Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 5

Image help

What does the signature on this image say?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like George Bell Swift (Geo. B. Swift), who was Mayor of Chicago at one point. It looks as though that picture should be in the public domain, so it may make a nice addition to the Wikipedia article, if you (or anyone) would care to copy, crop, and upload it. I'm not sure what the top line reads, however. --Jayron32 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Yours truly", I think. Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you say it, it does look like that. --Jayron32 02:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Link: Declining number of new wikipedia editors

I recently read something on wiki about like it's getting harder to get into wikipedia community, like the number of new editor come back after 1 edit keep reducing since 2007. Can anyone give me a link to that news or whatever you call it?Trongphu (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This page on Mediawiki discusses the declining number of editors. It mentions "the decrease in retention rate of new editors". There are various links to other reports and graphs, some of which may be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also changed the title of this question from "Link" to something more meaningful, as Ref Desk rules say you should have a descriptive title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's unofficial newspaper is called the Wikipedia Signpost. The most recent coverage of this issue (I think) is here. It has a link to previous coverage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is of note though that the number of people who have made edits since 2007 has skyrocketed.[1] So it's not clear to me whether it's a real function of retainability, or whether it's a function of increased drive-by editing. If the number of active editors starts drastically decreasing, that seems to me like more of a long-term problem than new editor retentions. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should also consider that there is simply less to edit, since most, if not all, main topics are already covered. Quest09 (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

But there's a difference between editing and adding. The vast majority of articles, even those on "main topics", could use a lot of love and effort. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you monitor new articles, and recent edits by new editors, you will find that many new editors add vanity or spam articles about their garage band or company which do not come close to satisfying the notability standard for organizations, or autobiographies which do not come close to satisfying the notability standard for people. When these edits are undone, the new editors should be let down gently but firmly. Some of them will go on to be productive editors, but others had only the purpose of getting a free advertisement. Other "new editors" are throwaway accounts created only to vandalize, adding info such as "X is fat and ugly" or "I like pie" to articles. They get blocked after a few edits, and go away for 24 hours, until they can create a new throwaway account. Many "Lost new editors" are likely the same vandal represented by a dozen different throwaway accounts. Edison (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Failed industries

We keep hearing about not just manufacturers folding but the sectors they represent folding and moving to China. Is there a list of such sectors such as the one that represented the manufacture of tank bearings and more recently the one that represents solar cell manufacture to name only two? --DeeperQA (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There may be fewer companies but the U.S. still makes solar panels[2] 75.41.110.200 Also notice "United States trade representative’s office, said on Thursday that the agency’s investigation continued into whether other Chinese green energy policies might violate W.T.O. rules." [3] (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think entire major sectors are folding, the businesses that are most efficient, and the one's with niche markets can survive the competition. Also the US is putting tariffs on goods coming from China like steel and rubber tires to try to keep US manufacturers in the US. The US may pretend to be pro-free trade but that's only that others don't put up tariffs against them, the US will still try to defend their major industries through tariffs and subsidies. Public awareness (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is such a thing as a reciprocal trade policy (no article ?), where you have free trade with those nations who trade fairly with you, but not with those who do things like keeping their currency artificially low so they can undercut you on prices. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Trade pact, and I didn't just mean they put Tariffs on China, most developed nations are demanding free access to the developing world's raw materials, but tariffing manufactered goods. One I know of is chocolate source, zero to low tariffs on cocoa coming into north america/europe, high tariffs on chocolate bars coming into NA/Europe. The chocolate bar industry, and many more, would leave the developed world to a variety of nations if not for the strong protectionism that has existed for centuries. Public awareness (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

One industry that seems to be gone from the US is television manufacturing. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How Many Delegates in the 2012 Republican Primary?

How many delegates will there be in the 2012 republican national convention and how many are from each state (or are superdelegates)? Are numbers available for the Democratic 2016 primary? If not, what were the numbers in 2008? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article Republican National Convention provides numbers that you can use to calculate the number of different types of delegates at any Republican national convention. The Democratic rules for delegate selection appear to be complex, yet too vague to calculate precise numbers of delegates from each state or category, so I don't think we can predict the numbers for the 2016 convention. Our article 2008 Democratic National Convention states that there were 4,419 delegates to that convention. Marco polo (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the Republicans don't use superdelegates. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Warren Harding in the KKK?

