Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 5

History

• I'm going to revamp this section. There are few fundamental flaws with current edit.

(1)Blood Feud being the origin of Death penalty is not correct. This view is originated in philosophical debate of Hobbisian state of nature. The intial idea was explictly hypothetical. Most conventional idea is that death penalty originate from communal justice which included beating, banishment and killing. This later become standarlised under the emergence of nation state. And I'm not too far off in guessing that DP=Blood Feud is another spindoctoring from the opponent side to equate DP with barbarism.

(2)This article is about death "penalty" or caital "punishiment". Not about state sanctioned killing. For this reason killing as part of conquest, religious sacrifice, or gralditorial combat, does not fall into this category. Majority of sacrifice subject or gradiator were slave and they did nothing in particular in term of "crime" though some are made slave as part of punishment but it is not the same thing. Aother spindoctoring to give presentation that DP=savage

(3) "Differentiated styles of execution" subsection isn't really about the history. I will transfer it to "Method of execution" section.

(4) Abolitionist movement is a history of activism/ideology. Because it is relevant, I will put it under different section. Feel free to expand. This section deserve more details. FWBOarticle

• Gee, I just realised that the entire section is AI version of history where humanity "progress" from savagely to enlightenment.

• Blood Feud section have little historical materials. Most are about sociological/philosophical speculation about justification of Blood feud. Plus, it another example of AI history. FWBOarticle

• Duelling isn't a punishment or penalty. Another AI history at work. FWBOarticle

• "Sacrifice and Entertainment" subsection has no relevance to capital punishment. It primaly function had no relevance to punishment. Another AI version of history where execution are to be equated with barbarism. It has lot of religious interpretation so I could possibly redeemed as part of Abolitonary Movement. Instead of deleting it, I will transfer it to Abolitionary Movement. FWBOarticle 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted "Tom Krajcik is sexy" from this entry. Sorry to all of you who think he is. [[[User:ACinfo|ACinfo]] 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

Duelling not punishment or penalty? How about judicial combat? One could argue that the blood feud, judicial combat, trial by ordeal, and the death penalty as we know it do form a kind of continuum. I have not sources for this, however. But the entertainment aspect was (is?) definitely relevant, for example public hangings in 18th Century England. Look at Hogarth. Jbhood 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Duelling wasn't a part of "punishment". However, if you contextualised it as a part of arbitration system, certainly it deserve inclusion. Previous edit which was along the line of Feuding=Orign of DP, didn't really make this point clear. Public hanging was a punishment and I have no problem with inclusion. However, graditorial combat or sacrifice wasn't really about punishment. It was part of slavery, entertainment and religion. Now, some criminal were indeed condemmed as gradiator slave or sacrifice so you can recover the content along this line. Problem with the previous AI version of History is that it gross over the fact that ancient judiciary system (and it's use of execution) had quite reasonable internal logic. Whether one agree with it is another matter though. FWBOarticle

I agree with most of your last contribution, but note that the outcome of a judicial combat was supposedly ordained by God, and therefore anyone killed in such a duel was considered in effect to be executed (punished) by divine will. This is all in a Northern European context, of course. Maybe insert a link to the Wikipedia article "Trial by combat"? Jbhood 10:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see there is a link to Trial by combat. How about one to "Trial by ordeal" also? Jbhood 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More info is good as long as it is in the right context, IMO. :) FWBOarticle

Evidence of at least two executed innocent

User:ER MD removed the following:

After DNA-based forensics became available, a large number of wrongful convictions were brought to light, including some where the wrongfully-accused had already been executed.

I remember reading that two U.S. wrongful executions were brought to light in the past four or five months. Can anyone find the source? --James S. 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Such info would be an front page news in AI. If not, I doubt the report to be true. FWBOarticle

1. Ruben Cantu
2. Larry Griffin

--James S. 09:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1) DNA evidence was not used in either case. 2)Neither person was proven to be innocent...only speculation that they may (and that by people who oppose the DP).

