Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
The article is not entitled &#8220;US human rights record&#8221;, but &#8220;China&#8217;s assessment of the US human right&#8217;s record&#8221;. Thus, it&#8217;s not propaganda.

--

Please feel free to write about China&#8217;s assessment of the US human right&#8217;s record: however, please do not regurgitate press releases unless they are (a) in the public domain or (b) licenced under the GFDL, as we cannot otherwise include them in this encyclopedia. See copyright issues and What Wikipedia is not.

Moreover, please be prepared for your contributions to be edited by other authors, like all Wikipedia content.

The Anome 08:34 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

It most certainly is propaganda. (The fact that I happen to agree with most of it is irrelevant.) It does contain factual information sprinkled liberally over it, and it reports a view that deserves more coverage than it gets, both here at Wikkipedia and more generally. However it doesn't seem to be a GPL document (i.e., there are copyright questions hanging over it) and it leaves out large slabs of relevant information also - in other words, it make no attempt to look at things from a neutral point of view.

If you feel the issues raised by this document are important, and you think you are capable of writing about them in a literate, factual, and unbiased way, then please do so. Remember, however, that if you just spout obvious propaganda, your contribution will be removed by other, more fair-minded contributors. Tannin

I have removed every link to this page. I started by trying to be reasonable and figure out which ones are "good" links and which "bad" but I got sick of it and decided that if the author can use a scattergun effect across the whole of wikipedia, inserting the link into articles with even the most remote connection (and some with none), then I can't be bothered to be any more clever than that in removing them, so they have all gone. The author is presumably proud of the work they did in contributing this and I would not wish to denigrate that. However, they need to figure out when it is sensible to link to it, and that is NOT from every article that mentions China, the US, or human rights. It is quite inappropriate for this to be linked from the main US article, for instance, as if it was a vital key fact. It isn't - it might be interesting and not unimportant but it is not crucial and should not be treated as such in a main article. It would be more encouraging if the same IP had not also contributed silly vandalism, maybe coincidence, maybe not. I will continue to watch this article and I will continue to remove stupid and deliberately provocative links to it. 194.117.133.118 10:17 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Mediation requested
User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do prefer (as NPOV) Verily's version of the 1st disputed paragraph, but we should have the 2nd as well (unless there's some suggestion it says something untrue?) Evercat 22:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue was not the content of the change but rather VeryVerily's flat refusal to discuss it. Shorne 00:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is false and slanderous that the U.S. "routinely" detains non-citizens. The Hamdi case is not worthy of a general article like this, and will, as I said, be forgotten in five years, indeed in one year, so is not encyclopedia material. Nor is it even remotely representative, and so is inappropriate on those grounds. Furthermore, the wording is deceptive: "compelled to forfeit" - when he agreed to this as terms of his release and repatriation? Very Verily 21:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if he had to do it to be released, that sounds like compulsion to me. However, I take your point about generality. Evercat 21:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is important information. Few states strip their citizens of citizenship; indeed, that is a contravention of at least one convention of the United Nations. The information, which is accurate and relevant, must stand. Shorne 21:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's your response to the point that detention of of non-citizens is far from routine? Evercat 00:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Detention of non-citizens is legal.
 * The issue is important as a very fundamental violation of civil rights.
 * I wish to see proof that it is far from routine. People are frequently held, often for very long periods, without so much as being charged. Immigrants languish in confinement awaiting deportation. Look at what is going on at Guantánamo Bay.
 * If the word routinely is the only issue, I wish to know why VeryVerily saw fit to delete the entire paragraph over and over and over without comment.


 * This is a short response. I could say more. Shorne 00:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that VeryVerily just reverted the change without discussion, true to form. Shorne 07:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed the previous edits and take no position on who's been misbehaving. As a lawyer who used to represent immigrants, though, I want to respond to Shorne, with special reference to non-citizens.


 * The Due Process Clause protects non-citizens. Most individual rights that are constitututionally protected against governmental infringement (whether by state governments or by the federal government) are secured to all persons, not just citizens.  Of course, constitutional protections aren't always respected, and it seems plausible to assume that non-citizens get illegally shafted somewhat more often.


 * Anyone, citizen or non-citizen, can be detained, but only after notice and hearing. Some immigrants "languish in confinement awaiting deportation" when they've had a deportation hearing and been adjudicated deportable.  An immigrant at a deportation hearing has many (though not all) of the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial.  Under some circumstances, a citizen or a non-citizen can be held while awaiting the trial or hearing.  The situation at Guantánamo Bay is certainly unusual and is judged by many people to be illegal, but simply because it's unusual there's a shortage of precedent on the point.