Was Warren G. Harding really a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could explain why the part of the article that says:

Also, in his 1987 book The Fiery Cross, historian Wyn Craig Wade suggested that President Harding had ties with the Ku Klux Klan, perhaps having been inducted into the organization in a private White House ceremony. Evidence included the taped testimony of one of the members of the alleged induction team; however, evidence beyond that is scanty. Other historians generally dismiss these stories.[259]

along with linked ref [4], and the much longer section Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics#Warren G. Harding easily found via a search (now linked from the WGH article) aren't sufficient to answer your question.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because they examine the probability that he was in the KKK. Also, in middle school English class, we were taught a lesson saying that the second KKK included among its members "American president Warren Harding." Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Um you do realise this isn't middle school so in many cases, examining probability or giving a non definite answer is the best answer right? BTW all 3 links I provided say or in the first case strongly imply something along the lines it's very/ unlikely so they don't just 'examine probability' but draw (or imply in the first case) the best conclusion based on the evidence. In any case, it's rather clear if you for some reason you really want a definite answer the best answer is no, although if you were unable to draw that simple conclusion from the info provided the RD may not be the best place for you. I'm not sure the relevance of some half remembered school lesson without any evidence, particularly since we have references which do discuss the evidence (and are clearly referring to the Second KKK). If you feel you have been mislead by your middle school, feel free to take it up with your teachers and/or other associated parties. Although sorry to break this to you, but a lot of what you learnt in middle school was oversimplified and downright wrong in some cases, and some may have been close to the truth at the time but no longer. And it's often not a good idea to take too many history lessons from English classes anyway. Now if there was actually some evidence in these English lessons that isn't discussed in the references, this is what I was referring to when I said you need to provide more info.... Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the truth value of the proposition Warren Harding was in the Ku Klux Klan can change. Unless you're talking to someone who was in middle school when he hadn't yet joined, and then he joined later. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether he did, or did not, join the KKK. The question is whether we today can be certain of that fact. So, while it is definitely either a true or a false statement, our confidence in said fact isn't 100%. I am sure that is all Nil is saying, not that there is a logical inconsistency, just that this isn't the sort of thing where our understanding is 100% reliable, which is why there is a bit of a "hedge" on this. --Jayron32 04:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My point is that, if it was wrong, it was always wrong, even if there was a time at which it might have been a justifiable claim and is no longer. --Trovatore (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if it was right, it was always right. The question is not the statement's rightness or wrongness, it is our confidence in its rightness or wrongness. --Jayron32 05:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't the question. Nil said "some may have been close to the truth at the time but no longer". That can't be read as being about confidence. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was discussing the reliability of what was learnt in middle school, I was intending to speak generally since the problems with the reliability of what was learnt is likely to extend far beyond one certain fact. And if for some reason you hold on to one certain fact you learnt in middle school despite the lack of any remembered evidence and plenty of evidence to the contrary, it seems likely you don't appreciate a lot of what you learnt should be considered with caution for a number of reasons I mentioned (and yes many reasons I didn't really mention e.g. the lag between current knowledge and what is taught at a low level). I wasn't intending to solely refer to WH. Depending on when and where you went to middle school there are likely to be some things which you learnt which may have been true (or close to it) at the time but are no longer true. Even in the case of WH, there are obvious possibilities where this could have applied. For example, if were taught no one has ever came forward saying they were present at any membership ceremony, it seems this would have been true pre 1985 but is no longer true. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in middle school from 2008-2010. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully then you remember what evidence, if any, was presented for this alleged membership. If there was none, then as I said given what you've learnt from the above sources the most logical conclusion appears to me to be what you learnt is very likely wrong. I guess you're still learning that in some cases the best answer may not be a clear cut yes or no (or whatever) but that is often the way the RD operates. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

this article from The Straight Dope covers the topic well. APL (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's what's linked to in our article and what I linked to above. However it doesn't give a straight yes or no answer which apparently isn't or wasn't sufficient for the OP. It also doesn't discuss middle school lessons the OP had which I guess also makes or made it insufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an ass

When was the phrase of "being an ass" as a derogator term first used? Is there further meanings on this term?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The OED's first citation for "Ass" in the sense "An ignorant fellow, a perverse fool, a conceited dolt" is from 1578. Note that this is a transfer of meaning from "ass" = "donkey". The American "ass" = "buttocks" (a variation of "arse", the usual form in Britain) the OED dates only to 1860. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymonline goes further. "Being an ass" is derived from the original meaning of "ass" as "donkey". They have been traditionally depicted as stupid, plodding, and clumsy.