ER MD 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Since the reintroduction of the death penalty there have been ZERO proven cases of innocent people executed. There are cases where there is "suspected" problems but nobody proven innocent. Technically, these may be cases of "legal innocence" verses "actual innocence." OJ Simpson and Baretta are good examples of people who were factually guilty, but were found legally not guilty (which some people wrongly interpret as "innocent".) This is why your statement is being removed. You can write about it on the debate page if you wish. ER MD 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how many have been exhonorated before execution? Doesn't that proportion say something about the vast numbers where DNA evidence is not available to exhonorate? Replacing statement. --James S. 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

First question: yes I do...the actual wrongful conviction rate is about 0.2% based on the stats that I have read for "actual innoncence" and not "legal innocence." Second question: Your conspiracy theory about "vast" unknown DNA evidence to prove innocence is unfounded--not one executions has been proven to be wrong by the use of DNA. I know you wish this to be true, but its not. ER MD 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Testing DNA for evidence in past cases is fraught with problems. As an example, a DNA test can confirm a conviction such as the "wrongfully convicted" "innocent" Roger Keith Coleman. It can be equivocal as in a partial match indicating either DNA degradation or contamination. It could be a complete mismatch which may not mean anything--we have a bunch of DNA from other people all around us--so the type of evidence (i.e. blood versus hair, vs. semen, etc. must be investigated) Or it can implicate another person whose DNA has already been run. Obviously, the only benefit of DNA is either confirming the guity, implicating someone else, or demonstrating that an absolute integral aspect of the case shows DNA that is not the convicted. True, DNA has shown that other people have been convicted for crimes commited by other people--so you are partially correct and I encourage you wo add that in on the DNA testing section. The interesting aspect about your argument is that DNA is a doubled edged sword. By arguing for overturning past convictions, you must also admit that cases tried from here on out will be much more precise since the juries will be able to weigh the DNA evidence. Therefore, DNA not only may prove wrongful convictions in the past, but it makes all future convictions much stronger and hence is an argument which supports the future application of the death penalty. Having read your user profile, I noticed that you support the ACLU. With that in mind, I doubt that you will present both sides of the argument if you opt to write a section on DNA evidence. ER MD 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you get 0.2%?

What do you think the actual number of wrongfully executed is?

If DNA evidence is only part of 10% of all capital cases, then what is next year's expected number of wrongfully executed? That should be easy for you to answer given the answers to the two questions above. --James S. 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate is insightfull and all but should you guy doing this in the capital punishmen debate article? FWBOarticle

The fact that wrongful excutions continue is a fact about the death penalty, not a fact about the debate. The fact that the number can be easily estimated by those who would prefer not to think about it is appropriate here. --James S. 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that there has not been ONE documented case of an innocent execution. So I have no idea where you get "wrongful executions continue." Obviously you are blinded to your ideology. You can suppose theoretically or statistically that it is likely to have occured but subsequently claiming that it has factually occured is a lie. Its true that there have been people subsequently found innonent for the stated crime while on death row--probably something discovered during appeals processes. The exact number is difficul to pin down since the DPIC overinflates those numbers. But the number is around 20-40 out of 7400 people on death row (including past executed people). With this small number, and the number so far executed, this would suggest about 2 innocent execuation. The problem with this argument is that the discovery of innocence may be in the legal proceedings, and people who have progressed through that hearing are now less likely to be innocent since more people look at all the evidence and any discovered evidence. In reference to your hurt feelings, you theories are not proven and they don't belong in the introduction section. Add a section to describe your theory, and remember to present both sides of the DNA debate, in that it has the ability to prove wrongful past convictions, but also to make all future prosecutions more exact.

I agree that there has never been anyone proven innocent since 1976. The Chronicle's Cantu story has a lot of holes and information left out that points to Cantu's guilt. Anti DP folks have spent a lot of time searching for this mythical "innocent" man who was executed, and they are wasting their time.