 * Conclusions for when the page is unprotected:
 * Take care to distinguish between what allegedly rights-violative practices are permitted by law (e.g., capital punishment) and which ones are alleged to occur despite being illegal (e.g., police brutality). (It would be reasonable to note the prohibitive financial cost of vindicating one's legal rights in some situations.  This factor, along with illegal acts like police brutality, affects the extent to which rights that exist on paper are actually available.)
 * Note the extent to which citizens and non-citizens have the same legal rights. For example, the rights listed in the introductory paragraph of this article are important and are not legally dependent upon citizenship.  A blanket statement that "non-citizens ... do not enjoy the same legal protections" is too vague.  The specific differences should be spelled out. JamesMLane 03:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, JamesMLane, for your comments. Let me say also that I appreciate your work in defending immigrants, a vulnerable group in almost every country.
 * I agree with your suggestions for the page and will aim to organise the discussion around legal and illegal questionable practices and discuss the scope of citizens' and non-citizens' rights when the page is unprotected. I'm certainly no specialist in US law, but I'll do my best.
 * Thanks also for pointing out that most rights apply to all persons. As I mentioned below earlier today, that's what the Bill of Rights says in most cases. It's too bad that we have to give basic civics lessons here. Do the schools in the US even teach civics anymore? Between pep rallies, perhaps? Shorne 04:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to this article, but since you ask: My understanding, from a teacher I know, is that U.S. schools are now heavily oriented to "teaching to the test". Schools and teachers are evaluated based on the students' scores on standardized tests, so an inordinate amount of time is spent in teaching the skills that will boost those scores.  I don't think this is just her school district.  The same complaint has been widely reported.  Accountability in public education is a good principle but its implementation has been, in practice, counterproductive.  JamesMLane 04:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read about "teaching to the test". It sounds entirely too formulaic, doesn't it? substituting drill for learning. As in many other areas, a cheap and easy solution to a complex problem usually backfires. Shorne 05:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily
Please do not ask me again to discuss anything with VeryVerily. Even on the rare occasion when he posts a few words to the talk page, he has no intention to discuss anything. Witness this discussion and his most recent edits. Shorne 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What?
What the hell is the problem with what I wrote? It is correct, NPOV, and important. Don't try to cover up important issues of human rights. Shorne 11:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please leave any examples that occurred during military conflict, and were justified on alleged national security grounds, in the appropriately titled section. As for non-citizens receiving less legal protection than citizens, that's pretty much the definition of "citizen" isn't it? Gazpacho 11:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to say that COINTELPRO was conducted for "security" during a war. Claiming a military excuse is just outrageous: the purpose was to suppress dissidents. As for non-citizens, no, you're wrong. The US's Bill of Rights does not specifically limit those protections to citizens. Shorne 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop trying to paint the US's acts as wartime measures. I have already stated what is wrong with that. Also please stop deleting important material about Hamdi and others. You're giving the article a pro-US POV spin. Shorne 20:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That is nonsense. I have added no fewer than four examples of rights violations that were not in the article previously. The heading you keep adding is vague if not POV. The details of Hamdi's case should be presented in the article about him. If I'm adding any "spin", it's to show that recent rights controversies didn't arise from a vacuum. Gazpacho 20:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's nothing POV about the heading. As for Hamdi, I haven't gone into the details of his case here; I've merely stated the violations of his rights, and I've even omitted to say that he was expelled from the country and that the US used strong-arm tactics to limit his activities when the US doesn't even have jurisdiction over him anymore. If we cannot agree on these points, I'll ask to have the page protected until a compromise can be reached. Shorne 20:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because you say there's no POV doesn't mean it's not there. You have such a strong anti-US POV that I'm sure even if 99% of readers agree that a wording is neutral, you would still consider it slanted the wrong way. Stan 21:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The other objection is that it's vague. I could put "subversion of legal rights" at the top of the whole article. It doesn't specify what comes after it vs. the rest of the article. It's POV because it takes a side on the individual liberty vs. national security question. I'm open to other wordings: "Rights and national security", "Rights vs. perceived security threats", etc. Gazpacho 04:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See the comment by JamesMLane, above. My intention was to point out that legal rights were being subverted. The death penalty is not an infringement of legal rights; it's perfectly legal, and no one goes around saying that the US government and the state governments don't execute anyone. If the law said that the FBI could infiltrate left-wing organisations and shoot Black people in their beds, that would not belong under the heading "Subversion of legal rights". As it is, the US gloats about its "freedom", yet that freedom is illusory for people who try to exercise it outside certain unstated parameters. The US's hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.
 * I'm willing to negotiate a different title, but I think that subsuming it all under wartime activity is a distortion. Unless you want to say that the US is always at war (which seems to be true), in which case it is a tautology.
 * Anyway, why don't we talk about restructuring the whole section, and maybe the introduction, around JamesMLane's suggestions? That may render this issue moot. Shorne 05:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Heading to "'National security' exceptions" (with quotes on national security). Section to discuss the most notable cases where the government argued claimed exemptions to constitutional guarantees on "national security" grounds. A paragraph each about sedition, police power (COINTELPRO, USAPATRIOT), military detention, and detention/expulsion of suspected alien enemies. Gazpacho 06:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Shorne 08:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a sandbox at Talk:Human rights in the United States/National Security Gazpacho 09:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this is pretty good now. Thanks a lot for your efforts. I added a line or two and made some minor changes. Feel free to rework them.
 * I'll have another look later today, but I'm pretty pleased with it as it is now. Shorne 09:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The page is protected again at my request, after a fourth revert. I probably won't be able to contribute this time around. Gazpacho 04:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of a sandbox was not a bad one. But since my contributions to it were just systematically reverted by Shorne, it wound up not being an improvement over the previous situation. Very Verily  04:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Which "contributions" did I systematically revert? Shorne 05:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personal rants
Shorne's editwarring having attracted my attention, I see this page is full of personal ranting against the US. One can recognize these from the unsourced "some say", "criticized by many", etc - in many cases I suspect the "some" consists only of the writer and three of his whinier acquaintances. Since we have a requirement for verifiability, any such statement should either be evaporated, or cite a reputable published source, preferably one that has done a poll. To read this, one would think a person could get jailed for stomping on one of 7-11's Bush cups, as my wife did just yesterday (after paying for it), and so far she's escaped the clutches of the government. :-) Stan 21:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This personal attack cannot be considered a serious objection. Shorne 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In your self-centered view of the world, I'm sure it's not. But you're also a newbie who still has a lot to learn about how WP really works - although based on past experience with other energetic POV warriors, you'll be gone before you figure it out. Stan 21:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formal call for discussion from VeryVerily
This is a formal request for VeryVerily to discuss his dispute about this article (my most recent version) before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh shut up. You reverted all the edits I made to the article.  Why don't you explain your reverts?  Oh, because the burden of proof is always on whoever is not you. Very Verily  09:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disputed
"Many, typically White, Americans think the United States has an exemplary human-rights leader and consider these enumerated rights to be among the strongest in the world. Critics point to what they see as hypocrisy in both the domestic and the foreign policies of the United States government. Indeed, the American South was alone with South Africa in actively promoting apartheid legislation as recently as the 1960s."


 * Is this really correct? This seems to be a sweeping statement that mainly white Americans think that the United States has an exemplary human-rights record. Can this be backed up with a source study? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find the insinuation insulting, almost bordering on racism. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The statement initially stated "many Americans", the "typically white" bit was an addition to make it clear that these opinions are generally not held by those Americans who are not white. Although undoubtedly strictly correct, the first sentence is vague - How many Americans think that? I have therefore deleted the first sentence. The second sentence is vague, and no doubt could also be removed if it can't be improved. In the final sentence, I am not sure about "alone", which I have also deleted - but certainly there were many segregationist laws and rules that were adopted in the American South. I presume there's no serious doubt that this is true and that they persisted till the 1960s?


 * The other thing this article fails to note is the remarkable diversity in legal practices between the states. While certain southern states pursued apartheid-like legislation, that wasn't true of northern and western states and the federal government brought them to heel in the mid-60's. Same with the death penalty: a glance at Capital punishment in the United States shows that some states value the death penalty more than others, while some (like my home state of Michigan) don't have it at all. Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree there is much diversity between the states. The statement on apartheid clearly relates to the American South though, so a reader would know the comment did not apply to the northern and western states. Though if you want to supply a list of states that did have apartheid-style legislation, that would be welcome. Also, by all means distinguish the human rights positions between the states if you have the evidence to do so. If you have reliable data, I for one would find it interesting. Most international reports are written country by country, though, so it's hard to get much evidence comparing state by state. jguk 19:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The United States continues to lead the world on sentencing juveniles to death, contradicts standard Western norms in allowing juries of largely self-selected Americans decide sentences rather than impartial judges, and continues to support legislation that deliberately seeks to disenfranchise large portions of the black population."


 * "Leads the world"? What does that mean? Does this mean that they have put more people to death that others, does this mean that they have reduced the amount of juveniles put to death? Could this please be clarified?! Also, perhaps we could provide some sources that back this claim up. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have now added a source and made the claim more specific. jguk 19:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The use of the death penalty is controversial both in the United States and outside it. Whereas 90% of the American population are Caucasian, an overwhelming majority of those on death row are black. Also, it has been shown that erroneous convictions have led to many executions and incarcerations of innocent people, which by their nature are irreversible."


 * Umm... what studies back this up? Where are these figures being pulled from? Also, how do you go from "90% of the American population are Caucasians" to "An overwhelming majority of those on death row are black"? It seems to me (without knowing many facts) that a point is being made here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Will change in line with and.

My principal problem with this article is that, like other anti-American pieces (e.g. List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945), there is no context provided. When it talks about repressive measures during World War I, it does not note that other countries had similar measures, often more restrictive ones. Anything that could possibly make the US look bad (Mexican immigrants dying on the border) is blamed on America. A third of the article is devoted to a report by China–China–hardly a paragon of virture. Other than the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN, there are no citations of sources, no scholarly studies. If a wrote a paper like this my professor would take it from me and hit me over the head with it and tell me to get back in the damn library. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no reason for it to be "anti-American". It should be factual. Currently the article concentrates on human rights abuses in America. These comments are fair. But the article needs balance: comments on freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc. jguk 20:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revision 2
Excellent work so far! Jogarrettuk must be congratulated on his clarifications. However, I still would like to ask about the following:

"The use of the death penalty is controversial both in the United States and outside it. Although blacks form only 13% of the total American population, 42% of those on death row are black (2003 statistics ). Also, it has been shown that erroneous convictions have led to many executions and incarcerations of innocent people, which by their nature are irreversible."

