Jump to content

Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Citations on capital punishment and race

I removed the second reference to critics of the view that support for capital punishment has a racial component, per WP:UNDUE. The cited article appeared in Ideology Journal, for which I was unable to find an impact factor on Google Scholar or Scimago. The subtitle of the journal is A Critique of Conventional Theory, and it describes itself as publishing articles that "have a minority viewpoint" and "run counter to conventional theory and premises". This raises doubt about whether the journal is RS for highly controversial claims. I also rephrased the description of the first reference so that it's closer to the authors' actual conclusions. NightHeron (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Number of countries which retain the death penalty

Dark4tune, you have changed the number of countries which retain capital punishment from 55 to 35 and now to 48, each time without providing a source. Could you please tell me: Which is it, and what's the source? Thank you. Regards -Yhdwww (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the article says it's 56 countries. That's none of the above. Does it need to be changed then? --Yhdwww (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Israel has not executed anyone by handing in the year of 2020, I request that this be changed immediately. If you claim this to be true, then please provide a credible source for it. You do not have any sources for that at the moment. The executions by the Palestinian authorities in Gaza (which is in Israel but not under Israel's control) are not considered executions by Israel.

Sources (These sources prove there are no executions done by Israel in the year 2020): https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/oct0/oct02margalit.pdf https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Israel https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Capital_punishment_in_Israel 2A02:14C:30F:D800:F949:AE4F:CBEB:B845 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I removed the words "in 2020", which do not belong there because the sources are actually dated 2011. The sources do list Israel as a country that adopted the method of execution by hanging. NightHeron (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede sentence

Someone keeps changing the lede sentence to read, “capital punishment is THE state-sanctioned homicide,” but I don’t think the “the” belongs there. What are your thoughts? 24.228.128.119 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- it was grammatical before the recent edit, which I'll revert. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
A better inquiry would be to ask why do we need the word "homicide" in the lede paragraph for capital punishment (the death penalty)? The punishment of a murderer by execution is not tantamount to regular "man slaughter," which is implied by the word "homicide." Homicide is a legal term used by the courts and by law enforcement to designate "wanton murder." It is NEVER used by them to designate the death penalty for a crime warranting one's forfeiture of his own life. The word is not used either in regular warfare, where soldiers kill the advancing enemy.Davidbena (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I replaced "malefactor" by "person" to avoid the implication (not always true) that anyone who's executed in any country was an evil-doer. NightHeron (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a place for a quote from former British PM Margaret Thatcher?

Is there a place in this article, say, in the section "Modern-day public opinion", for this citation from former British Prime-Minister, Margaret Thatcher? Comments welcomed here.

"I, personally, have always voted for the death penalty, because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that that death penalty should be used only rarely. But I believe that no one should go out certain that, no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty."

— Margaret Thatcher, interview with 'Aplus4', 15 October 1984[1]

References

  1. ^ Thames Television, Margaret Thatcher interview on YouTube, minutes 20:19–ff..

Davidbena (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

COMMENTS:

