Talk:List of people executed in the United States in 2017

"Age at offense"
Isn't age at date of sentencing the more relevant data point as opposed to "age at offense" so we know how long they were on "death row"?

Is that information as readily available as age at offense? Either way, great resource! Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. So, let me make some observations about that.


 * I think "age at offense" is much more relevant. In other words, we are interested to know how old these people are when they actually commit their murders.  Who cares about the "technical" (administrative) component of when they were actually sentenced?  The latter is a very random and arbitrary function of the court's scheduling calendar, etc.  And lawyers' delay tactics, etc.  It is not at all interesting or relevant.


 * The date of offense will be very easy to find; the date of the sentence will be very difficult to find. Hence, the age at offense will be very easy to find; the age at the time of sentencing will be very difficult to find.


 * There is a column right now called "Years", which indicates the difference between the criminal's age at the time of the offense versus his age at the time of his execution. This is a pretty close approximation to substitute for "how many years on Death Row" the prisoner sat.


 * If we truly want to calculate accurately "time spent on death row", that leads to certain difficulties. Oftentimes, in these cases, there are appeals.  Usually, multiple appeals.  Some appeals are successful.  Then, the inmate is taken off death row.  Then, after a new trial, he is re-sentenced to death row.  And so forth.  There are a lot of variables of that nature.  Oftentimes, there are several successful appeals, during which time an inmate is placed "on" and then "off" death row, multiple times.  Thus, it becomes very difficult to determine which is the "correct" amount of time to calculate as his "official" Death Row tenure.


 * These guys often "bounce around" (officially "on" and then officially "off" of death row) several times. Even though they may be (legally) "off" of Death Row, they still physically sit on Death Row, until all the appeals are final.  Therefore, they are effectively always sitting on Death Row from the moment they are arrested until the moment they are executed.  Even though they may be "technically" and "legally" off of Death Row, this tends to be of a temporary nature.  And then they are bounced right back onto Death Row.  This is all legal semantics.  For all practical intents and purposes, they are always sitting in the same jail cell (on Death Row), while all of these appeals take place.  They aren't (physically) going anywhere.  They are pretty much "locked in place" (that is, physically sitting on Death Row) until all the appeals are final.  So, even when they are legally and officially "off" of Death Row, this is a temporary status; and they are still physically sitting on Death Row.


 * Furthermore, criminals of this variety -- those who commit very serious capital offenses -- tend to be caught very quickly. So, their age at offense -- and their age at arrest -- will be very, very close to each other.  Often, they are caught within hours (or perhaps days) of the crime.  I think that's the relevant question: at what age did this guy commit his murder offense?  After he gets arrested, he is just sitting in jail, waiting for his trial.  And that may take years and years and years.  That is simply an administrative function of the court's scheduling.  So, that's not particularly interesting or relevant.  The date he actually gets sentenced really has no bearing on the case, and it is not an interesting fact about the case.  If a guy is ultimately found guilty and executed -- which are all of the guys in these Wikipedia articles -- then, he is pretty much sitting "on" Death Row (effectively) from the moment he gets arrested and starts waiting out his time for trial in the county jail.  It's mere semantics to ever claim that he was "off" of Death Row.