OK, I'm wondering where this is leading. Why is this significant? Is the article implying there is a bias towards convicting black people with the death penalty, while other races aren't targetted to the same degree? If so, I beleive the article should have the intellectual honesty to state this. However, if it does then this may become a logical fallacy. Would you be able clarify the study that is being referenced or the specific opinions of 3rd party commentators (so its not original research)? I personally don't have a problem with these facts, I would like to see this text tighted up significantly. I have high hopes that we will be able to do this, as all my other objections have been cleared up! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I prefer letting the facts speak for themselves. To do anything else would probably be POV, unless you are aware of any research to the contrary. They could suggest that blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes deserving of the death penalty (whether through nature, or because blacks form a larger proportion of poorer Americans, who are more likely to commit such crimes, or whatever). Alternatively, they may suggest that the judicial system (at least insofar as it relates to capital crimes) is institutionally racist (and I deliberately use the term applied to the Metropolitan Police force of the metropolis of London here). You can probably guess that I believe the latter is more accurate, but I'm reluctant to force my POV on others.


 * What study that's being referenced are you referring to? One if from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (which could be biased, but if it is would be pro-U.S. bias). The other study referred to is U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, March 2001, and National Population Estimates (not unimpeachable, but a pretty good source, I'd have thought)


 * Finally, on the POV point, there are many good points about human rights in America, as well as abuses. The article is improving in terms of describing the abuses. For balance, it also needs to discuss the good points: freedom of speech, movement, etc. etc.. Also, minority and women's rights are improving, even though it is slowly and there is an awfully long way to go. The article ideally would reflect that too.


 * I agree that this article is definitely improving (largely due to your edits!). I think I made myself unclear, which I do apologise for. I for some unknown reason I missed the reference to the studies, so I will read these and get back to you. Sorry about that! I was just wondering if the studies linked the two facts together... if they do then we should say so, otherwise shouldn't we modify the statement? It seems a little misleading to me, though I definitely understand what you mean by letting facts speak for themselves. With regards to the reference to institutional racism, if you could provide a good source to this I think we should add it, though it would be best to find another source that balances this view (if we can find one!). Would you be willing to do this? I'm also going to read the surveys you linked to and see if I can clarify some points here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The opening paragraph has the following:

"The United States continues to execute juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders &#8211; 19 of them in the USA. Along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders. ,The United States also contradicts standard Western norms in allowing juries of largely self-selected Americans decide sentences rather than impartial judges, and continues to support legislation that deliberately seeks to disenfranchise large portions of the black population."

(I modified the "leads the world" bit because its not clear what this means, and I beleive it to be POV).

Could we have background on why the U.S. decided not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child? There must be an official position somewhere, and it should at least be stated (even if I agree with the original author that this it is wrong to put a child to death).

Also, "The United States also contradicts standard Western norms in allowing juries of largely self-selected Americans decide sentences rather than impartial judges and continues to support legislation that deliberately seeks to disenfranchise large portions of the black population." OK, firstly I disagree with this statement. In Australia we allow trial by jury, and we're a Western nation. What is meant by "self-selected Americans"? Could this be expanded, or a "see also" be added? The second part of the sentence also needs expanding: as a non-U.S. citzen I don't know what legislation has been created that disenfranchises black people. Could this be expanded? It hasn't been addressed in the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In the United States, juries decide the sentence where the sentence is determinable on the facts (which includes every death penalty case). Do Australian juries really ever decide the sentence. Here in the UK, juries decide guilt or innocence, but the sentence must (by both UK and European law) be decided by an impartial judge.


 * The reference to "self-selected" is a reference to the practice in many American states of jurists volunteering themselves for jury duty. Most people avoid it like the plague. Where juries only consist of volunteers, they are not representative. This would not be allowed in the UK. Indeed, I can think of a Gibraltarian case heard by the Privy Council where problems in how the jury was selected was unacceptable.


 * The reference to the disenfranchisement is a reference to those states, like Florida, that disenfranchise anyone with a criminal conviction. Of course, the criminal system has convicted disproportionately more blacks than people of any other race. (I don't know the numbers, but am sure I can find them. But as a guide as to how many people such a measure could disenfranchise, I do know that roughly one in three British male adults has a criminal conviction.) The issue is serious and in due course will, no doubt, come before the U.S. Supreme Court. jguk 00:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarifications! I did not know that American jurors could volunteer themselves. Would you be able to incorporate this into the article (with an external reference &mdash; not necessarily web-based ones are needed either &mdash; because that would improve things no end. This article is quite interesting, and I think we can achieve balance in what we write. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following is not clear to me:

"Critics point to what they see as hypocrisy in both the domestic and the foreign policies of the United States government. Indeed, the American South, like South Africa, actively promoted apartheid legislation as recently as the 1960s."

Which critics pointed to hypocrisy? What hypocrisy were they pointing out? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've no idea. I was tempted to delete that sentence myself. jguk 13:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed this section, however if the original author could clarify then I suppose this could be added back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"However, others note that these groups commit crimes at a far higher rate than white Americans." Which others? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revision 3
"Such negative views are often described as "anti-Americanism", although they are also held by many political liberals in the United States." This appears to be implying that only liberal Americans are not "anti-American". Hardly. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My markings up of "dubious"
The first paragraph needs to be removed and replaced with something neutral anyway, but here I explain why I have marked it up as "dubious".

I don't think that it is true to say "The United States has an established legal tradition of providing strong protection for civil rights and human rights". Slavery was only abolished in 1865. Laws requiring various forms of racial segregation were only finally removed in 1968. Reading from any international report on human rights in the U.S. (eg Amnesty International), it is clear that this statement is not generally perceived to be true. Of course, America's human rights position is improving and the article should reflect that. But it is also taking a two steps forward one step back approach.

I think, generally, it is misleading to start any article on human rights in any country by reference to that country's constitution. Constitutions tend to have lots of bullshit in them about human rights that are then ignored left, right and centre by the governments of those countries. Putting these words in the first paragraph without acknowledgment of how the constitution has been interpreted in a way to deny human rights, is misleading. A proper section of the article proper on the constitution, noting how it has been interpreted in practice, may be appropriate, however. jguk 13:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lead section
I was wondering if we could cleanup the lead section a little. See Lead section. There's a lot of information in the main article that I feel should go into the body of the article. I've made a start by moving the bit dealing with children and the death penalty into a subsection of death penalty. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have restored the intro we had. Jongarrettuk keeps messing it up, turning the lead section into a rant about race.  He is also reverting other people's attempts to add information to the article.  Most of the information on underage execution was written in a similar style and what's left didn't seem to merit its own (sub)section. Very Verily  19:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VV, I've defended everything I've added. The lead section you keep restoring is misleading in the extreme. It's also untrue, and the U.S. Supreme Court continues to make decisions which would be seen as advocating human rights violations elsewhere in the world (you only have to compare the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to the U.S. Supreme Court to see the difference).