The fifth proposition in Euclid's Elements was colloquially known as pons asinorum, "The Bridge of Asses", by medieval students. Purportedly because if you didn't get it, you just proved yourself to be an idiot and shouldn't continue further on with your studies. Referring to the theorem as such was first recorded in English from a 1780 epigram, by someone who apparently disliked geometry a lot. :P Recorded in John Murray's OED (c. late 1800s to early 1900s):

If this be rightly called the bridge of asses, He's not the fool that sticks but he that passes

Émile Littré also recorded the phrase referring to the theorem in his Dictionnaire de la langue française (c. 1863) as pont aux ânes. Other names for the theorem also makes it pretty clear that 'ass' in this case was derogatory for 'stupid' (Roger Bacon, c. 1250, mentioned it as Elefuga, id est, fuga miserorum - "Elefuga, it is the flight of the miserable"). See [5]. The phrase itself has become synonymous to a 'test of knowledge' in modern usage.

An 1838 periodical The Sportsman also has a pun-ridden (that's a pun too) humorous article on The Ass Race by the British humorist and poet Thomas Hood. It has plenty of allusions to the derogatory meanings of ass in British English. It also mentions the pons asinorum in passing (as a requirement for the said race, LOL).

An important thing to note here is that the ass in this case refers only to the British meaning of "donkey". It had nothing to do with the meaning of ass as "buttocks" as that was an American corruption of British "arse", which has a very different origin. Dropping the r in rs clusters in American English can also be seen in Horse -> Hoss, though it never gained formal recognition.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another medieval example is Buridan's ass, although I don't know if the ass is supposed to be particularly dumb in that case. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Lewis and Short and Liddell & Scott have numerous examples of "asinus" and "onos" meaning a stupid person in Latin and Greek. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess Balaam probably wished his ass had been a bit more ass-like. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that "ass" started as a euphemism for "arse" in the U.S., much as people may use "witch" for "bitch." Over time, people may have forgotten the originally word, and "ass" became the profanity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue has to do with rhotic and non-rhotic dialects. Compare passel, for example. I think some people both in Britain and in New England would pronounce "arse" as "ass" (but with an a as in father). Note that 'horse's ass" has a nicer sound to it when you think of it as "an 'o[r]se's a[r]se"! Wnt (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a certain habit of removing "r" in jocular/dialect forms ("cuss" for "curse", "bust" for "burst", "hoss" for "horse" etc.) which had nothing to do with general r-dropping... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks fellows for all the answers.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment in the US

Why does the US still use capital punishment when the only other countries that keep it are totalitarian regimes? --76.211.90.74 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Get out the soap box. Oh, wait, this is the Ref Desk, rather than a debating society or a rant-fest. At the top of this page it says "Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Edison (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all the states have the death penalty; neither does the nation's capital Washington DC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jeanne: is that an answer to the question? Anyway, OP, your supposition is wrong: India is not totalitarian, and they do execute people there. Quest09 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. India is so corrupt that whoever can pay the largest bribes can do whatever they want. People who can't afford paying bribes are oppressed constantly. --76.211.90.74 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how that equates to being in a totalitarian regime. India might be a corrupt state, however. Quest09 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The US is tough on crime. The only way that some people learn their lesson, and never do it again, is by executing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.108.128 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend you watch Bowling for Columbine for a least a partial explanation of American bloodthirst and racism.Greg Bard (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose a more accurate phrasing would be: Why does the US still use capital punishment when all other democratic countries have abolished it? --76.211.90.74 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A few sketches towards answers: 1. The US doesn't actually care a whole lot about international norms most of the time. Especially with regards to Europe. 2. Americans are obsessed with crime and on the whole support extremely harsh punishment regimes. 3. There have been many challenges to capital punishment in the US over the last century; some have been more successful than others. There may come a point in the next century when it is abolished (as much for fiscal reasons as well as anything to do with concerns over ethics, suffering, or racism). But it probably won't have to do with whatever other nations do, in part because the US is usually unwilling to acknowledge that most other democratic nations have much to tell them about crime. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There might come a point in this century too, when capital punishment is abolished. The US is executing less and less each year and many US states do not execute at all. Quest09 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant "next" in the sense of "in the next 100 years from today" rather than "the 100 years after the next 100 years." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The US also incarcerates many more people, which is evidence towards a different attitude towards crime. Britain, with similar views on some other things, is nowhere close. The US also has much higher homicide and I think other crime rates – the question is whether that's due to or despite such measures. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the US incarcerates more than European countries, but it obviously also has more crimes, I don't know how both values relate, but the incarceration could be more or less proportional to crime. Quest09 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, depending on sentencing standards: If the U.S. incarcerates more people, for longer times, then its incarceration rate will go up even if the crime rate does not. --Jayron32 22:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether indeed it happens (I have no doubt that's plausible). Is it really disproportionate to the crime rate and severity of crimes? If yes, for how much? Quest09 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The US (i.e the "Land of the Free") is 'pegged to the upper end' as far as incarceration rates. (link) We have more people in prison than any nation in the history of the world. With an incarceration rate this high, it is likely actual crime rates have little influence, and more likely it is a product of the political/cultural environment.Greg Bard (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Prison–industrial complex is well studied phenomenon. The many publications referenced in our article can help you understand the issue better. In short, the privatized prison system is a hugely lucrative industry with billions in profits every year. A portion of those profits are funneled back into Washington via lobby groups to impose longer mandatory sentencing and higher conviction rates, thus creating a positive feedback loop. Anonymous.translator (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, the incarcerated/100,000 is higher, but the murders/100,000 is also higher. Here some facts: US: 715/100,000 incarcerated, 5/100,000 murders; Germany 96/100,000 incarcerate 0,86/100,000 murders. That makes about 40% higher incarceration in the US. So, it's not much higher like many people think. It's more like you get 28 years in the US vs. 20 in Germany. Quest09 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. According to Capital punishment, both Taiwan and Japan executed people in 2010.