Quality of Article

I spent a while yesterday trawling through the myriad spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes in this article, trying to correct them - there are still some left as well! I don't know who is editing this article that has such poor English, but I would encourage you to ensure the SPG is correct. Bad SPG reflects badly on what is mostly a very fine article. I say mostly, as there are a couple of points about it that I think need sorting. Firstly, the article header is very long and wordy - it could do to be cut down to around half of its current size. Secondly, I'm not sure that the "blood feud" part of the history section is particularly relevant. The section on sacrifice and entertainment needs rewriting to make it sound more encyclopaedic and less like a TV documentary. Overall, the article requires only touching up, but I think there are a few areas where it could do to be improved. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The prose needs some up-cleaning. I may get on that at some point. Kai 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was a "death sentence" that was executed by an agent of the political authority, (king, country, or whatever) the executioner was the person who carried out the sentence, or 'executed' the sentence. His (any women?) actions have come down to mean Executions, and now we say a person was executed, and I made a note of this in intro sentence 3/25/06 Pabobfin 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Penateuch or Old Testament

The Penatuch is a Greek name only the first five books of the book commonly called the Bible. They are properly called Torah. The Old Testament is the Christian name for the entire Jewish scripture, which is properly called Tanach. So, the reference should be corrected to be consistent. Perhaps the logical choice is to say the first five books of the Bible often called the Penateuch or Torah. Veniceslug1 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro wrongful executions statistics controversy

Newspaper which start from "Did we?" certainly doesn't prove anything. Statistics is never a conclusive proof of anything no matter how complex the math is. At best it is a suggestive "indication". So please put this kind of argumentation to DP debate article which is linked from this page. Secondly, this is exactly the reason why the intro should be short if the topic is controvercial Claim and counter claim should crowd the intro. The Table of content provide overview and easy access to each relevant issues. Why do we have to duplicate information? FWBOarticle

Firstly, the intro should not be a platform for people with anti or pro death penalty agenda. Secondly, your info clearly fall within Death penalty debate which is in different sister page. Thirdly, this page is not "U.S" Capital punishiment article. US is qute minor player in global execution and there is a separate sister page for U.S. So please take your domestic issue to more appropriate section. Lastly, here is an eample of wrongly executed which has nothing to do with DNA or U.S. And this example also doesn't belong in the intro. FWBOarticle

I read the Timothy Evans article. While Mr. Evans' landlord, John Christie, confessed to killing Mrs.Evans, he denied killing their daughter, the crime for which Mr. Evans was hanged. Did Mr. Evans receive a fair trial? It doesn't appear so. Did he kill his daughter? We may never know. This case is not a strong one for an innocent man being executed.

However...did Mr. Christie kill anyone after he was hanged? Absolutely not! I would have a lot more faith in the effectiveness of life sentences if no murderer had ever escaped or been paroled and then killed again. Mr. Christie did not spend taxpayers money being housed and fed for decades while he studied law and made appeal after appeal. Larry660 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of wrongful executions is notable to both supporters and opponents. The fact that so many have been exhonerated by new DNA evidence from old collections is clearly important. Asking to move such information to a "debate" article is against the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline. --James S. 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rate of wrongful conviction is important to anti death penalty side. One noted jurist professor (can't remember his name) once remarked, in response to wrongful execution, that just because someone die in traffic accident doesn't mean we ought to demolish highway. For supporters of deathpenalty, irreversible act of justice apply to both death penalty and incarceration. The idea that wrongful conviction being holy grail of the controversy is mere anti death penalty side delusion. As I keep repeating, try to see it from NPOV. People who can't take NPOV end up leaving wikipedia. FWBOarticle

Are you claiming that the wrongful execution rate is unimportant to proponents of the death penalty? --James S. 19:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not important as a refutation of death penalty. Wrongful conviction is regarded as a moot argument by the supporter because it can equally apply to incarceration. Plus, you fail to realise that you actually don't have "wrongful execution rate". What you have is "in house" research by anti death penalty advocate "speculating" over the rate of wrongful conviction in "U.S". Come back here with something neutral (not in house), verifiable (not speculation) and fitting of encycropedia (not suffering from Anglo American bias). FWBOarticle

I completely disagree that it is a moot argument. More effort is put into exonerating those that are alive than those that are dead. Statistics are a perfectly acceptable argument for something so long as the inherent weaknesses of such statistical tests are explained. For example, you could say the p-value that somebody has not been falsely convicted is p=<.01. In other words, there is less than a one in one hundred chance that nobody was wrongfully executed. Anglo American statistics are fine so long as they are presented as such and noted that they likely don't generalise. It is important to present the research you have and not give up because you haven't figured out the whole world. A study can't be neutral if people are being wrongly executed; certainly that would be an argument against.

