Talk:Capital punishment

From RationalWiki

Japan has the death penalty - and while some may argue they're not "Western," I'll reply that "Western" is a construct, Japan is in the G8, builds the cars we drive and participates in the capitalist system. PFoster 22:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, and you added the word "developed", which is more appropriate than "Western" anyway. human ^bean 22:45, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I do argue that Japan is not western. "Western" may very well be a construct but in this case it is an arbitrary one - Americans may see Japan is "western" but the Japanese certainly do not consider themselves "western". Furthermore, issues like capital punishment are deeply routed in social attitudes, culture and history, and have very little to do with capitalism or who trades with who. On this map, you can see that virtually all of Asia (including democratic countries) maintains capital punishment. It makes much more sense to view Japan's use of capital punishment within this context, rather than categorising Japan with America and European countries which have approached the issue from a wholly different perspective. weaseLOId~ 19:35, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I changed it over to leave "Western" out, in favor of "developed democracies", which I think makes the point much more clearly. ħuman ^ingenuity 19:41, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I also removed the statement saying that the Catholic Church is consistently anti capital punishment. They upheld it for hundreds of years. The catechism which was cited confirms that the death penalty is 'not excluded' by church teachings as a deterrent. weaseLOId~ 20:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

As I recall, the RCC is against capital punishment - you know, "in the modern day". We'll just have to find a better source. Vatican II might be a good start. ħuman ^cabal 20:07, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia reports: "In 1995 Pope John Paul II stated that the death penalty was appropriate only when it was the only way to defend society, and the modern penal system made this option rare or nonexistent" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html PBS. Retrieved on 2008 June 12. ħuman ^speakers

And that same part is in the cite above. So I reinstated the statement. The current Pope too has many times spoken against capital punishment. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 20:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

That's funny, I thought I did it. I do remember changing the reference... I think? ħuman ^sub 20:29, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the info. I've rephrased it just slightly to reflect the subtleties, & also as the previous wording seemed to be comparing Catholics to conservatives as if they are two distinct groups. weaseLOId~ 20:32, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] barbaric

I have read this article and do somewhat object to one small part. "...which still retain this barbaric institution" does seem to have a slight insertion of POV. While the death penalty is a touchy topic, I don't think the "barbaric" term is needed. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

Explain to me what is not barbaric about it? ħuman ^woo 20:07, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

To the best of my knowledge, the death penalty is fast and nearly painless. "Barbaric" to me, would be beating the guy to death with rocks or similar crude methods. The death penalty today, for the most part, consists of

1. Hanging
2. Lethal injection
3. Electrocution
4. (only one state) firing squad (choice between that or injection.

You might note that the above are, for all but one, mostly painless, and lethal injection, the most widly administered, is almost the same procedure for putting a dog to sleep. Barbaric? I don't think so. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE! (Edit conflict!)

It's fucking barbaric to take anyone's life! The eye for an eye mentality of the death penalty - that's what's barbaric. Aargh - I could rant for hours but I won't. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 20:21, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, Javascap, how on earth do you know they're painless? ħuman ^{steadfastly refusing to drink the green Mowse-Ade} 20:26, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, putting an animal "to sleep" is euthenasia and except in the case of excess strays (what a stupid problem...) is done to relieve pain and extreme disability. Not as a "punishment". ħuman^{itarian aid} 20:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The only thing I am objecting to is the word "barbaric". I do not have a problem with this article having a lean against the death penalty. What I am seeing occuring is placing a burden of proof on something that cannot be proved. If we are on the process of barbaric, than please choose from the following situations, and tell me which is worse.

1. Guy dying in an instant from the electric chair
2. Woman dying in a pool of her own blood, pantyhose stuffed down her windpipe after being raped for half an hour?

I do not understand how this erupted into a debate on the merits on the death penalty when the only thing I objected to was just the word "barbaric"? JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

You're comparing apples and chairs: Guy being killed by the state v woman being killed by moral degenerate. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 20:41, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather see the guy (who I presume in this example committed the rape/murder?) walled into a 6 by 9 foot cell until he is ready to be interred. No cable TV, and barely adequate ("army") food. Let him suffer for a bit, too. The burden of proof you ignored above, and are ignoring again, is whether CP is "instantaneous and painless". ħuman ^{why is there a weird line through the "h" in my username?} 20:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

And ... if you're wrong, it's a bit late if the guy's 6ft under. A retrial won't do him a lot of good. Susan^{Am I the Anti christ?} 20:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The "burden of proof" you are trying to have me prove is a burden of proof that cannot be proved. Just the same, the opposite burden of proof also cannot be proved, lending a slight impasse on this particular problem. As for the problem of false accusations, that problem is becoming, due to modern technology, rarer and rarer. My question still remains unanswered, HOW did this erupt from a debate on removing "barbaric" into a debate as to if the death penalty is painful and therefore should be abolished?JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

By the way, what's the difference between beating someone to death with rocks, or beating them to death with a rope, chemicals, electrical current, or bullets? Now, if we came equipped with "reset" buttons, we'd know we were intelligently designed to be turned off if necessary... ħuman ^sap 20:55, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I asked you to back up the claim of painlessness. I could prove to you they are painful by "half killing" you by any of those methods. ħuman^{itarian aid} 20:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill,
inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler,
and hurt feelings all round.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

I am only objecting to "barbaric", a compromise to which was suggested below. Seriously, death threats are not nessecery, neither is cartoon steam erupting from my nose. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

Technically, it's only a half death threat. I suppose the other half of you would be free to go on its way. --Kels 21:12, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

hehe, template duly noted. Trouble is, most of the methods of CP are dubious in their "humanity" (vs. barbarity). If you actually analyze what the condemned experiences, it is almost always several minutes of excruciating pain at some level. The only "quick and painless" death (besides a stroke in one's sleep) is having one's head/brain "instantly" destroyed (one thinks of nuclear weapons detonated nearby). I made no threat, I hope. I only asked you to think of how those methods feel when used. I'll go into detail if you're curious. Oh, and to the templater, I think you jumped in way too early. Aren't we just enjoying ourselves discussing things we hope will never happen to us? ħuman ^troll 22:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Proposed edit

One solution would be to just remove this sentence: "The US and Japan are the only developed democracies which still retain this barbaric institution". Apart from the word "barbaric" (which I myself don't object to), it just repeats what the previous couple of sentences say (I.E. that most western democracies have abandoned capital punishment but the USA hasn't). Also, as I've outlined above, I find it rather arbitrary to mention Japan when we are not mentioning other major nations such as India and China. weaseLOId~ 20:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we do that and add a section listing where it is still practiced (sorted by "kind of government"?)? I see barbarism is raised in a later section anyway... ħuman ^{be in} 20:52, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I do agree with that idea. Shall I start banging away on South America? JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

(ed conflict) OK then. For now I've removed the contentious sentence, & added a link to Wikipedia's map of countries still using capital punishment. This is a temporary measure as we should definitely add our own countent listing major countries where it is still practiced. weaseLOId~ 21:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I am thinking we could make a subpage, something like Capital punishment/nations, which lists all the... 191(?) nations, their status on the death penalty, and their government status, divided by continent. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!

Sounds good to me. I'd also like to see what crimes the various countries inflict the ultimate sanction for. The US argument of the extreme rape/murder is one part of the "conversation", but there are countries where a woman can be stoned to death for being raped (thus made dirty?). ħuman ^{there is no cabal} 22:12, 26 August 2008 (EDT)