Jump to content

Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Constitutional prohibition of death penalty

"The Republic of Ireland became one of the first countries in the world to constitutionally ban the death penalty by popular referendum in 2001 with the approval of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Irish constitution."

Were these other bannings the result of referenda? The extract clearly states 'by referendum' not just your standard legislative ban. I'm guessing Ireland was indeed one of the first to ban the death penalty by this method as referenda are so rarely held. --LiamE 17:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
As the German Basic Law was written under US occupation, there were (and still are) no means of direct referenda to be hold in Germany. There is still one federal state in Germany (Hessen), which keeps death penalty as an option, but this law is overruled by Basic Law and therefore cannot be used. So far concerning the German part. 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it is important that links to further information are included in the main article. As links have been considered POV in the past and the links I added were moved to the US page, we seem to need a consensus on this.

The issue of POV is problematic, there seems to be far fewer sites that are pro-capital punishment and many that do exist are not of a standard high enough to be included, for example: PRO DEATH PENALTY WEBPAGE which includes quotes from Starship Troopers to argue the point! Others that are of a higher standard do seem to be too focused on the US. - Solar 5 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

As there have been no objections I will add the two links above. If anyone feels they should not be included please give reasons here so a community decision can be reached. - Solar 9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Amerocentricism

Although most of the article is fine, I think the following paragraphs in "arguments against" should be prefaced with a caveat that they refer only to the U.S. (or be moved into Capital punishment in the United States):

  • The race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty. [1]
  • In some cases the defendants are poor and therefore end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are distinctly mediocre; opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publically supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.

(not of course to imply that no defendant outside the U.S. is ever represented by an inferior attorney) —Blotwell 9 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

They should stay, but some qualification that they refer to the US only would improve the statements. - Solar 9 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)

I have made the following changes in line with Blotwell's suggestion:

  • Within US court proceedings low-income defendants end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are distinctly mediocre. Opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publicly supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.
  • In the US the race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty. [2]

- Solar 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Iran figures

If the listed numbers are from the 2004 Amnesty report [3], then it should be 108 and not 159. SouthernComfort 02:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly it's from somewhere else: the same figure, 159, is cited by The Times in its coverage of the children executed in Iran for homosexuality - I'm not sure if the two boys were included in the total of 11 children executed in Iran since 1990. - Outerlimits 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Australia and the Map?

Australia is currently shown in blue on the map, meaning that capital punishment has been totally abolished in that country. I do not believe this is correct. From my understanding, capital punishment is still available for the crime of Sea Piracy, as well as for crimes during times of war, though there has not been an execution in that country since at least the 1970s, and I believe it may be as far back as the 60s. I believe that Australia should be re-coloured from Blue to Orange. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

The Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 removed death as a punishment for any crime in Australia. Under the Crimes Act, Piracy has a punishment of life (though this may have been modified due to the Abolition act). War Crimes fall under the War Crimes Act 1945 which also doesn't mention the death penalty. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro Death Penalty