 * Those are my thoughts. Any reactions?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ricky Gray
Is his name Ricky Javon Gray or Ricky Jovan Gray? Does anyone know for sure? I am seeing a lot of "hits" for each name. But, his case at the U. S. Supreme Court and his "official" entry at the Virginia Department of Corrections both list his name as Jovan. See here:. Also, see here:. (Enter his name "Ricky Gray" in the Offender Search box.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the Wikipedia entries listed him as "Javon". I changed them to "Jovan".    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And this Supreme Court of Virginia case lists him as "Ricky Javon Gray, a/k/a Ricky Jovan Gray": Gray v. Commonwealth.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Chubasco Wilkins
Fix his name in the list, so that it "sorts" alphabetically. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Arkansas
Arkansas prison guards will perform four DOUBLE executions in just 10 days in a bid to put inmates to death before their lethal injection drug expires. Source:. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: Arkansas judge blocks the "conveyor belt of death" execution of seven death-row inmates in a month.  Source:     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Article split needed
Since someone's creating this article for 2018 and later, and I've been renaming them "scheduled to be executed" in place of "executed", this article should, for consistency, be split into "executed" and "scheduled to be executed" articles. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. I think we can keep this article as is.  It has two sections: those already executed and those pending execution.  There is no need to split that information into two separate articles.  The latter article would be quickly deleted, anyway; and the deletion "vote" would simply be to "incorporate it back into this article".  Plus, the "pending" executions are in a constant state of flux.  People are added and subtracted all the time.  Dates are scheduled, changed, and re-scheduled all the time.  It's a full-time job to keep up with all that.  One article is fine (for the current year, 2017).  As far as future years (2018), I have to give that more thought.  But, I don't think we really even need an article for the future years.  Or, if so, perhaps simply one year into the future.  Maybe an article for 2018, but nothinmg beyond that.  Again, the "pending" executions list is in a constant state of flux.  But, then, even that (the 2018 article) will have to eventually be renamed, etc.  Seems like a big hassle to me.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I gave it some thought. Maybe for the future (i.e., scheduled) executions, we can "clump" them altogether in simply one article.  So, we could have something like "List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States" (with no year listed).  Then, as they do indeed get executed, they can be removed from that generic list and added onto the list for the specific year in which they were in fact executed (2017, 2018, etc.).  This seems like it makes more sense.  The future (i.e., scheduled) executions are often only "academic" in nature.  They are given some random and arbitrary date (year) that may or may not happen.  So, I don't think readers will go looking for a specific year.  Rather, they will just look to see who is scheduled for execution in the future (regardless of which specific year).  Thoughts?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The section dealing with people who have not been executed doesn't belong in an article whose title limits the scope of the article to people who have been executed. Just as an article titled "List of graduates of Harvard University" shouldn't include people who are currently undergraduate students at Harvard University, whether interspersed with the graduates or in a separate section. Right now, this is broken. Largoplazo (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree. Strongly, at that.  These articles started out as "people who have been executed" in a certain year.  The names (and data) were listed in a chart.  Then, pretty much as a "footnote" (of interest), I started adding the people who were scheduled to be executed later in that same year.  Since these names would eventually "graduate" and migrate up from the "scheduled status" chart to the "executed status" chart.  So, those who are "scheduled" for execution are merely a footnote to the "real" substance of the article (namely, those who are indeed executed).  They are nothing more than a footnote.  "Scheduled executions" have no real substance.  By and large, they are given random and arbitrary dates.  Which often change.  So, no, there is no need to list them in a separate article.  And, if we did, the article would be subject to an "AfD" (deletion discussion). And the result of the "AfD" would be: "merge this information back into the original article".  Furthermore, your Harvard analogy is erroneous.  In fact, I was just reviewing the EGOT article.  The article starts by listing people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards (all four awards).  Then, at the bottom of the article, it lists people who won only three (but not four) awards.  Or only two, (but not four) awards, etc.  Those sub-sets would not deserve a main, separate, stand-alone article.  They are merely footnotes to the main article.   That is the same idea here.  The "scheduled execution" people do not merit an entire separate article.  They are a "footnote" to the main topic.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to the whole structure of these articles, based on the above discussion. Please see: List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

William Charles Morva
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has requested a July 6, 2017, execution date for William Charles Morva. Source:.

A spokesman for Attorney General Mark Herring says the Montgomery County Circuit Court will hold a hearing via teleconference at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday (May 9, 2017) to pick an execution date for William Morva. Source:

Date of Crime = August 20, 2006, and August 21, 2006


 * Added into article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Error
I noticed on the right hand side of the page that "lethal injection" is filling up the boxes. I would fix it if I knew how. Just thought I would let someone know. --TRUEandHONESTuser (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Omar Sharif Cash
He shouldn't be on the list. Pennsylvania gives inmates an automatic execution date when they are finished a round of appeals. It is not an actual execution date and it would never be carried out. Pennsylvania should just be ignored entirely because of this.