 * Let me demonstrate why I consider the approach you take in the lead section to be extremely POV as well as misleading. For comparison suppose we started an article on Human rights in North Korea with a first paragrpah mentioning the protection of human rights outlined in its constitution, and a second paragraph as you have it but with "North Korea" replacing the words "United States". Would that be a reasonable start to a North Korea human rights article?


 * The article does need serious improvement. And yes the lead section needs to change (with what is now there moving down the article a bit). The article also needs to note good points about America's human rights record: freedom of speech, religious freedoms, etc.. Though these need to be mentioned in an objective encyclopaedic style.


 * For these reasons, I am reverting you. I would welcome a new lead section starting from scratch (with what is already there being retained elsewhere in the articles), and some addition of balance by mentioning the good points. I would welcome collaberation to achieve this. jguk 20:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I semi-agree with this reversion. VerilyVerily basically reverted every change I made, including the addition of new material! And mostly without taking to talk. VerilyVerily, could we have more discussion, and could you stop removing material and adding your own POV? For true balance you would try to incorporate criticisms as well as good points. Which I noticed you started to do, but then removed a whole bunch of other material. I'm thinking of restoring those edits... but have to got to a wedding. Later. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. The lead section is far too long. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is too long. The problem is the article's already unbalanced - but I don't know enough about the good things on human rights in the US to add the balance myself. The balance needs to be added into the article itself, then a whole new lead section written that reflects that article. jguk 23:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you added valuable material, I must have missed it. I went through paragraph by paragraph and removed flagrant POV and massive bias.  I justified each of my individual changes, whereas you are just reverting me.  You made no attempt at all to respond to my concerns.  This article is not an editorial on your dislike of the U.S.  And you too are removing other people's edits.  The lead section you have is wholly one-sided, which is not proper.  Furthermore, keying off events that happened 200 years ago is not standard for any of our human rights article (does Human rights in China talk about Qing dynasty excesses?).  I'm restoring my version. Very Verily  02:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, you didn't justify the removal of your sections in talk. You did it in the edit summary. Don't do this. Please take it to talk. Incidently, the reason I added the information about racial profiling, etc, is because instead of saying "some people" say that racial profiling is wrong, I have actual people who have written about this, and I have a report on it also. You haven't noted why you've removed the image of the electric chair, you just removed it. Please explain why on the talk page. I have reincorporated a lot of the material, please explain why it should be removed. Do not remove it until we can get some consensus or I will file an RFC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I justified it in Talk, just that I justified it, which is the key. I removed the electric chair because it adds no information and is merely there for some sort of shock value.  What effect do you think showing a means of killing a person on a "human rights" article is?  I don't see a consensus for the overhaul of the article into an anti-U.S. rant that jguk has begun. Very Verily  03:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VerilyVerily, does the United States still use the Electric Chair or not? I don't know, not being an American. Are you saying this is inaccurate? If so I'm happy to remove it. Otherwise, it's most likely a valid image (though the article should go into detail about the use of the Electric Chair). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The information I added on the electric chair comes from that article. Only Nebraska uses the electric chair to the exclusion of all other methods. 5 states allow an inmate to select the electric chair over lethal injection (and some of those only allow the selection for inmates convicted before a certain date). jguk 13:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apartheid is a term used for the South African system. Other uses are editorializing and not NPOV. Very Verily 02:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Apartheid means "apart from", though the language is confusing. I will attempt to modify. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dubious tags
There's a reason for these. My suggestion is to stop removing content and add the tags, and place your reasons for disputing the section on the talk page. Then, if the original author can't justify the section, clarify it, or improve it at all then and only then remove the material. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following: (a) continues to - biased language, implies there's something wrong with it. (b) Random claims in the underage execution part that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, including the downright absurd assertion about deliberately disenfrachising blacks. Very Verily 03:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with your removal of this section, if only because noone has fixed the text. I also agree that the "continues to" could be seen as biased, and agree with your "sometimes" change (because I'm sure that killing juveniles is a last resort). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

China's assessment of US human rights
Why has this been forked without discussion? After all, Amnesty International has a whole section on their assessment of U.S. human rights and this hasn't been forked! I'm going to add a merge tag until we can get to the bottom of this! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I forked it because it's a pretty separate subject, the section has grown rather large and cumbersome, and China's opinion wholly lacks the recognition that Amnesty International's does. Imagine if twenty countries prepared reports like this; would we have a long section for all of them? Very Verily  06:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It hasn't grown that large. And so far as I know, only China has done a national report on America's human rights record. I'd suggest putting it back in summary form. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with a link to it? And you're guessing about how many have. Very Verily  13:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. Which other countries have done such a report on U.S. human rights? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It was a hypothetical question. Certainly there are a gazillion "watchdog" and "human rights analysis" and "thinktank" organizations out there.  The question is, which ones have enough credibility to deserve citation in a scholarly, encyclopedic article?  China with their joke of a report certainly does not.  AI (unfortunately) does. Very Verily  06:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why not? why is it such a joke of a report? It may be hypocritical, but apart from that what was the other things that made the report invalid? sorry for the numerous questions, but I realise you are coming from a considered POV, I just would like to understand where you are coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you read any of their reports? They're hilarious.  For instance, some shyster in Georgia ran a funeral home, improperly disposed of corpses, and pocketed the money from his customers.  This hustler's scam was listed as a "human rights abuse" in the United States. Very Verily  07:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is that so? well, why isn't that in the article?! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Chequered history"
This is an opinion and thus inappropriate: "The United States has had a chequered history of civil rights." Maurreen 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whilst the article currently concentrates on the negative aspects of America's civil rights history, I don't think anyone is claiming that there aren't any good points. I certainly wouldn't want to change "chequered" to "bad" or "appalling" just because we haven't listed the good bits yet. jguk 13:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chequered has a pretty negative connotation, as you must know. (Yes, appalling would be worse, as would godawful, but that hardly validates a slightly less bad term.) Very Verily  04:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. This needs to be framed in more neutral language. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Working out the disagreements
I'd like to suggest that at least a couple draft versions of this article be made. That could make it easier to work out something acceptable to all or most. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that would just create two unbalanced articles. Keep it on this page and we'll merge the page as new info gets added. We're starting to work together to write a good article now - let's try to keep it that way. If you know anyone who can support some good points to say about human rights in the US though, please point them towards this page. There must be something good to say about human rights in America, surely? someone? jguk 13:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? This comment just seems remarkably ignorant to me. Very Verily  14:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is what a joke? Do you think the article is balanced now? jguk 14:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That there's almost nothing good to say about human rights in America. Very Verily 15:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VerilyVerily, I don't think we're stopping you from adding good things about U.S. human rights. Please, feel free to add this material. Only don't remove what seems to be negative information just because you don't like it! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The good things are already there. Jguk (and you?) are just trying to water them down or eliminate them.  What am I trying to remove?  The heavy emphasis on practices that ended 140 years ago?  Go load up Human rights in China with Qin dynasty excesses and we'll talk. Very Verily  04:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not. I have not been editting other articles, so I can't comment on them. I have been editing this one on its merits. If the U.S. has had instances of bad human rights then I see no reason not to include this information. I could say the same for you (though I'm not) that you are trying to water down the negatives! Lets try to work together to balance the content of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am trying to contextualize the irrelevant. Turning this into a history article serves no purpose other than to dredge up old grievances. Very Verily  07:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Assessments of human rights in the United States
I would like to see some references for making the claims in the first two paragraphs in this section. In particular, the comment "Many view the United States as an exemplary human-rights leader and consider these enumerated rights to be among the strongest in the world" seems to be entirely POV and is expressed in weasel terms. jguk 18:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course many believe that. Are you serious?  Do you get all your news from The Guardian? Very Verily  04:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily, this may be the case. However, please review weasel words to see why it is inappropriate to have this statement in its current form. If you could help us clarify this with an example of several other defenders of the U.S.'s human rights record, it would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with much of the "weasel words" policy, as I believe does Jimbo as well. There are noted two significant schools of thought on the subject of this article.  In fact, criticism of America's human rights record is generally just lame leftist sniping from unreconstructed Marxists and countries with far worse records, but we can't say that outright in the article. Very Verily  06:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's pretty POV of you to say this. Please write from a NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Articles should be written from an NPOV. Talk comments do not need to be.  Duh. Very Verily  07:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I was heading out the door when I read your comment, so I may not have crafted my words very carefully. However, criticisms of the U.S. are applied by people other than "lame leftists" who are "sniping from unreconstructed Marxiss and countries wih far worse records". However, if this is what you beleive then I'm sure you'd be willing to back up your beliefs, lest you want me to think you haven't thought things through very carefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last revert
jguk reverted all of my edits with the deceptive edit summary that it was just "reorganization". In fact he blew away my entire rewrite of the history section (which was all duplication) and various other edits, and imposed a completely new intro unilaterally with a heavy and inappropriate diachronic focus, wiping out the intro that we had worked out months ago to balance POVs. I am reverting. I'll look at the subsequent edits to see what can be restored. Very Verily 04:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The lead section is too long. I suggest you read lead section. You keep reverting, and its getting a little silly. Also, you removed my dubious tag on a section I had brought to talk. You also removed the dubious tags for something jguk took to talk (see . I suggest you be more careful. I suggest that if you revert again that you firstly take your issues to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The current version is outlandish, short or long. You should not confuse your own ideas of "progress" with objective truth, and this is not a history article anyway.  (Cf. Qin dynasty above.)  I know people want to pan the U.S., but it's pretty sad having to reach back a couple of centuries to find ways to do it.  What's "silly" is jguk repeatedly blindly reverting my rewrites and unilaterally casting our old hashed-out intro to the wind, but I don't see you on his tail. Very Verily  06:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to "pan" the U.S. (in fact, you seem to have a bit of a seige mentality going on here), but I would like for information to be presented correctly and carefully in the article. I think the lead section is not concise enough at the moment, and in fact if I placed it on peer review I think that might be something I would ask about. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

