This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Capital punishment article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Capital punishment was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about capital punishment. Any such comments
may be removed or
refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about capital punishment at the
Reference desk.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Opposed ....as per many 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.
ISBN978-0-231-53811-4.Moxy🍁
00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
ISBN978-0-19-026407-9. Moxy🍁
01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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) buidhe01:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
Support. It's the COMMONNAME, as has been shown, and per common sense. Any argument that there is some kind of difference between the two terms is not following common usage in reliable sources or this article. Dictionaries list them as synonyms of one another. --
Jfhutson (
talk)
18:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Oppose: They are different things. Death penalty is capital punishment's application, whereas capital punishment (the word punishment is in noun form) refers to the legal concept itself. The latter is what the article is about.
UmbrellaTheLeef (
talk)
00:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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 rodclarification needed which was common throughout the Tang dynasty especially in cases of gross corruption.
found a couple sources that would help with clarification.
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?
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
Edit semi-protected}} template. This is not meant to be a complete list (which would include over 100 countries and be unreadable), it is just a few notable examples. Its unclear what the addition of Syria would clarify.
Jamedeus (
talk)
20:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is 27 out states in America that that still have death penalty which is over half of the country so to say that most states have abolished it is not factually correct
81.108.217.142 (
talk)
02:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The sentence says "the Americas" (as in North and South America), not "America" (as in the United States of America), and so means "states" as in sovereign states (countries), not states as in divisions within a country. I've changed "states" in that sentence to "countries" to make sure there is no confusion.
Tollens (
talk)
02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems incomprehensible to me why the USA (as one of the biggest and most important country in the world) ist not mentioned in the exemplary listing of retentionist countries but much smaller countries like Singapore or Taiwan are. Any rationale for that?
It gets added and then removed then added back and then removed again...... it's an embarrassment and some can't handle it. Will ask for some other opinions on best way to handle it. Moxy🍁
22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. The US should definitely be there. Before non-retentionist countries agree to extradite someone to the US for what the US regards as a capital offense, they typically require a guarantee that the prosecutor will not seek the death penalty. Note that the US is an outlier among the wealthy countries.
NightHeron (
talk)
00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If we have consensus, then we have consensus. The only thing I would note is that the US and Japan are listed as retentionist countries in the first sentence in the paragraph, so one could argue it's duplicative/implied.
Alyo(
chat·
edits)13:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the list comes right after mentioning that 60% of the world's population lives in retentionist countries, the list should include more of the large-population countries (including the US and Japan) and perhaps fewer of the smaller-population countries such as Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan (these each have <40 million population).
NightHeron (
talk)
14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting my caveat about the first sentence, I agree and certainly would add in the US. It might be worth keeping some of the smaller countries who have had particularly noteworthy public debates about their death penalty use (e.g.,
Singapore[1] and
Saudi).
Alyo(
chat·
edits)15:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. I'd suggest beginning with the largest by population size, in order (maybe no need to make that explicit, even though
WP:BLUE would apply): China, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria ...
NebY (
talk)
16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply