (strange, how you did not respond to this earlier on?). You state that the director of Pennsylvanian prisons has a seat in the Commonwealth Governor's Cabinet. That does not mean that in other countries around the world the director of prisons is a member of the executive, or even sits in the governor's cabinet. You just cannot understand that not all countries work like the US, and that your whole view is based on how your country works, not how most country works. Your view is unrepresentative of of the way that a majority of nations work because you center yourself 100% opn the US (look at your Pennsylvania director example), never have I heard youAnother problem you have is that you tend to avoid the hard question (never have you answered any of the issues raised in this paragraph or earlier on), all you have done in this discussion is answer the easy ones

And also, I am not attacking you out of anger or frustration, all I did was call a spade a spade.

GreatKing 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, this page is getting kind of hot. I'll add my two cents (the currency in both Australia and the United States). JCO312 and Coolcaesar are correct to say that capital punishment is a state-imposed punishment, rather than a judicially imposed one.  That, in fact, is what separates capital punishment from murder, at least in the eyes of the law: the fact that the state imposes it.  As for the branch question; here's how it works: the legislature (legislative branch) decides that a certain crime deserves to be punishable with death; the police (executive branch) catch someone committing that crime; the jury (with some input from the judge [judicial branch, obviously]) finds him guilty and then decides if he should be executed; finally, after the prisoner's appeals are exhausted, the executioner (again, executive branch) puts him to death.


 * And, yes, this describes the American system. But it's sort of silly to say that it's American-centric: America is the only major Western democracy to execute people, so where else would you look for procedure? In other major countries that still execute criminals, the procedure is, shall we say, less formulaic? In those places (e.g. Saudi Arabia or China) there is even less judicial control. Indeed, I don't think one could even say that China has an independent judiciary, and they execute more people than any other country!  So to call their death penalty "judicially imposed" would be even less correct.


 * So, for my part, state-imposed is the only form one could use in the article and be correct. But if you don't believe me, submit the dispute for mediation.  This page describes the procedures people follow in such a case.  You seem to have already tried the "talk to the other parties involved" step and the "Discuss with third parties" step (i.e., me).  So, GreatKing, if you can't accept my and Coolcaesar's suggestion that JCO312 is correct, mediation is your next option.


 * Finally, I agree with JCO312 that the ad hominem attacks are rude and against the spirit of Wikipedia. You should debate ideas, but stop short of attacking other users.


 * --Coemgenus 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was writing this at the same time as Coemgenus, so theere may be some duplication of our points.


 * GreatKing, I don't want this to turn into an edit war over one word, but I really don't think you can say capital punishment is purely judicial. Yes a judge (or in some places a jury) imposes the senence, but it takes the whole apparatus of State to, a) give that option, b)carry out the sentence.


 * Since I'm in the UK I'm certainly aware that are/were different ways of doing things in relation to capital punishment. Of course, the UK, and many Commonwealth countries do not have the rigorous level of separation of powers that the US has, but even so to adapt JCO312's example to the UK (or more specifically England and Wales), the Prison Service (now merged with the Probation Service) is an executive (here executive means that it has a level of policitcal independence) agency of the Home Office, which as a cabinet level department, would be considered part of the Executive branch in political theory.  When the UK had the death penalty, carrying out the sentence would have been the responsibility of this area.


 * I prefer State to the original wording of government, as that is more likely to be (mis-)interpreted as referring to the Executive branch. David Underdown 12:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was never taught in Civics 101 that executive meant "political independance". Is the Queen supposed to be politically independant or is she supposed to act on the advice of her PM? Since this defintion is incorrect I believe that Underdown's remark should be disregarded. Even though the Home Office is apart of the executive, it still does not mean that those who work for it are members of the executive (JCO312's view), but are employees of the State (or public servants, if you are more familiar with that term.

Also, I have found more evidence that JCO312 is wrong: "In the United States, the Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." This was directly taken from Civil Service. This proves that those work for the executive (like prison guards), or the legislative (like aides for example) or the judiciary, are not members of any branch (JCO312's PoV). This quote explains that employees work in/for these branches, but are not apart of it.

user:GreatKing


 * No, it proves that members of all three branches may be Civil Servants (civil service is a type of employment, not a branch of the government). And even if your point is correct, GreatKing, doesn't that mean that those who do the executing are not members of the judiciary, and thus that your phrasing is incorrect? --Coemgenus 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I was writing at the same time as Coemgenus, so there is some duplication between our points. Must stop doing that...


 * I was trying to avoid confusion there, and obviously failed. In the UK Executive Agency is a specific category of government bodies which have some day to day independence, and I was trying to separate that from the more general concept of the executive branch.


 * The way I read that snippet you found from the US Civil Service is not that they do not belong to any branch of the goverment, merely that all non-political appointments in the US, regardless of branch, come under the remit of the Civil Service.


 * Anyway if all Civil Servants are state employees, public servants or whatever, surely that strengthens the case for describing capital punishment as being imposed by the State, rather than assigning it to an individual branch.


 * By the way, I am a UK Civil (or to be strictly accurate, Crown) Servant, working for an Executive Agency (not the Prison Service, or any other Home Office EA).  David Underdown 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't avoided answering anything, and again, I'm getting a little tired of your downright rude attitude. I used American procedures as an example.  You keep saying that other countries do things differently, so please, enlighten us, which countries handle capital punishment in the way you've suggested?  In which country do judges act as executioners?  Since we're on the subject, would you consider the people who actually carry out the execution to have a "minimal" role?  Do you suppose that the people who were granted clemency from various executive authorities over the last 10 years would view that act as "minimal?"


 * Your point about civil servents is meaningless. Is it your position that because they use the words "appointed IN THE executive, legislative or judicial branch" that they are not members of that branch?  Regardless, since now 4 people, including my own "hypocritical, narrowminded, selfish view," believe that it should be "State imposed," I'm changing it back.  JCO312 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding, I've never argued that. All I have said is that there is no such thing as State employees who are members of one branch or another branch.


 * In that case your argument about "executed by the judiciary" is even more incorrect, since now "State" employees are involved. You earlier called me selfish because I keep changing the page with only Coolceasar supporting my position.  4 people say it should be State, you are the only one who says it should be otherwise.  If you're going to go around calling others hypocrites and selfish, better to avoid those traits yourself. JCO312 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to have taken my advice about agreeing to consensus, or even about submitting to arbitration, so I'll set that up now. In the meantime, let's not change the page anymore. I know that some of you are new users, and may not be aware of the three-revert rule, but it's probably been violated today. And that includes edits made while not signed in to your user name. So let's everyone be cool, leave the page alone for a bit, and wait for a ruling on this. --Coemgenus 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I though that in the interest of the discussion I would post the following piece of the Wikipedia article on the "executive"


 * ''Role of the executive
 * It is usually the role of the executive to:


 * Enforce the law. To achieve this the executive administers the prisons and the police force, and prosecutes criminals in the name of the state. 
 * Conduct the foreign relations of the state. 
 * Command the armed forces. 
 * Appoint state officials, including judges and diplomats. 
 * Administer government departments and public services. 
 * Issue executive orders (also known as secondary legislation, ordinances, edicts or decrees).


 * As it says, it is the executive branch that is responsible for law enforcement, including the prosection of criminals and the adminstration of prisons. Perhaps that will clear some of this dispute up. JCO312 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)