US as a model of human and civil rights
VV added:

"many see the United States as a model of human and civil rights due to its legal protection of these guaranteed rights."


 * (clarification: I actually added this sentence). - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and has also added:

"Many view the United States as an exemplary human-rights leader and consider these enumerated rights to be among the strongest in the world"

Who actually holds these beliefs? Who are the "many"? Can you provide sources? We really should avoid using weasel terms, but if the "many" can be substantiated, maybe these phrases could be rewritten to avoid weasel terms. jguk 14:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with this comment. We can retain the "many", but we should qualify. After all, if there are many defenders it shouldn't be hard to source what they've said and incorporate this into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Patriot Act
The Patriot Act isn't very prominent on this article. Since it's recent, and currently being revised, I suggest it be placed within the History section (recent history). Any objection? --Rebroad 16:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I object. It is already in the national security section. Gazpacho 21:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay
Once the page is unlocked, I'm going to add material from this article, and also from unlawful combatants, in particular this section: "The purported legal status of "The purported legal status of "unlawful combatants" in those nations currently holding detainees under that name, has been the subject of criticism by other nations and international human rights institutions; including Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC in response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan published a paper on the subject The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849)". It's part of human rights, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's human rights. But I'm not convinced it's human rights in the United States? Guantanamo Bay, strictly speaking, is in Cuba (not that I'm suggesting you put this stuff on the Human rights in Cuba page - after all, it's already there!). jguk 21:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Aren't they being held on a U.S. base? And they're not being held by the Cubans. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's on sovereign Cuban territory. That's an important point: it's why the Bush administration argues the US Constitution doesn't apply to it. Even if the base were on US sovereign territory, it still wouldn't be in the US - just as the US bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, etc. are not in the US. jguk 22:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but shouldn't that information be also added to this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be mentioned, along with jguk's counterargument. Mir 02:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Draft copy
Perhaps we should set up a draft copy of the article so the page can be unprotected? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 17:08, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * And what goes up in the mean time? The issue seems to be a burden of proof one.  It's pretty clear from TBSDY's analysis above that he considers that (a) if anyone reverts one of my edits the burden of proof is on me to justify it before reinstating it and (b) if I revert someone else's edit the burden of proof is on me to justify that reversion.  Otherwise it's hard to make sense of his complaints and his protestations of innocence.  (Meanwhile I consider major overhauls in need of more justification than fact fixes.) Very Verily  17:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Each editor who wishes to add or keep a section needs, at least if other editors require it, to support that section with sources. This applies to TBSDY, you, me and any other editor. I should be grateful if you would, in particular, add sources to support the paragraph about the US being a model (see section 16 above). I'm quite prepared to cite sources (if I haven't already done so) to support my additions.


 * On quite a different point, this article really does need to discuss some positives about HR in the US. These shouldn't use weasel terms, but should be well supported. I for one would welcome it if you could provide sources to support some positive bits. jguk 22:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The positives were there. The Constitutional foundation, the Bill of Rights, the fact that many countries have adopted the American model of democracy, the fact that still pretty much no country has as strong protections as the U.S., and so on.  People are just trying to eliminate this information and replace it with cheap, uninformed leftist sniping.


 * I don't know how to proceed here. TBSDY is no longer saying anything of substance; he is refusing to even acknowledge that he has been reverting my edits, ignoring points of substance, and just flatly denying and contradicting me now.  Someone more attuned to what is going on should propose a way out of this impasse. Very Verily  23:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am? I reverted you once sigh, twice. The other times I put back material you removed without going to talk. I find it interesting you mention that you say "The Constitutional foundation, the Bill of Rights, the fact that many countries have adopted the American model of democracy, the fact that still pretty much no country has as strong protections as the U.S., and so on.". I would like to see you add this. However, I cannot say that I'll be too impressed if the page gets unlocked and you revert again. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. I note you say "the postives were there". Uh, the positives are still in the article! See Human rights in the United States. This could be fleshed out, sure, but its still in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But to make it into an interesting argument you need to say who claims the constitution and the Bill of Rights make a good foundation for human right, who says the US has the strongest protections? Without saying "who", the comments are no good. Especially as I can easily pick cases decided by the ECHR that suggest the opposite. (And also I note that I could probably find 190+ countries in the world which someone - ie their governments - will say have the strongest human rights protection in the world.) I'm not saying here that it is impossible for you to answer these "who" questions (in fact, I'm sure there must be some sources somewhere), but you need to answer them to put them into a proper context so that we can write a good article.


 * Agreed. However, VeryVerily says that he doesn't agree with the weasel words policy (and even says that Jimbo doesn't either!). I'd suggest that on this article we apply it to try to clear up objections! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be blunt and state what approach I'll take: if he doesn't cite his sources, he'll get reverted. If he does cite his sources, comments in line with those sources will stay. I would very much prefer the latter course. jguk 00:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Note: whether or not other countries have adopted the American model of democracy is probably irrelevant to this article, as such as statement offers no insight on human rights in the United States. jguk 23:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this last point. We aren't stating what other countries have done, we are stating what has happened in the U.S. Incidently, I'd be quite interested to see what countries VeryVerily points out. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * So am I. My guess is some Latin American ones such as Venezuela, and maybe the Philippines too. But it's only a guess. jguk 00:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits made
Let's discuss them here.