Lastly FWBOarticle, stop pretending you have a NPOV. It is clear you are blocking an important idea that doesn't match your POV based on faulty logic. You have made a content fork, but it's the best for the time being in terms of article flow because your philosophy in the debate article has bloomed too much. I'll put some balance when I have a few spare hours. Blue Leopard 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"The death penalty in arts and media" section

O.K. this section is either irrelevant or just another platform for anti DP view. I believe signifcant proportion of plot line in the world literature involve something like villan getting his just punishment (legally or not). And of course, there are lot of plot line where main charcter(s) get executed for wrong reason. But should we keep putting something like Mel Gibson's Brave Heart or Passion of Christ. Hey, why not put "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"? I think one of the plot line involved the baron nearly getting his head chopped off by the Sultan. I don't see the point of putting 100s of literature or arts which has death penalty in plotline but actually has no relevance to this article. On the other hand, any literature with anti-DP message do deserve inclusion. Which means that the section's attribution should be transformed. I'm puting this section under "Abolitionist Movement". FWBOarticle

The arts as far as I am aware are not limited to the domain of abolitionists, this section should be included in an article about the impact and cultural history of capital punishment. It should include culturally significant artists, in that they have made an impact on the debate, such as Andy Warhol. - Solar 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are few art pieces about executions but isn't the info too trivial within the overall issue of death penalty unless it is linked to abolitionis movement. How about creating separate sister page then providing link from this page. FWBOarticle

I feel that a separate article is unnecessary, it should simply have its own section here. The abolitionist movement is far less significant culturally than film, TV and the arts. I think many would agree the media is of major significance within contemporary culture; therefore it should be included and made to be NPOV and informative. At present the section needs work, but that does not mean it should be added only to the abolitionist section. - Solar 09:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Art piece which use death penalty as "symbol" aren't that many and quite trivial. On the other hand, there are plenty of tv,films and writing/literature which have "anti" death penalty theme (agenda). Using trivial and small example of art pieces as a platform to put large amount of anti death penalty tv/film/literature is a bit of weasel strategy, IMO. My suggestion is to separate pure art (andy wahol for example) from anti death penalty themed film (green miles). FWBOarticle

Apostacy

Why was this section removed?

Major religions ... have used capital punishment, the death sentence, as a ... means of ... control. Often, the death penalty was mandated by a religious body and then handed over to civil authorities for actual execution. In times past, a king would convert to a different religion, declare all subjects also converted (with the assistence of his new found religious leaders), and punish those subjects who resisted the new religion with various laws of treason, sedition, apostasy, etc. Apostasy is still punishable by death today in most countries where a state-religion is strictly enforced.

--James S. 12:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Very Anglo American centric pov. Are you sure, outside of europe, when king switch religion, people were forced to convert as well? Plus, apostasy is still punishable by death today in countries where Islamic Sharia is still enforced. There are many other countries, including Europe, where certain religion hold state religion status. Can you stop your crusade? FWBOarticle

I'm not sure what you are asking about -- do you think that the history of the death penalty for apostacy should be excluded because it is limited to Europe? Do you have any evidence that similar events did not occur in the feudal and tribal societies of other continents? Your implication that I am on a "crusade" verges on a personal attack. I am being forthright and honest, and trying to balance the article which has long been skewed because it was segregated into the "debate" article by removing ethical points of view. That balance needs to be restored. --James S. 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "accurate" statements of history should not be deleted. I don't have objection for reviving revised and improved version. We know instances of king "forcing" conversion of subject or imposing death penalty for apostasy were only specific historical instances. On the other hand, blood feud and communal justice (shunning/compensation/execution) is accepted as global phenomenon. FWBOarticle

Debate Section

Please read the Capital punishment debate. The deteled content, "Many believe" is clearly anti death penalty argument. The pro death penalty counter argument is well provided and argued in capital punishment debate article. Moreover, "miscarriages of justice" is mentioned in this section which is expanded in Capital punishment debate. Please do not use this section as a soapbox for one side of POV.

On the contrary, please do not use the debate article as a rug under which to sweep all counter-arguments, leaving this one devoid of opposition. I resist your repeated unsourced deletions of notable, factual, and sourced statements, as I will continue. --James S. 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, use of weasle word such as "the most important" or "many believe" are violation of Wikipedia guideline. You inserted anti death argument with weasle word "many believe" which duplicated "misscarige of justice" edit. This section is supposed to provide summary of separate article. Please don't start POV war in this section. Misscariage of justice has been mentioned. If anyone is interested, they can read it by clicking Capital punishment debate.

Religious section is right below this section. Feel free to put your edit there. Plus, # "most religion has unambibious position" is personal POV. FWBOarticle

Introduction

Introduction is not free for all place to insert whatever opinions or facts each individual think is important. It suppose to be a summary of entire section. Christian or Anti Death penalty POV can be presented where it is appropriate. Don't use introduction section as one's personal soapbox.

If someone is put in jail for 10 years, that 10 years can be considered as "irrevocable" whether one is innocent or not. An example of weasle word to insert anti death penalty bias. FWBOarticle

The wrongful conviction rate remains one of the most notable aspects of capital punishment. Do you think it should have its own section, though?

Unless they die in prison, it is not irrevocable to put someone in prison. --James S. 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe wrongful convictions rate to deserve own section but only if there are enough appropriate materials fitting of this article. At this point, what we have is anti death penalty side bringing up "examples" of wrongful convictions together with "in-house" research "speculating" the extent of wrongful conviction in United States of America. If you can come up with any peer revied research paper or U.N. report which give estimation of wrongful conviction in the world, then yes, this should be included in "The death penalty worldwide" section. Currently, what you are doing is bringing U.S. culture war into the article. Using wikipedia as a soapbox is specifically prohibited by the key policy. My recommendation is for you is to try to find statistics regarding wrongfull execution of political decidents. Provided your source is neutral and verifiable, I have no objection for you inserting such useful information. FWBOarticle

As of incarceration being not irrevocable, I won't trade my 10-30 years of life even if someone pay me 1 billion bucks. On the other hand, your POV appear to be that if I get exonerated and receive monetary compensation, then my punisiment is "reversed". My POV doesn't agree with your POV. And even if someone find the way to extend life span of human being, incarceration is still irrevocable unless someone invent technology to memory wipe my life experience in life behind bar including possible jail rape. But wait, what about my family and friends I lost during my incarceration. Can you make them younger and memory wipe them as well? So any punishment is irrevocable unless someone find the way to reverse time. But in that case, death penalty is o.k. as well. In fact, we can prevent crime before its happen. Whether you agree with my POV is irrelevant. The point is that what is or what is not irrevocable depends on one's POV. So it doesn't belong in anywhere unless it has anti-death penalty attributio, which belong to the debate section. FWBOarticle

You are at this point arguing for reviving Unjust, Inhumane, Brutal Wrongful execution from the degate section. By inserting wrongful execution edit, you are acting as if two article has been already merged. You should at least respect the procedure. Leave intro alone from wrongful execution edit until merger debate is settled. FWBOarticle

Merger debate is all about ressurecting Wrongful Conviction

Given the size of two articles, IMO, there is zero hope of reviving entire "Debate" article into this article if the issue is put to VfM. However, what you are arguing seems to indicate that you have no interest in ressurecting legal, detonological, utilitarian section of "capital punishment debate" article. I should point out that Human right argument section which deal with inhumane/brutal/unjust aspect of DP is, in fact, a deliberate POV forking from detonological section, a compromise which was reached to attain a stability in that article. Reviving already POV forked section into main article while leaving the rest (especially deontological section which human right section was POV forked from) is going way to far in term of NPOV violation, and destroy the POV stability achived in both article. Moreover, "facts/statistics/opinon" you have are u.s. specific, analysis produced by anti-deapth penalty advocate and "Unjust/Brutal" POV being specific to anti death penalty side. You fail to see that supporter of DP do not see "error" in judicial system to discredit DP as a valid institution in itself. Whether you agree with this POV is irrelevant. Given the current state of material in your possession, "wrongful execution" belong to either Capital punishment in the United States or Capital punishment debate but not "yet" in this article. Come back with international rather than domestic statistics and analysis produced by non partisan groups. Then feel free to revive "Wrongfull execution" section. But make sure "brutal" "unjust" "inhumane" are left in "Debate" article. Given that reliable statistics (not examples) of execution for crime a person didn't commit is impossible to come by, I would recommend that your quest for "wrongful execution" concentrate on "execution of political dicidents", which might have more reliable and impartial statistics. FWBOarticle