  • It certainly shouldn't be a highlighted quote, as you have it, since it would be the only one in the whole article. It probably doesn't belong in this article at all. First, Thatcher's opinion is not particularly notable. Second, it's not representative of her country's stance on the issue. If you want to include a quote from a national leader who supports capital punishment, why not look for one from a leader of a country that actually executes people? (No one's been executed in Britain for over a half century.) Third, the quote doesn't have context. The context was that in the 1980s Conservative parliamentarians several times tried unsuccessfully to get capital punishment reinstituted. This is explained in the article Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Conceivably you could find a place for the quote in that article, where the controversies over capital punishment in the UK in the 1980s are described. NightHeron (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Highlighted quotes are used throughout Wikipedia, in many articles, to give an isolated opinion about the subject-matter in question and which opinion is of relative importance. See, for example, US Space Force and John F. Kennedy's quote there, and see Six-Day War, just to name a few. Thatcher's quote, in itself, is self-explanatory, as it gives the reasons why there should be capital punishment in some cases. Moreover, since capital punishment is decided by governments, and since former British Prime-Minister Margaret Thatcher was the head of state in Britain for one of the longest consecutive years in Britain's history, her view on this matter is pertinent. After all, she is a notable figure, and one who was well-respected. Her notability goes without saying, otherwise, there would be no Wikipedia article about her at all. Secondly, the proper place for this quote is in the section which reads: "Modern-day public opinion," as 1984 (when these words were stated) is still considered our "Modern-era," per Modern-era. While Prime-Minister Thatcher's opinion on capital punishment may not have been the "accepted norm" in Great Britain, it still represents an opinion, and why, in her view, capital punishment is essential to deter serious crimes. A person's opinion does not, necessarily, have to reflect his country's opinion or the general consensus of the land. Her view is, however, accepted by other Parliaments and governments/kingdoms in other countries. Therefore, for all the above, there is a place in this article for the above citation.Davidbena (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that Thatcher was not a notable person. Obviously she was. But there's nothing notable about her 1984 opinion on capital punishment. Nor is it a particularly interesting or enlightening comment. It's just a meh quote. NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Quotes, in themselves, are not required to be notable; they are, however, required to express a certain view that may shed light on the subject-matter in question. There is nothing amiss about a quote which shows, logically and reasonably, why - in some countries - capital punishment is a necessary evil. In the Judeo-Christian heritage, there is a teaching in Genesis 9:6 that states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” It is, therefore, a quote that sums-up in few words the core of the issue, with a plausible reason why the death penalty is actually used in many countries. In fact, the issue is not a religious issue at all, as the death penalty can be found in non-religious societies as well, such as in the People's Republic of China, and elsewhere. Whether Thatcher's citation is "interesting or enlightening" is a matter of personal taste and opinion. In my humble opinion, the citation deftly clarifies to the ordinary reader why having the death penalty is a deterrent to wanton murder. And, yes, we can argue the ethics of capital punishment, especially in the West, where it is rampant and, occasionally, brings suffering and death to innocent (wrongly convicted) people. This, too, should never be. See, for example, the limitations put to capital punishment in Jewish law. You see, putting another person to death for an alleged crime should never be taken lightly. In this we can all agree. Still, our world would have been far less safe had murderers not feared having the same punishment inflicted upon them which they inflict upon others.Davidbena (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't object to expanding the section on religious teachings on capital punishment, which would then include your quotation from Genesis. Of course, there's a separate article on that subject as well. I just don't see the value in including an opinion by a not-very-eloquent politician on the subject. You could just as well include a quote from Trump. (Actually, Trump's opinion turned out to be more important than Thatcher's, since in the waning days of his presidency his administration went on a killing spree of Federal death row inmates.) NightHeron (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Comparing Thatcher's quote with anything Trump may or may not have said is like comparing apples with oranges. And, besides, how compare (!), seeing that Thatcher's remarks are mitigated with restraint, whereas, as you said, Trump embarked on the very opposite (i.e. "a killing spree"). I am of the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you have not listened very much to Thatcher's speeches, for had you done so you would have admitted that she was a very eloquent orator, and possessed keen worldly wisdom. Your comment that we might be able to expand the section on religious teaching is an encouraging sign, although I will remind you that Thatcher's remarks were not based on any religious premise, but on sheer common sense and reason.Davidbena (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I'm not familiar with Thatcher's speeches, and was judging only by the quote you selected. She presumably didn't really mean what she said. She said that "people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live". What about people (e.g. Pres. Bush) who started unnecessary wars? What about the military? The US military and military contractors committed some "cruel, vicious, hideous" murders of civilians in Iraq (and elsewhere). I don't think Thatcher was in favor of capital punishment for the US military.
And what about prosecutors whose misconduct leads to conviction and a death sentence for innocent people? Should those prosecutors be executed? NightHeron (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You are interjecting your own personal bias. Prime-Minister Margaret Thatcher meant exactly what she said. She was not talking about war prompted by another country's military take-over of an unsuspecting country (e.g. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), nor about the US military operations in Vietnam. She was talking rather about wanton murder. When the Pentateuch speaks about the proscription of murder, in the same spirit and breath it permits waging war under certain circumstances. Your problem here is that you equate the sanction of capital punishment with wanton murder. They are not the same. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, as they can occur at the same time: 1) the prohibition of wanton murder of innocents; and 2) waging a just war against the wicked (e.g. against Adolf Hitler). Collateral damage in war where innocent lives are lost is, indeed, a tragedy. But let's not confuse the real issue here - namely, capital punishment for certain vile crimes.Davidbena (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't interjecting any bias. You're jumping to conclusions in your assumption that I'm opposed to all capital punishment. I don't necessarily even disagree with the sentiment that was inarticulately expressed by Thatcher in the interview. Nor was I referring to normal military killings. I was referring to well-documented war crimes (as defined by international conventions on war), e.g., the famous "collateral murder" video showing US military gunning down an Iraqi journalist. That could certainly be termed "wanton murder". Capital punishment is a complicated issue (except to people who are morally opposed to it under any circumstances), and Thatcher's simpleminded statement doesn't clarify anything. NightHeron (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, since you seem to really like that quote, recall that I suggested that it might fit in the article Capital punishment in the United Kingdom in the section that discusses the attempts in the 1980s to reinstitute capital punishment in the UK. The comment by Thatcher presumably was made in connection with those efforts in Parliament. NightHeron (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
My friend, you got side-tracked when you started talking about the ills of war. The article does not deal with the morals of war, but of capital punishment, such as are sanctioned by governments.Davidbena (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Davidbena: NightHeron is correct here. Thatcher's view is not especially relevant to this article, and certainly not WP:DUE for a block quote. That goes double when her view contributes nothing substantive to the discussion, as is the case with the quote you've suggested. Further, war crimes are crimes, not "collateral damage" or "the ills of war". Perhaps avoid condescending rhetoric like Your problem here is... and listen more when other editors patiently explain their rationale to you? Generalrelative (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Rationale is a two-way street. War-crimes, if unintentional, are NOT the same as wanton murder. If intentional, and leads to death, it is the same as wanton murder. The subject of this article is about capital punishment, and Thatcher's remarks treat specifically on that issue. Thatcher's view is important, insofar that it gives the reasoning behind having capital punishment. The contributor has already made several wrong assertions (e.g. concerning notability, etc.), albeit perhaps in Good Faith. There is nothing wrong in calling-out a person when he is in the wrong. No ill-intention is intended. No man is unassailable. Since we must work together collaboratively, consensus is what matters here. No more and no less. Perhaps others can voice their opinion.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope you realize that your precept that "No man is unassailable" applies to only half the population. NightHeron (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Davidbena, Nightheron and any other observers and editors,