I have noticed that there seems to be unwillingness from some users to include relevant counter information within the pro section of the article. I feel that it is important to cite evidence and to offer detail where it is available. One area where it is available is on the arguments of deterrent and democratic support. It seems to me that democratic support is with the families of victims of crime and not simply capital punishment. The support for life imprisonment plus restitution for the families illustrates this and is therefore important to the article and should be included. If some users feel this is not NPOV I would suggest that he/she move it to maintain fairness and not simply seek to remove any information that undermines pro standpoints. There is also a wealth of evidence that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent which should also be included and not simply ignored, it is not POV to state that evidence does not support the argument if it is indeed the case. If editors feel that no other information but the pro in pro and against in against information is acceptable that seriously limits the article and is not the case with the present against section. I hope we can come to an agreement here and generally keep the article informed rather that opinionated. - Solar 10:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't get two bites at the apple. It is a simple concept. There is a section on "pro-death arguments" and a section on "anti-death penalty arguments". There should not be a section on "anti-death penalty arguments" and a section on "pro-death penalty arguments with counterarguments from a early 21st century anti-death penalty argument position". That is not NPOV. And the repeated inclusion of an survey of American opinions into an article describing the use of the death penalty throughout the world and throughout history is hubris. It isn't important enough for that part of the article. It is also POV to claim that the evidence proves that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent when that is, in fact, a highly disputed topic. Rmhermen 20:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Rmhermen, considering that I have requested with respect you not to revert changes without discussion with myself and other editors I can only conclude that you are trying to unfairly bias the article. The entry you reverted was added to arguments against and is a fair addition and is cited, something which is not the case with many other additions to the article. I have moved my additions and edits many times to try and come to a fair conclusion with you, you have simply deleted them regardless of what they say or where they are. The fact that your latest deletion was in arguments against illustrates this. If you continue to revert my additions I will have to take action in line with wikipedia policy. In respect to NPOV I have adjusted the wording of my entry but I have reverted your deletion. Please note that many statements in the pro arguments are not cited and there are also counter arguments in the against section, which I have not and will not remove. - Solar 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, so most of this could have been averted if you had used an edit summary or elsewhere noted that you agreed that it was placed in the wrong section. I still believe that the anti-arguments are ridiculously biased toward modern and American statements. It is not a good section. And I still do not believe that your addition merits inclusion there - at least not based on the support of one American survey which in no way influenced any laws. I searched the against section for misplaced arguments when I deleted the ones from pro. The only one I noticed was this one "While those against capital punishment might stick behind this as an irrevocable right, as protection from abuse is the basis of such rights, those for the practice may claim that the right was forfeit by the seriousness of the crime." which covers both sides in one sentence so I felt it could stay. Are there others I missed? Rmhermen 21:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
As can be seen I did in fact use edit summaries and did agree to move edits with you in the past, although whether or not they were in the wrong place is a matter of opinion. I quote "As I feel it is very important to have research listed on the issue of deterrence I will add it to a neutral area and then link to it from the pro area, I think this is the fairest I can be as the evidence needs to be included". This was the final point in a discussion, needless to say you did not reply to this point on your talk-page so the best I could do was consider the matter resolved. You later deleted the moved edit with no further comment. So it seems that moving elements or attempting to come to agreement with you in the past has been problematic to say the least. I appreciate that you feel the against section is bias and not a good section I agree there is much to improve, but many areas are far more in need of attention including the pro section, which if I am not mistaken contains no citations or evidential back-up of any kind. To your point about counter elements in the against section I think the following also qualify (although I have no desire to remove them they give greater perspective for the reader)
  • However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publicly supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected
  • Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present.
I hope that has resolved the matter and I can expect greater tolerance and cooperation in future edits, I do not wish to perpetuate pettiness, so please simply discuss any changes rather than reverting them as I suggested earlier. Thank-you. - Solar 22:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the fact is that anti death penalty users expect that pro death penalty users to come and write their own arguements? i think that their main fault is expecting most pro death penalty users to actually have the ability to read... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.26.41 18:58, 27 November 2005 (talk • contribs) .

Added punishment for under 18 years old

[4] in the german version maybe you are interested. greatings --80.136.108.231 13:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this graph is out-of-date. I don't suggest using it here. Rmhermen 14:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify, are the American juvinile offenders being sentenced to death while they are under 18 or for crimes they committed while under 18? It seems somewhat muddy because the article starts talking about the execution of juviniles right after. How many juviniles (not adults who were juvinile offenders) have been executed in the US?--70.36.65.250 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Qualified medical professionals

I think that the following sentence: "This is often due to the fact that qualified medical professionals are prohibited from taking part" is wrong. Please see

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v024/24.2legraw.pdf

The general situation with regards to capital punishment and medical professionals in the US and many other areas is that medical professionals are prohibited from taking part. The information was originally quoted from Amnesty International. I have also found the following: The American Medical Association ethical guidelines state that "a physician should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution" and provides a list of actions that are prohibited. The American Nursing Association states that "participation in executions is... contrary to the fundamental goals and ethical traditions of the profession." [5] Also Lethal injection-the intravenous administration of a tranquilizer, a muscle relaxant, and cardioplegic agent for the purpose of judicial execution-is the standard method of capital punishment in the United States. Since 2001, lethal injection has been used in 189 of 191 (99%) executions and is the chief method of execution in 37 of the 38 states that have the death penalty, as well as for the federal government and military. The American Medical Association's (AMA) opinion on capital punishment is found in section E-2.06 of its Code of Medical Ethics. The AMA states that "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution." Participation is defined to include "monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding execution." Because pronouncing death requires a physician to monitor an inmate's vital signs, either via electrocardiogram or stethoscope, it is, therefore, forbidden by the code. Certifying death, which does not require monitoring but does require the physician to sign a death certificate, is allowed in the AMA guidelines. Opinion 2.06 also makes specific reference to lethal injection, and forbids the following: "selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel." [6] I think that clears things up with regards to the US. - Solar 13:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Scholars

The following statement was added today to the last line of the Christian section of the article:

"This, however, does not take into account the stance of most conservative Christian scholars that Jesus' teaching verified His authentication of the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus said; "...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (OT), till all be fulfilled."