Introduction

 * My first change is to the first sentence. I have changed: "The United States has an established legal tradition of providing strong protection for civil rights and human rights." to "Although the United States has had instances in the past where it has infringed the human and civil rights of people, it has subsequently established a legal tradition of providing strong protection for those rights." See for why this was marked as disputed. I have tried a compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have changed Negative views of and criticism about America are often described as "anti-Americanism, although they are also held by many political liberals in the United States." to Negative views of and criticism about America are often described as "anti-Americanism". I do this because it seems like its implying that only liberals in the United States hold negative views about the U.S., or something like that. Basically, the sentence is confused. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Death penalty
I modified the sentence ''The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. Along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders.  to The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. According to Amnesty International, along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders who are people convicted of crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. ''

Firstly, Amnesty's definition of child offender needed clarifying. Also, I am trying to show straight up where the information is coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just added this week's Supreme Court decision. However, since all I did was take the news story and add a date, the paragraph could be re-written to flow better. What do you expect from an accountant, literature? --Fredrik Coulter 03:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Prison
I removed "However, others note that these groups commit crimes at a far higher rate than white Americans." because it never states who says this. Quite frankly, if I don't see evidence for it, then I won't beleive it. If there really are others who say this, then it should easy to find them. At least then their claims can be examined in the light of reality. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also readded my material. It now reads:


 * Racial minorities, notably Blacks and Hispanics, are overrepresented in the US's prison population. According to Human Rights Watch, "black men [in 2000] were eight times more likely to be in prison than white men". According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, approximately 40.2% of the prison populaion is black, while 32.1% of the population is Hispanic,  with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons. One of the critics is U.S. Senator Darrel Issa, who introduced a bill on May 14, 2003 that condemned both of these things . An enquiry was held by the Virginia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights that dealt with African Americans in the Virginia Criminal Justice System.

Why did I do this? Because the phrase "with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons" could be disputed. The reader should be able to see which enquiries have been held, and they should be able to see who the critics are. On this site, I can add anything. Unless I can back it up with evidence, I shouldn't trust the material. That's why we have the weasel word policy, even if people like VeryVerily and Jimbo (!) don't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

China's assessment
I modified the text to say Critics of China's "report" say it contains nothing of substance but disconnected allegations intended to divert attention from China's own human rights record.. "Troubling" is a POV and an assertion that we should not be making. We should let the facts speak for themselves, and the reader should make up their own mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correcting some misconceptions about the U.S.
Noticed a few odd things on this page...

1. Americans often volunteer for jury duty, compromising impariality in capital cases. That's a good one! But seriously, it looks like four states actually allow volunteer jurors: Alaska, Maine, New York, and Pennsylvania. The first two don't have the death penalty, and NY & PA are not fans of the death penalty. (NY's was recently declared unconstitutional -- NY state constitution, not federal). Besides, I strongly suspect that people can only volunteer to join the jury pool, and not be automatically seated on a jury, as both sides are allowed to vet any potential juror.

CITES Volunteer jurors: Report by the Judicial Council of Virginia, an arm of the Virginia state judiciary. (Nov. 1999) Death penalty info: Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC)


 * Are there not other states where effectively jurors volunteer (as it's so easy to get out of jury service if you wanted to)? jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't bother to get out of jury duty is a volunteer? Even if that were true, the defense and prosecution still have the last word on who ends up sitting on the jury. But based on my experiences serving on juries (not always happily), most people do their best and don't try to get out of it unless they have a real conflict. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

2. U.S. law permits the execution of "child offenders." Are we talking about executing actual juveniles, or executing adults who committed their capital crimes while still juveniles? Of the states with the death penalty, 19 forbid execution of juvenile offenders. (DPIC again. This is a great site, btw.)


 * This is about executing those who committed their crimes as children. Hopefully the US Supreme Court will take its opportunity to block this next year. jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Children" or "juveniles"? All the cases I've heard of here are of people who committed their crimes as juveniles, but not as children. Like around 16 or 17. Maybe 15. I think what determines eligibility for the DP is if the person is tried as an adult. If they were tried as a juvenile, then they'd go into the juvenile justice system instead and be released at 18, which may not be a popular choice for a prosecutor if it's a heinous crime or one that's provoked popular outrage. Then again, there are few enough juvenile offenders (the accepted term here) on death row that the execution of one makes national news. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * The international standard is that anyone under 18 is a child (see ICCHR, etc.), though I have no problem in (briefly) clarifying the point in the article. I don't follow the distinction you are making between juvenile and child (to my mind they are synonymous, but the latter term the more frequently used and the one used internationally in this instance). Maybe we should qualify child offenders with "(ie those who were under 18 when they committed their crime)". jguk 08:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A child is always a juvenile, but a juvenile is not always a child, though both are under 18. "Juvenile" is the standard term here ("juvenile crime," "juvenile justice system," "juvie" :-) I think "child" is both too emotionally evocative (i.e. loaded), and also implies someone a lot younger than the average street tough, who are the ones who are the typical "juvenile offenders" here. As a rule of thumb, I would guess that most people would not consider anyone 13 or over as a "child," though this is just a gut feeling. But according to a juvenile justice web site, 68% of all juvenile crimes are committed by youths (another common term here) between 15 and 17, and that squares with most Americans' conceptions of a juvenile offender -- someone who may be under 18, but who should already be able to distinguish between right and wrong. Juvenile Justice FYI


 * Also, what role should non-binding declarations (ICCPR) play in judging a nation's human rights record? I think this could be thorny, esp. because it's doubtful that all other signatories -- even European ones -- abide by all the provisions of that declaration. --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

3. No innocent people have been exonerated and rescued from death row Nope. It's happened a lot. For a while you couldn't turn on the news without hearing about someone being exonerated, often because of newly available DNA tests. I think any halfway-decent Google search will turn up some support for this. Or DPIC


 * Agreed. I'm not sure how that sentence got in there in the first place. jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. The death penalty is controversial in the U.S. Only among a minority, though perhaps a sizeable one. But the death penalty by and large still has solid mainstream support, and is not seen as a human rights "issue."


 * Is this true of the states where there is no death penalty and for the federal death penalty? jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Very strong mainstream support. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's a study from a very reputable decades-long academic social survey; this one is on Americans' soft support for the juvenile death penalty


 * It also includes numbers for the adult death penalty from 1972-2001. The lowest point of support is around 62%. I'm sure there's more recent numbers around, but I gotta go to bed and stop spending all my time on the damn Wikipedia! --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

5. Imprisonment = racism That's a tough one. Lots of factors there. A big one is the trend toward mandatory minimum sentences, which have swelled the prison population. Then there's the poverty, substandard education, and lack of opportunity in a lot of minority communities that increase the likelihood of criminal activity. On the other hand, the U.S. has a highly developed system of rights for the accused, including a speedy trial and free representation, that many nations don't.