In regards to this discussion, I would like to offer a suggestion.

I will structure the suggestion in three parts. a) Declarations of POV. b) General assessment of article. c) Suggestions for resolution.

a) In regards to this individuals point of view, I have a slight POV to pro-death penalty. I have a favorable attitude towards Davidbena, he has helped me previously in another article.

I also believe that communication by writing can lead to a lot of misinterpretation. A statement that is very reasonable in person, can appear very unreasonable when put in writing. I will not be assessing behavior because of limitations in communication. See Introduction to Tanya for my view of the limitations of non-verbal communication.[1]

b) My general assessment of the article is that it appears to be have a very strong western POV. Additionally, appears to have a moderate-slight anti-capital punishment POV. It appears that Davidbena has a more permissive capital punishment POV and Nightheron has a more restrictive capital punishment POV.

c) In regards to inclusion of this quote, Davidbena said that Margaret Thatcher is notable. Also, that her opinion in this matter is notable. Nightheron agreed that Margaret Thatcher is Notable. However, the quote should not be employed because this would be the only such quote in the article. As well as that this particular quote is not notable.

I agree with Nightheron in regards to that this would represent a singular quote and would throw balance out in this article. In regards to the notability issue of that quote, I have no way to objectively evaluate a given quotes notability.

It appears to me that the critical issue here is of balance. My suggestion therefore is that several quotes from different national leaders should be chosen. Davidbena could choose 3 quotes from pro-capital punishment leaders. And Nightheron could choose 3 quotes from anti-capital punishment leaders. Additionally, it may be advisable that the leaders should be from different global areas so as to reduce the strong western POV in this article. (Perhaps each choose a leader from western country, asian country as well as african country).