As I am not a Christian the claim "the stance of most conservative Christian scholars" in my mind requires at least some form of source. Furthermore the quotation from the Bible "...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (OT), till all be fulfilled." to my mind is totally ambiguous and does not show Jesus clearly supporting the use of violence and/or capital punishment when compared to Jesus saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". This is clearly a nonviolent position, and is the reason for the criticism in the last paragraph of the Christian section of the article.

If anyone thinks the above statement should stay please include citations to Christian scholars who believe Jesus personally advocated Capital punishment or violence. The present statement shows that some groups have criticised the conservative Christian position, as it seems out of line with the teachings of Jesus himself, which is relevant and should stay. - Solar 11:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

English and Treason

Does the map consider that? Because in the UK it is a capitol offense, or so I read from an AP story on support for the death penalty following police shootings.

Treason has not been a capital offense in the UK since 1998 and the passing of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 [7]. Evil Monkey - Hello 06:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Just as "lethal injection" is a euphemism for "poison;" so too "capital punishment" and "death penalty" are euphemisms for "state-sponsored homicide." Even the very phrase "death penalty" or "capital punishment" carries within it the concept that homicide is a form of penalty or punishment. But what other penalty or punishment ceases the existence of the Will in question? Much of this article reveals strong systematic bias, unquestioningly referring to criminal bandit organizations as "countries," and claiming a broad popular swath of support for an action that the overwhelming majority of human beings would refuse to commit themselves. - Naif

Naif, "Poison" is non-specific, including naturally occurring compounds, oral and topical, etc. Lethal injection is specific and accurate. The rest of your comments are similarly inaccurate and POV. I personally believe that the death penalty and capital punishment are barbaric in the extreme, but that does not give me the right to suggest any WP article become my personal soap box, or encourage inaccurate and inflammatory terminology. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Killer, you are correct, your belief that the death "penalty" and capital "punishment" are merely barbaric does not give you the right to suggest a WP article become a challenge to orthodoxy because you already have the right irrespective of your beliefs. But let me define this argument more closely: I oppose calling criminal bandit organizations or ethnic militias something that places them in the same level as a concept/organization like Canada. Doing so inherently legitimizes the banditry and homicide of said CBOs. -Naif 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Awfully anti argument

I thought encyclopedias didn't have biases. This article is full of inflammatory language and anti-capital punishment undertones. I haven't decided which way I stand, but its rather disappointing to see such a bias in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.47.161.130 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. It may be helpful to editors if you give some examples of the problems you see in the article, or seeing as Wikipedia is a wiki, be bold and fix the problems. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"This argument is no longer salient in States with life without parole statutes, unless the prisoner manages to escape custody." removed this from the for section as it was really an argument against. 203.1.191.80 08:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

History section

That needs some improvement. It's heavily Europe-centric, yet manages to omit any mention to the Roman Jus gladii or the medieval high justice. It has nothing at all about other ancient cultures (Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, ...), and nothing on the history in the Arab or Asian countries. And what about Native Americans (both South and North America)? Lupo 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Be bold, Lupo - I myself am working (slowly) to get the religion section a bit less lopsided - I've added Buddhism, and put in a request at the Islam project page for someone to add that. In other words, go for it - you're absolutely right! KillerChihuahua 12:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I usually am bold :-) But I just don't have the time to do the research needed, sorry. Got a few other things in my WP-queue, plus a real life! Lupo 12:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Massive sympathies, I'm right there with you. Well, hopefully one of us will find the time - I'm sticking to religion here until that's a little less one-sided though. KillerChihuahua 12:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unusual methods

There are also unusual methods of execution, some of them I made up:

  • There was a historical figure who told one of his prisoners to drink coffee because he thought it was poisonous. The prisoner drank coffee, but didn't die until much later.
  • A better and more humane way, one that the Singaporeans should have used on Van Tuong Nguyen instead of hanging, would be to have the prisoner eat fast food. It won't kill the prisoner instantly, but it will speed up his death, especially if the prisoner is not allowed to do any exercise.