Neutrality dispute

Issues brought up by 208.54.15.1. Seems to me that death is inherently irrevocable and therefore redundant. The addition of redundant wording is likely placed to emphasize a POV. Wrongful execution rate is relevant, but that is part of the debate. Another perspective is that of convicts who are in prison who have killed other inmates, or those that have been released and killed again. So a "measure of injustice" should be balanced to reflect these points. Again this is part of the controversy and should be in the debate section so that both sides can be presented. Deterrence statistics is also a debate topic since some researchers have found a deterence effect while others have not. Obviously, most of these studies are biased themselves. Just look at prodeathpenalty.com which states that there is a deterrence effect and then look at DPIC.org which states that there is not. Traditional christian perspective can also be included. A reference to the Pope's opposition to capital punishment can be included since the Roman Catholic Church is an organized religion with a stated position on capital punishment. Many other religious perspectives from the different denominations would be difficult to include since there may not be an official stance. Forking issue: the debate section is much more complex than the article and would overshadow it--also the debate section the way it is structured is inherently POV. The issues facing capital punishment are addressed on the bullet points of the DPIC.org and prodeathpenalty.com IMO the debate section on this page needs to be removed since the POV edits are constant. The "wrongful execution rate" measuring "injustice," "brutality," and "inhumanity" already sounds like a POV argument. As stated previously, the fact that countries like the U.S. continues to release convicts who have killed in the past who eventually kill again can also be a measure of "injustice" and "inhumanity" and not just your perspective of injustice. The use of "execution" over "killing" is logical. Read any newspaper in reference to an execution and they will state "Texas executed John Smith" etc. Obviously you have a lot of POV issues if you are trying to change the wording of "execution" to "killing". The article has had "execution" in the first sentence for the last 6 months! —This unsigned comment was added by Crzyfrd (talk • contribs) .

This is a complicated subject, with a long history. Nobody expects articles on these sorts of historical, ethical, and detailed legal topics to be short. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the article is too big, a better split than general/debate needs to be found, because the elements of the debate permiate the entire general issue, and general aspects are heavily involved in the debate. The wrongful execution rate is an important general aspect, in addition to being part of the debate. It is all too easy to say something you don't like is merely part of the debate, instead of addressing it directly, especially when there is no counter-argument forthcoming. It seems to me that the fact that the wrongful execution and wrongful conviction rates are a measure of injustice, brutality, and inhumanity is obvious from first principles, and some people say that is a biased classification even when they know that it is obvious. What makes people lie so blatantly? Why do people support killing when they know that the wrong people are getting killed? Is there any evidence that the wrongful execution rate is not a measure of injustice, brutality, or inhumanity? Those words have objective definitions, and the rate of wrongful executions meets them all. The word execution is ambigious, and a euphamism, or weasel word, for killing. We are supposed to be writing in plain language, not weasel words. --James S. 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I laugh... this is almost comical. I love how James writes the "wrongful EXECUTION rate" then later states that execution is AMBIGUOUS!!! What a retard! The anti-death penalty pages use "execution" but he wants only his POV presented. What a f%&king idiot. This guy does not have common sense and is so blatantly biased its just a laugh to watch. ER MD 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. See WP:CIVIL. --James S. 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not apologise to James. No need of profanity here. It was a laugh to watch when you kamikazed with James with your name calling. FWBOarticle

Agreed and implemented ER MD suggestion to replace "wrongful execution" with "wrongful killing." --James S. 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This way, we can use "execution" for the state-sanctioned form, and agree that when the wrong person was executed, they were accidentally killed, and not properly executed, after the fact, right? --James S. 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)