I am not an expert on this subject, so I don't mind if this suggestion is disregarded.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Yaakov, for your efforts to find a compromise. My views on capital punishment (which are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest) are not relevant. I think that the nice quotations from Camus and John Stuart Mill in the section on Human Rights are sufficient on the anti-capital-punishment side, and if you or another editor want to balance them with notable quotations in favor of capital punishment, then, as I said above, you might consider expanding the section on religious views of the matter with a quote from Genesis and perhaps also one from a non-Western religious text, such as the Quran. NightHeron (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Yaakov. I can see now where having this box quote in the middle of this article, with the article's current content, will upset the balance of the article, as it would seem "out-of-place" and/or "disconnected," even though the citation in itself is a good one. Perhaps we can add another section, and show the reasons why there are some who favor capital punishment, mind you, not by having a box quote, but rather, by incorporating in a well-constructed paragraph the relevant view points, including those expressed by Mrs. Thatcher. At last, we're getting somewhere. Part of reaching a compromise is coming to a realisation as to where the problem lies with any given edit. My personal view on the biblical narrative is that this would belong more to the history of capital punishment.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I believe the Thatcher quote sums up a valid opinion on the topic, but support the suggestion above of incorporating it in a paragraph rather than used as a box quote.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1028868/jewish/Compilers-Foreword.htm

Sentence on the US and Belarus

I removed that sentence because it does not accurately reflect what's in the source (a report from Amnesty International). The report says that in 2012 The USA and Belarus were the only two of the 56 member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to have carried out executions. The sentence I removed says that "The United States and Belarus are the only Western countries to still use the death penalty." This is not the same thing, since (1) the source is about just one year, 9 years ago, and (2) "Western countries" is a nebulous term. For example, the source also says that in 2012 Only 12 new death sentences were imposed elsewhere in the Americas. Even though the report says that no executions were carried out in 2012 in the Americas outside the US, we don't know from the source whether any of those 12 death sentences from 2012 were carried out during the last 9 years. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

Saint Lucia hasn't abolished the death penalty, but no one has been executed since 1995 69.80.22.185 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TGHL ↗ 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Saint Lucia should be brown in the map which shows countries that still use it 69.80.22.185 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the source this map from: [1] does have them as red, though this might be outdated. If it's outdated, we'd probably want to update all of the countries on the map at the same time, and doing that would be a bit of an endeavour that is too much to ask for from a simple edit request. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Saint Lucia should be in brown 69.80.22.185 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content

There's a significant amount of unsourced content in this article. I've added cn-tags in the hope that editors who added that content go back and put in the necessary citations. Unsourced content is subject to removal, since verifiability is mandatory on Wikipedia. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Change Kevin Heart's height from 5'4 to 5'2. Aidanharry23 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please post on the relevant talkpage. CMD (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the picture in the section Non-painful execution

Currently, it shows a gurney used for lethal injection, but lethal injection is not a non painful form of execution, the second paragraph in the section even talks about how it causes "unneeded agony".

Does anyone disagree or have a suggestion for what should replace this picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer707201 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Amurph1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Sceptre (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Capital punishment → Death penalty – By far most commonly used name. A lot has changed since and death penalty seems the most appropriate title. Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Why? Oppose The article has had this name for over 20 years. What's your evidence for what the "by far most commonly used name" is? What do you mean by "a lot has changed since"? None of this is clear to me. NightHeron (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Britannica per what Necrothesp said last time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article takes a historical standpoint on the topic, and "capital punishment" more accurately applies to all forms of historical executions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the nominator has offered any evidence for the claim that a lot has changed from what I’m assuming is the 2019 move request which resulted in a consensus to reject moving the page to the proposed title.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams shows a clear preference for "death penalty", in both American English and British English sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Call a spade a spade. Showiecz (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Opposed ....as per pervious talk ""Death penalty" applies to a prisoner who has been sentenced to die, but has not yet been executed; "capital punishment" refers to his actual execution." The death penalty is a sentence capital punishment is the execution of that sentence..Banu Bargu (2014). Starve and Immolate: The Politics of Human Weapons. Columbia University Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-231-53811-4..Moxy- 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Even assuming that is true, this article covers both terms. But the two terms are used interchangeably. "death penalty, noun, 1 capital punishment."[2] Rreagan007 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Problem is that these are two different statistics in the academic world..... many people received the death penalty..... but the capital punishment part is not fulfilled community to life in prison. Many more people received the death penalty then is fulfilled by the state committee capital punishment Moxy- 01:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia, not a specialize academic text. And are you saying that the two terms are distinct enough to merit an article split? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology

Needs a section. 81.129.85.196 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Punishment for sinking of the land

What kind of punishment is there for sinking of the land 2001:8F8:1737:B4B:5D25:2755:3E66:180D (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Madeline (part of me) 09:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

The sentence, "During the reign of King Henry VIII of England, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed in the country" should be removed from this page.