Scott Gall 11:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Joining of execution articles

The articles about the different titles are only linked to. I propose that we change that and put all the details on the methods of execution on one page. Maybe we could have a link to this one page from the main page, or add the whole thing to the main page. This would make researching the topics much more fluid and organized. User:TheCheese33 8:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about all the details - and I certainly don't think we should merge articles about individual methods into one page, because that page would be enormous. However, I would certainly support an expansion in the form of a brief summary of each method - but on the Execution (legal) page, not here.
The way I see it, the present article should be more of an umbrella topic, dealing with all aspects of Capital Punishment, some of them in brief, with links to other main articles (for example, I think "Religious attitudes towards the death penalty" could eventually expand enough to become a seperate article). One of those articles would be Execution (legal), which will list the methods, summarising each, and cover the broad history of execution. Each method should still have it's own page, because the history surrounding many of them is rich indeed. TheMadBaron 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Methods of execution

I propose that the section titled "Methods of execution" be summarised here, and the bulk of the text moved to Execution (legal) and expanded. My main reason is that the Execution article is sadly lacking in content, and this section is exactly what it needs. The Capital punishment article will also benefit in that it is already over optimum length (48k as opposed to 32k). TheMadBaron 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

concur absoloutely. It is more appropriate there, as well. KillerChihuahua 12:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. Being German, I wanted to have a look at this article after reading the German article - which is rated excellent - and was quite astonished about the subliminal POV-statements shown in this article. Althoug my English might not be good enough for writing anything myself, I would like to help you to improve this article. For translation in particular you might perhaps ask one of the Wiki-Babel experts.
Some points, I found were:
  • The introduction as well as the first part of the article is about execution. This is of course the consequence of "executing" a legal judgement, but this article should cover the jurisdictional and perhaps ethical issues of capital punishment. Explanation of methods (especially those, which are no longer in use and of special cruelty) seems like a way to unsettle people right from the beginning. The German wikipedia mentions most common methods actually in use and refers to main article "Execution". (by the way, stating there, that execution is an euphemism for killing a person in first place is also quite uncommon for an encyclopaedia. German wikipedia reads something like this: Execution is the killing of a person hold captive, mostly acting upon judgement of a legal court of the particular nation)
  • Within the pros and cons section the arguments of abolitionists are much better explained than the arguments in favor of prolinging death penalty. The German article on the other side concentrates on three main points retaliation, deterence and costs and tries to deal with each point explaining pros and cons together in one text. Furthermore it shows quite impressingly, that many arguments from both sides are in fact derived from similar attitudes, simply with different outcome. 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree it should be moved to Execution (legal) - Solar 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

History

I reckon most of the History section can go there too. TheMadBaron 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased against

Quite unlikely for Wikipedia, this article is biased.

Problems I see:

- The arguments "for" are being relitivized immediatelly, unlike the arguments "against". It is not correct. -

see e. g. "Deterrence — it may deter other people from committing capital crimes. Many studies (see above) rebut this claim, while others provide support for it. " and "Prevention — it prevents offenders from ever returning to society (life sentences hold out the possibility, however remote, of eventual release), thereby preventing them from committing further crimes." This argument is no longer salient in States with life without parole statutes.

- "Life imprisonment is very expensive." - This argument is presented half-heartedly, it misses a substantial part: for whome the life imprisonment is expensive, i. e. for the tax payers, including the victims, who have to come up for the murderer's living and medical care.

- Cases of judicial mistakes are mentioned as argument against. However, nothing is mentioned about the cases of judicial mistakes concerning paroles, which mistakes actually claimed lives of further victimes of offenders released from prison based on wrong opinions of psychologists and judges.

- Another argument for can be that some jurisdictions do not know life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Concur that the "studies" statement is weasely and needs to be rephrased. Suggest: "Results from studies are inconclusive."
Concur also Prevention needs tidying and clarifying. Suggest: "Prevention — it prevents offenders from ever returning to society, as opposed to life sentences with possibility of parole. This argument is not (relevent, used, germane, applied, salient) in (jurisdictions) which have life without parole statutes.
KillerChihuahua?!? 14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please remember that this article is not about Capital punishment in the United States, but shows the global perspective. Your comments above seem to refer mainly to the US. - Solar 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Whose, mine or anon's? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Secular Arguments for and agaist Death Penalty

Ah, I waited for a day to see if people were happy with me merging against and for section. If not many people object, I would like to delete "argument against" and "argument for" sections. I will wait for an another day. Let me know. Yoji Hajime

The for and against sections IMHO should stay, for someone unfamiliar with the subject they offer an easy and concise way to gain knowledge of the major arguments. (Also the new secular section needs some grammatical improvements) - Solar 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Feel flee to correct my Engrish. ;-) Yoji
I concur that for and against sections should stay.Nelson50 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. Yoji Hajime 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, any suggestion for the secular section? Any main topic or argument I missed? Yoji Hajime

Map is out-of-date

At least Iraq is out of date on the map we provide people, can somebody fix this and hopefully doublecheck on any other countries that seem out of place? Much thanks! Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the map is undated but it appears to be correct in showing Iraq as a country which uses the death penalty. Rmhermen 02:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Exsanguination

Removed this as the article never mentions it as a form of capital punishment.