 * It's not an equality, but the statistics alone are strong evidence of racial discrimination against ethnic minorities (ok - that alone does not prove that the courts are racist, it could be the social structure as you suggest, but there's clear evidence of racial discrimination somewhere). jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maddeningly complicated, but something ain't right, that's fer sure. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I prefer to state the statistics here and let the reader make up their own mind. jguk 08:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with some statistics, but they really can be used to "prove" anything, so I'd argue for some caveats or context to avoid the implication of a causal connection. After all, if there were a definite causal connection, there's be no need to imply it; we could state it outright. Statistics without context are problematic. And I'm speaking as someone who's done more statistical analysis in the social sciences than I care to remember. --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

6. People with criminal convictions aren't allowed to vote Actually, this only applies to convicted felons (not all crimes are felonies), and I believe some states are now revisiting this issue.


 * Define the difference and add it to the article. jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My, but you like to order people around. Article's locked, m'dear. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not ordering, in fact I'm agreeing with your change. Maybe you'd prefer "I would have no problem if you added your point to the article (once it is unlocked) as long as you defined what the difference between felonies and other crimes is". jguk 08:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, something along those lines would be nice. :-) --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see felony disenfranchisement for the whole picture on this issue. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 17:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE TO NON-U.S. CONTRIBUTORS

I've noticed that people unfamiliar with the United States often assume that we have a monolithic, top-down governmental structure like many European nations. But because we have a federalist system, states have significant autonomy in many things, so it's inaccurate to portray U.S. law as a single entity. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call attention to the fact that states are permitted to have the death penalty under current U.S. law, because not all states have it (and many that have it don't often use it). --Dablaze 23:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Note this in the article. If you were to make the comment on the death penalty you suggest, you'd also have to mention the military and federal death penalty, which I think can apply even in a state that does not have the death penalty.


 * Have you any sources/evidence about good human rights practices in the US. The article is seriously lacking in properly sourced information about these? jguk 23:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Article's locked locked locked. And you're right about the military and fed DPs -- haven't ever heard of a military execution, but the feds just executed someone a few months ago, and it made the news because there hadn't been a federal execution since the 80s (or thereabouts). As for a source on human rights successes in the U.S., I would refer you to the Constitution and a history book. Outside the U.S. ... no comment. --Dablaze 00:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Constitution itself is not and cannot alone be a human rights success. It is how it is enforced by the authorities and ruled upon by the courts that matters. As noted in the article, until 1865 the constitution permitted slavery and until a 1968 Supreme Court decision some states had racial segregation rules. There are also many other cases where the US Supreme Court has taken a different stance to, say, the European Court on Human Rights. jguk 08:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I said "and a history book." :-) For all our flaws, we have always worked to live up to our ideals, despite the occasional pause or temporary backpedaling, like now. --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that the European Court on Human Rights is no more an ultimate authority on human rights than our own Supreme Court. --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * The text makes it sound as if racial segregation was rampant until 1968, when it was suddenly ended by an unnamed Supreme Court decision. That's absurd.  The success of the Civil Rights Movement came over the course of years, at different times in different aspects of society.  A timeline up until 1968 would look something like this (these dates are off the top of my head from memory -- I'm too lazy to check them while the article's protected anyway): 1948 integration of the armed forces; 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education prohibiting segregated public schools; 1964 enactment of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting segregation in employment and in places of public accommodation); 1965 enactment of the Voting Rights Act; 1966 enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 (prohibiting racial discrimination in housing); 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia striking down state laws against interracial marriage.  The reference to states' "rules" is also confusing.  I think some states still have racial segregation statutes that they can't enforce but haven't repealed. JamesMLane 10:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work Dablaze. Let's start incorporating this information into Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Draft. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that' s where the editable article is hiding. --Dablaze 09:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

What are "human rights"?
The more I think about this, the more I'm confused about what we're actually talking about. I mean, nobody here in the U.S. talks about "human rights" unless they're discussing a foreign country (or unless they're progressives being highly critical of our own government).

We generally talk about "civil rights," i.e. rights we have (or should have) under the law. 50 years ago segregation was a civil rights issue, but a human rights issue as well. But what about something like the Americans With Disabilities Act, or affirmative action? They're kind of narrowly tailored laws, and although they promote equality in the civil rights tradition, are the rights they promote human rights as well?

I tend to think of human rights as more often (though not always) having to do with physical conditions and/or with serious threats to one's life or ability to carry on a normal existence. Political imprisonment, imprisonment without recourse to due process of law, torture, slavery, subjugation, segregation, genocide, allowing preventable starvation or disease, etc. That kind of thing.

That's my own understanding, though I think it's a pretty common one in the U.S.

So I guess I'm essentially asking: 'Does "human rights" refer to primarily to physical treatment and civil rights primarily'' to treatment under the law? Do the U.S. and the international community understand these terms differently, or in overlapping ways? Does "civil rights" even come into this? Or is some combination of these approaches more accurate?'''

I think it's important to figure out what we all mean by "human rights" before we start yelling again. :-) --Dablaze 09:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we mean the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights together with the rights outlined in the rest of the International Bill of Human Rights and related intruments. jguk 10:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Determining international human rights standards for the purposes of this article
Hm. I think those are good guidelines that everyone agrees are nice, but they non-binding; no nation can possibly live up to all of them; and I'm confident that no nation does. I mean, the International Bill of Rights and "related instruments" you provided a link to, jguk, comprise no less than 96 separate declarations and instruments. Ninety-six! And that's not counting the "optional protocols." Even the U.N.'s own web page admits that the list is "non-exhaustive." And has every nation in the world ratified every one of them? No. So I don't see how a patchwork of inconsistently ratified and implemented ideals should be by itself a universal standard for judging any nation.

So while I think they're good indicators of international sentiment, relying solely on 96 non-binding declarations and protocols can only provide endless fodder for criticism of any country, including the countries that traditionally (and often rightly) criticize the U.S. for its own human rights violations, essentially leading to an unproductive "he said, she said" spiral.

Instead, I think we should concentrate on international human rights practices at least as much as on human rights ideals so that we can get to something approaching an accurate real-world picture instead of merely the idealistic gripings that have marked this article to date.

We also need to consider the source of the criticisms. The countries that most criticize the U.S.'s human rights record are other Western nations. Then there's China, whose motivations for criticisms, however valid per se, are certainly different than the Western nations'. The Soviet Union, too, used to relentlessly criticize the U.S. on segregation and other racial inequities. But even though countries like China and the USSR may have (had) valid criticisms, it's obvious that they're really more interested in deflecting criticism of their own abysmal human rights records, while Western nations on the whole couch their complaints in good-faith principle. Omit self-serving but valid criticisms? No. But we should note them appropriately. Same for principled criticisms too, IMO.

But at the same time, Western and European governments do things that many Americans would consider violations of basic human rights, and that obviously conflict with several provisions of the U.N. human rights documents, again leading back to a "he said, she said" dispute where no one's right and no one's wrong.

So can we approach this based on international human rights practices as well as its principles? I think a great example is the death penalty. The EU has outlawed it, but the U.N. condones it based on several stipulations which most U.S. states with the death penalty follow. So whose conception of "human rights" do we use here? Europe's or the U.N.'s? That's why I think we need to be very aware of the existing disconnects between principle and practice.

PRINCIPLE, PRACTICE, and NPOV

I really think it's possible to tackle this subject with NPOV, and by calling on both international principles and practices.

Principle. How about referring to especially contentious practices as "disputed" and "undisputed." For example, genocide is an undisputed violation of human rights, whereas the death penalty is a disputed one (U.S./U.N.vs. EU). And of course, whatever's "disputed" would be based on who's making the criticism. (I doubt China would claim that the death penalty is a violation of human rights, for example.)