The cited source for that 72k figure is this PBS Frontline article: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/history-of-the-death-penalty/#fn4 Which cites this 1932 book by John Laurens (incorrectly spelled as "Laurence" in the PBS citations) that itself has absolutely ZERO citations or bibliography: https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital0000laur_o6o6/page/8/mode/2up

The number comes from a 16th century chronicle by William Harrison, part of Hollinshed's Chronicles, a version of which can be found here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1577harrison-england.asp

The quote from the chronicle reads, "It appeareth by Cardan (who writeth it upon the report of the bishop of Lexovia), in the geniture of King Edward the Sixth, how Henry the Eighth, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons, I mean great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up threescore and twelve thousand of them in his time," which does give the 72k figure, but medieval chronicles are NOT a reliable source of numbers whatsoever. Chucklehammer (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done : You can edit as you are autoconfirmed now, but I did it for you. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: @Chucklehammer @CLYDEFRANKLIN 23:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ghana

Ghana should be removed from the list about:

Hirabah; brigandage; armed or aggravated robbery

as they have abolished death penalty: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66308724

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the source. CMD (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Extra comma

in the non-painful execution section there is an extra comma. The line should be Britain banned hanging, drawing and quartering... but is hanging, drawing, and quartering. The comma after drawing shouldn't be there since drawing and quartering is a single punishment TianHao1225 (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the extra comma. Skycloud86 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josegonzalez12, Mistercoffee71, Ruth833 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: User78632, Norseup123, GayOliviaPope.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible Edits and Source suggestions

In "History - China"

Some further forms of capital punishment were practiced in the Tang dynasty, of which the first two that follow at least were extralegal.[clarification needed] The first of these was scourging to death with the thick rod[clarification needed] which was common throughout the Tang dynasty especially in cases of gross corruption.

found a couple sources that would help with clarification.

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/penal_zhang.html

Includes a source on the bottom too

Pu Jian 蒲堅 (1992). "Zhang 杖", in Zhongguo da baike quanshu 中国大百科全书, Faxue 法学 (Beijing/Shanghai: Zhongguo da baike quanshu chubanshe), 740.

In "Public Executions"The last formal public executions occurred in 1868 in Britain, in 1936 in the U.S. and in 1939 in France.

Possible expand the information to include instances of these public executions. For example France ended formal Public executions due the unruly crowd delaying the execution and causing a massive disturbance. As a result, the French President immediately banned public executions the following day.

Mentioned in another Wikipedia article - Guillotine#France but with no citation.

Possible citation, but not the best. Maybe find the direct publication by Paris-Soir?