Current Death Penalty Table

I'm in the process of searching for 2005 figures. However, I was wondering whether anyone believes there is a strong case for ordering the list by 'per millions' rather than raw numbers. It seems that would be a more accurate reflection as Kuwait's number for instance is extremely notable, as is that of Belarus. It gives a slightly incorrect view to present the raw figures as larger countries experience a form of 'inflation'. What about reordering the 2005 list once found? Alternatively, would anyone object to listing by absolute figures and 'executions by millions' as well? --Davril2020 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Immurement as a form of execution

I've been having a discussion with another member regarding whether "Immurement" qualifies as a form of execution. I have decided to include it here. I am not saying I am ultimately right, but currently I am not convinced that it is not worthy of inclusion. [this is an exact copy/paste, please check my own talk page for the original] Bobak 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A search shows that this means merely "imprisonment" which is not a capital punishment of itself. Why is it a death penalty? Rmhermen 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question: Often, particularly in ancient/medieval times, the person immured was not intended to be punished by imprisonment, rather killed. This is similar to burning or being buried alive in that it may be intended to kill the person (or not). When I've heard it used as a term to describe a way of dispatching people it's been used as "sealed in a wall" or "walling" (heck, the idea of walling someone was even used in The Simpsons (the episode was "Last Exit to Springfield"), but when the random idea came up to look it up here I wasn't able to find it anywhere. So I looked around the regular web and found the term immure/immurement is the proper word for the process. Thus, I added the term to the forms of execution, alas I didn't have the time to do a proper article for the link. For those brief reasons I think the addition was fair and justifiable. Bobak 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The propblem is that the definition appears to be imprisonment, not execution. The online definitions I checked made no mention that it was anything other than a synonym for imprisonment. The list on the article already mentions starvation I believe. Rmhermen 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I noticed you editted out immurement without any further discussion. Well, please let me convince you otherwise:
  • "The problem is that the definition appears to be imprisonment, not execution". This reasoning is flawed: If you want to emphasize on the specific cause of death as when speaking about immurement, then you could easily eliminate "burning" by saying it simply causes massive organ failure and/or asphyxiation, "Crucifixion" is eliminated because death is caused by asphyxiation and/or loss of blood; "Snake Pit" is poisen (I hope!), and the list goes on... Immurment is the proper definition of "walling" someone. If you wall someone the intention is to kill as much as the others. The fact that death results of starvation is secondary to the primary form of intended execution, which is immurment. After all, as a lawyer, I can assure you that the prosecution of a criminal is the intent (how did they mean to kill someone, mitigated by how awful a way they chose to dispatch the victim), certainly not how the person eventually succumbed.
  • "The online definitions I checked made no mention that it was anything other than a synonym for imprisonment." To base the entire use of a word on a mere online definition misses the greater understanding of word. Just compare any online dictionary definition to an encyclopedia definition to see how the mere definition of a word can miss entire uses and practical understandings of said word. Please allow me to refer you to Merriam-Webster's definition of immurement; please may close attention to definition (2), which states "to build into a wall; especially: to entomb in a wall" (emphasis in original). Now, the term "entomb" does not say, alive or dead when placed inside, but the implication is very clear. After all the mere definition of the word burning does not imply capital punishment any more than immurement, but both can be used with that clear implication.
  • The use of "walling" (which is even more vague a definition than "immurement") is well documented in history and popular culture. For a quick historical example, please refer to the Wikipedia article on Akaba. It was used to dispatch a prisoner is the Oz (TV series)(episode 40), where a character's enemies seal him up in a thick concrete wall (death was clearly the intent).
  • The actual use of this for of execution is very old and fell out of favor (likely because the only people who could afford to execute someone in this way were emperors, kings and warlord; and it was probably expensive to build walls that would accomodate the victims). The only reason it was resurrected for a show like "Oz" is that the show took particular glee in dispatching characters in increasingly brutal (and in this case, primitive and shocking) ways.
For the above reasons and more, I am re-adding immurement. I am more than happy to go with a different word, if someone can find one that is better defined. Bobak 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Taxman from Germany, which has already abolished capital punishment. --160.62.4.10 Taxman --160.62.4.10 Taxman--160.62.4.10

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_punishment/Archive_3&oldid=457439430"