Practice. Here's another possible NPOV usage that's based solely in international practice: "In its use of the death penalty, the U.S. diverges from the mainstream of most Western and industrialized nations, which are widely seen as leaders in advancing human rights, and which have banned the practice." (Well, they are, de facto.)

The above sentence sidesteps the quagmire of a written "standard" (the U.N. condones the death penalty; Europe doesn't; who's right?) but it still describes the situation effectively, and in a way that lets the reader make up their own mind (if it isn't made up already! :-)

Roundabout way of saying it, I suppose, but NPOV ain't always easy (I know -- I used to be a journalist, and shielding the paper from liability - er, I mean writing in NPOV - was a major obsession in the newsroom).

WHY THE BIG DEAL?

I know I'm making a big deal out of these seemingly little questions, but let's face it: everybody thinks this article is a big deal, and rightly so. Because the U.S. occupies a unique place in world history in its groundbreaking advancements of civil and human rights -- and in its egregious violations of them -- I think it's important to treat the subject in a way so that the final product (as much as anything can be final here) is unassailable. I mean, whether you love the U.S. or hate it, the unassisted truth will more than back you up. :-)

I also know that I'm talking more than I'm writing, but this is the kind of thing that I'd rather chew over first before diving in. Thoughts?


 * Before continuing, I think it would be useful to check that you have read this site. I'd recommend clicking on "country reports" and reading some for countries which you perceive as having a good human rights record. If you've ever read one of China's reports on the US, you'll note that it's written in exactly the same style. (In fact, since China's reports are essentially collections of news reports from Western news sources, I'm not sure they deserve the scepticism they sometimes attract.)


 * It's quite appropriate to my mind to assess the United States (and every other country) by the highest international standards. The documents I linked to state established international norms (even though none of them are adopted by every country): Unfortunately, the "undisputed"/"disputed" distinction you propose would leave every human right in the "disputed" column. So I think we have to take the international norms as our benchmark.


 * However, in stating this, I note that, of course, it is not for us to do our own research and our own assessment. We must report what others (such as Amnesty International) report. They will use their own benchmarks that, I think, are not too different from the international norms. I see nothing wrong with that. As long as we stick to the facts readers can decide for themselves whether what we state is actually a problem or not.


 * Finally, as you know, I very much think that the article has to have positive comments about the human rights position in the United States. But I also think those comments have to tie into reputable sources rather than being mere words of praise. Whilst your statement "the U.S. occupies a unique place in world history in its groundbreaking advancements of civil and human rights" no doubt reflects a strong opinion that you have, I do not believe it is demonstrably true. jguk 00:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Human rights simply refer to general rights we have as Humans, as opposed to rights we have as US Citizens. Obviously our civil rights cover our human rights because they are required to, but generally, any obvious right such as the right to live is considered a Human right. --65.3.202.58 06:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inlined questions
Let me try to answer the questions inlined into the draft version:

Very Verily 08:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who holds the two opposing views in the intro? Without any difficulty you can name partisans of each view (e.g., American conservatives vs. Chomskians), and with more difficulty you could name many more.  But the point of the intro is to introduce the two schools of thought, so I think listings of this kind are out of place.
 * It's just they aren't really explored in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well that's an argument for adding to the article, not subtracting from the intro. Very Verily 20:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. I don't think you should remove it. If you could add this to the article and qualify the opposing views I'd be happy to remove the dubious tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Or you could agree it's not dubious (as you seem to have) and let the further expansion of the article be done through the usual Wiki way. Very Verily 19:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any respected international grouping that would claim that the US is an "exemplary human-rights leader" and who consider the US to have rights that are "among the strongest in the world". Please provide a source for these claims. Unsourced, they are valueless and should be deleted. If they are sourced, however, the article should state their source. jguk 21:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who criticizes border control efforts? MALDEF, La Raza, etc., for starters.  Probably throw in the Mexican government, Amnesty International, and KPFA radio.  Is this a serious question?  Anyway, I didn't add this text, in fact having trimmed it, and it's questionable whether or not it belongs.  What self-respecting nation doesn't have border controls?
 * No self-respecting government. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't detail objections. That's part of NPOV. We don't have to affirm the objections, we merely need to state them. The reader can make up their own minds as we're only informing them about the opposing viewpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The question is relevance. The fact that the U.S. enforces its borders is arguably no more noteworthy than the fact that it collects taxes, even if some ultra-libertarians regard the latter as a "human rights abuse". Very Verily  20:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if the U.S. has been criticised about the way it patrols its borders, then it should be at least noted. We explain the POV of others, but don't necessarily agree with them after all. And if we could find people who rebutt the arguments of those people, we also add them to the article to give it balance. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing, I just believe it's marginal. Anyway, this is unrelated to your original question, which was who criticizes border control efforts. Very Verily  19:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who asserts these views re underage execution? Hm, I'm not sure which views you mean.  But since trying as an adult is the law of the land in parts of the U.S., it's a pretty safe guess that whoever implemented these laws believes they are a good idea, and many of their constituents do as well or else they'd be out the door.  Again, I just don't get it; why is this being questioned?  If you mean who asserts the opposing view, well, you could line them up as well as I could.
 * I know Amnesty opposes it. Many do seem to be against it. It's being questioned so we can provide a neural point of view, neither endorsing nor condemning any view. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Incidently, there are plenty of "laws of the land" in other countries, and they are against human rights. Are you implying we shouldn't detail them because they are laws of the land? Please clarify! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This doesn't bare the vaguest resemblence to what I said. You asked for an example of who holds those views, and I noted that, since it's the law, presumably it's the view of many lawmakers and their constituents.  Ditto for your first point; I'm asking why the fact that some support underage execution is being questioned, not why the practice is.  Crikey! Very Verily  20:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact is different to the practice? I didn't know they were mutually exclusive... the point is that I'm not questioning the fact that its done. I'm questioning who opposes it, and who supports it. Remember, I'm not an American and we write to inform an International audience. While Americans might know who the article is referring to, others will not. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes questioning the fact that X occurs is different from questioning the practice of X. For instance, neither of us question the fact that child abuse happens; that doesn't mean neither of us would question the practice of child abuse.  This is an elementary distinction, which I don't intend to repeat.  This is a tangential issue for this article, anyway; there is already an article Death penalty.  Summarizing the opposing views on this subject is quite adequate; there is no need to list every lawmaker, jurist, pundit, and organization which supports and opposes underage execution.  Your counter is frankly completely off-point.  This has nothing to do with the audience being international. Very Verily  19:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to go with the summary form from death penalty, so long as we summarise the United States bits (I haven't looked at it yet). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * All but two nations in the world have signed and ratified an international agreement condemning the execution of child offenders. It is proper to note the fact. It is not necessary to comment on each human rights issue to say that some disagree with the assessment. That would make for a nonsense article. We don't see it in the human rights articles for other nations, this one should be no different. jguk 22:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit: death penalty / torture
In the 2001 report on USA Amnesty International does not equate death penalty with torture. The first paragraph of the report is the summary of human rights situation in the country, and the issues mentioned there may not be related to each other.

I offer a comparison with 2004 report on Czech Republic, in which the first paragraph reads: "There were reports of ill-treatment of members of the Romani community. Police officers convicted of assault in one case received a light sentence. 'Cage beds' were used to restrain patients in psychiatric hospitals and residents of social care homes for people with mental disabilities." Again, these are clearly two unrelated issues. - Mike Rosoft 21:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)