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/last-public-execution-guillotine-1939/ Flavorless Fideos (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is a consensus that "death penalty" is more prevalent in sources than "capital punishment", but there's quite a bit of concern that "death penalty" doesn't precisely describe the scope of the article, and given the numerical split that means there's no consensus to move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Capital punishment → Death penalty – Google ngram indicates a higher appearance of "Death penalty" over "Capital punishment". Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. One argument against this move in previous RMs was that "capital punishment" is supposedly a more scholarly term, but even searching articles on JSTOR ("capital punishment" vs. "death penalty") or Google Scholar ("capital punishment" vs. "death penalty") gives more results for "death penalty". (This is also the case when filtering by articles since 2000 or 2020.) Death penalty is also the more self-explanatory term/plain language; while I would hope most people know what "capital punishment" means, it's most likely that somewhat fewer do than "death penalty" (and some may confuse "capital" and "corporal"). SilverLocust 💬 17:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    Many of the sources you've listed explain the difference. The first Source listed for me says ..."Death penalty" applies to a prisoner who has been sentenced to die, but has not yet been executed; "capital punishment" refers to his actual execution....Moxy🍁 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Even when/if distinguishing the two terms as meaning "death sentence" (death penalty) and "enforcement of a death sentence" (capital punishment), I don't see why that makes the latter a more suitable title for an article that covers either topic. Absent a split of death penalty to a separate article, this article would be an appropriate place (under either title) to cover both the enforcement of death sentences and the lack of (immediate) enforcement of death sentences that are officially authorized. SilverLocust 💬 04:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn’t just another encyclopedia, it can be different. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    @DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) response to opposition. There is a logical fallacy to state that something should be done because that is how it has been done such as in the Britannica encyclopedia. Or, if your comment was suggesting that Wikipedia is different that other encyclopedias, then similarly that isn't a logical argument for or against the article name change either. At best, it would be a straw man argument, but since it's non-sequitur I'm not sure it can even be considered that. eximo (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @eximo ah, thank you. DS537(WIR) 12:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as back in 2019. Current title is consistent with other articles, as Marianna251 showed, and is more versatile generally. Srnec (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    As I noted above, Google Scholar shows the opposite of what Marianna251 said it showed in 2019. (She didn't provide a link there.) There's 300,000 more results for death penalty. Second, it was incorrect to claim WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant between the #1 and #2 most common terms. And it's just incorrect to say "death penalty" is presently a POV term, as though AEDPA were some anti–death penalty law. SilverLocust 💬 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia policy (as expressed, for example, in WP:JARGON and WP:MTAU) is to make articles (and their titles) understandable to as broad a readership as possible. The summary of MTAU says: "Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." Although both capital punishment and death penalty are widely understood, the former term seems to be getting less common over time and yielding to the latter term, which is direct, straightforward, and understandable to schoolchildren, which capital punishment may or may not be. The word capital does not commonly mean "resulting in death" except when talking about the death penalty, and so that meaning of the word is archaic except as a technical legal term (although a widely recognized one).
As far as consistency with the titles of subsidiary articles is concerned, if there's a consensus for changing the main article title to "Death penalty", it will not be hard to carry that over to quickly approve the same change in wording of the titles in the related articles. NightHeron (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
it will not be hard to carry that over to quickly approve the same change in wording of the titles in the related articles. I think history shows otherwise. If the other articles should be moved also, this should be a multi-move. People might not like moving List of methods of capital punishment or all the "Capital punishment in ..." articles. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. A "capital offense" or "capital crime" is one where the death penalty can be sought by the prosecutor and eventually carried out, but in many cases isn't. AFAIK people commonly use the two terms "capital punishment" and "death penalty" interchangeably. NightHeron (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Many people are sentenced to death but it does not mean that the act of capital punishment is always carried out. Capital punishment refers to the process of carrying out the death sentence......Reichel, Philip L. (2022-12-21). "Death Penalty and Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.626. ISBN 978-0-19-026407-9. Moxy🍁 01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per the well reasoned common name argument. If the move passes, other articles should be renamed to match this one, obviating the consistency argument. Regardless of the exact semantics, surely the article scope also covers cases where a death sentence is issued but stayed/moratorium/commuted etc. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Buidhe. I support this argument, the fact that other pages may reference capital punishment vs. the death penalty does not confer a rightness or wrongness to the correct naming of the article. If every link in Wikipedia was incorrect, it shouldn't change the balance of the naming of the article to it's correct name. The ability to change the other articles names does obviate the consistency argument by eviscerating it's foundational premise. eximo (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. Both are commonly used. "Death penalty" tends to be more populist and used in debates about its use. "Capital punishment" tends to be used when referring to the punishment itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per @Moxy, see death penalty vs capital punishment from wiktionary:
-Death Penalty: A punishment in which the offender is put to death by the state
-Capital Punishment: The practice of putting a person to death as a punishment for a crime. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

ASUKITE 16:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

These do not line up with Moxy's definitions. A punishment is not a judicial sentence, but an act, just like a practice. Each of these lists the other as a synonym in the Wiktionary (which is not a reliable source anyway). What would be the difference between encyclopedia articles on the death penalty and capital punishment? -- JFHutson (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jfhutson I feel that the article should be on the practice of doing something, in this case executing prisoners, rather than simply sentencing them. See also Britannica. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the Britannica is being very precise with "sometimes used interchangeably;" I think it's usually or almost always used interchangeably. For example, this passage from our article is clearly talking about execution and uses "death penalty": "However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. One notable example is Pakistan which in December 2014 lifted a six-year moratorium on executions..." But regardless, most of the article is on the penalty in general, the topic of which of course includes execution, and I think that's what people expect from this article, whether it's called capital punishment or death penalty. The sections on "Methods," "Public execution," and "Non-painful execution" are more properly about the practice of execution. -- JFHutson (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Just like marijuana versus hashish we have different definitions for statistics and academic purposes. The Bureau of Justice (USA) Capital punishment refers to the process of sentencing convicted offenders to death for the most serious crimes (capital crimes) and carrying out that sentence. (My Bolding). Moxy🍁 22:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment/weak oppose: I just spent half an hour in Westlaw to see if I could find any differences in the way these terms are used, as I think that is a more important question than google searches (this doesn't mean we should move 'oranges'). While the two terms are often used interchangeably, there is some nuance to the definitions. Capital punishment is generally defined as the act itself:

    Garland focuses on more than capital punishment, which he defines as "a practice whereby a properly constituted authority puts to death a convicted offender in punishment for a crime" ...

    — David T. Johnson, American Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective, 36 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1033, 1035 (2011)
    "Death penalty" is more often used to refer to the legal decision made by the judge/jury, the laws surrounding, and any legislative acts allowing/barring the punishment. E.g., "death penalty jurisprudence" appears nearly four times as often in secondary sources as "capital punishment jurisprudence". "Death penalty statute" beats out "capital punishment statute" by nearly the exact same ratio in secondary sources. I don't have a strong feeling about this, but legally they might refer to different things. In our article, we've kind of mixed the two terms right from the start: Capital punishment ... is the state-sanctioned practice of killing a person as a punishment for a crime, usually following an authorised, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant said punishment. The first bold would be capital punishment, the second the death penalty. Do we care about that? Should we separate those two things out further? I'm leaning oppose because I think it makes more sense here for the umbrella term here to be the punishment, not the legal regime that makes the punishment possible, but there might not be enough distinction in substance for other editors. Regardless, I think that's the issue we should be weighing. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, INACTIVEWP, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WikiProject United States Government, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per @Alyo's well-reasoned argument. This article is about capital punishment, not the death penalty. WP:COMMONNAME says that we should go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources define the terms differently. The fact that one or the other might have more Google search results is irrelevant since they're different things. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Penalty and punishment have ultimately the same etymological root and dictionaries naturally mention one term when defining the other. That doesn't mean that the existence of different words is a linguistic dead-end and that there is no difference between the words or the various phrases that employ them. WP:COMMONNAME does not condemn Wikipedia to using a restricted vocabulary; that would be, if not quite a death penalty for the encylopedia, cruel punishment for our hubristic endeavour. NebY (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I have read all of the arguments above. The only two arguments that I see that are based on a logical premise are: 1. The WP:COMMONNAME arguments which state that the page should use the most common of the terms that describe the contents of the article. 2.The distinction between the dictionary descriptions of Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty "Capital punishment ... is the state-sanctioned practice of killing a person as a punishment for a crime, usually following an authorised, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant said punishment."
The argument has been made that the public and the article co-mingle the two terms, and use them interchangeably, which means that they are not WP:CONCISE to the detriment of the quality of the article. This can be remedied through editing and so the argument is obviated by the ability to correct the comingling or lack of concise usage. Whichever term is used, the article should make it clear of the differences to the reader of the usage and differences between the two terms and their application.
I support the move perhaps for unlogical and unscholarly ideological reasons, that the term Death Penalty is much more severe and not a euphemism for the decision to kill a person. :Thus, electing to use Death Penalty connects to the minds of the readers in an important psychologically present way that the alternative vernacular use of Capital Punishment. I also admit that I am not impartial on the matter, I exhibit an implicit and explicit bias to use the term that causes the reader/pubic a greater aversion to the death penalty.eximo (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Um, came here thinking I'd support, but arguments have me on the fence. Might be subtly separate topics, with "death penalty" being more useable for extrajudicial killings as well and more applicable to animal executions as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_punishment/Archive_13&oldid=1277105184"