Taiwan is a military dictatorship under the GMD. Japan does a better job at pretending to be democratic, but it's basically a de facto single-party state. Right now is only the second time since Japan became a "democracy" that the (far-right) LDP hasn't been in control, and thanks to the earthquake, the DPJ will probably lose the next election. --76.211.90.74 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's important to recognize that most U.S. executions happen in a few states, notably Texas. The federal government itself has only executed a few people in the past few decades. Why do those states maintain capital punishment? The main reason is because most people who live there like it that way, at least according to opinion polls. A politician who opposes capital punishment may be accused of being "soft on crime," while a politician who supports capital punishment may call himself "tough on crime." A lot of people in other countries support capital punishment as well, or at least did at the time of its prohibition, so perhaps a better question is why was it banned elsewhere. Maybe the answer to that is that the political systems of other countries make it easier for enlightened elites, or elites who consider themselves enlightened anyway, to ignore populist sentiment. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since Texas was mentioned, I feel obliged to make a comment. Firstly, I think Human justice is imperfect and will never be able to solve the problem of crime. That being said, someone who feels that being a criminal is a legitimate career path has taken a wrong turn somewhere. It is neither systemic, nor individual: the problem is metaphysical. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"They’re trying to push a bill right now in the Texas legislature that’ll speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there are more than three credible eye witnesses. If more than three people saw you do what you did, you don’t sit on death row for fifteen years, you go straight to the front of the line.

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state is putting in an express lane." - Ron White

In my opinion the Gini coefficient gives much of the explanation. In egalitarian countries, the mere threat of losing one's freedom for a prolonged period is a powerful deterrent. But when the poor are in desperate circumstances, prisons need to be terrible and dangerous in order to seem like they have deterrent value. But if the punishment for ordinary crimes is this terrible, what is left to deter the murder of policemen, security guards, and witnesses? Wnt (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that theory is that prisons in those "enlightened" nations don't seem any worse than freedom there. Heck, I'd like to go to prisons in some of those places, so who do I have to kill ? StuRat (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Provided that everyone, including the poor, feels safe and confident of basic essentials while living outside the prison, then we know that being confined will be a real punishment for them. Wnt (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. And I bet they are allowed out for any important events, anyway. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment seems to be practiced in several democracies. Perhaps what you meant is that it's not practiced in European nations. That's true, except for Belarus, but seems to contain a cultural prejudice that "non-Europeans are barbarians".

Also note that capital punishment is rare in the US, and pretty much everywhere else, except perhaps in China and maybe Iran: Capital_punishment#Global_distribution. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All this hypocrisy I am seeing from some of the editors here is making me sick. The civilised Europeans and the liberals all love to attack the US for having the death penalty, which exists in order to remove dangerous killers from society and spare the tax payer from having to pay for the f..ker's three meals a day. Yet, whenever there's child killed or a killer gets house arrest at a luxurious condo by the sea (I live in Italy), the ordinary man and woman in the street cries out for the death penalty to be returned! A few things to reflect upon: Stoning a woman for adultery IS barbaric, executing a serial killer who deprived innocent people THEIR right to live is doing a service to society.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But it's never the guy with the villa by the sea who draws the death penalty. It's the guy with an 80 IQ and a court-appointed lawyer with a $500 expense budget who fell asleep during the trial. Which is not ideologically sound policy, but is consistent with the notion that it is the people with particularly bad living conditions to start with who need to be threatened with the most barbaric punishments. Wnt (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your rationale is that executions are more often than not based on public sentiment. Trial by hysteria. Is the mob with the pitchforks demanding blood in a better position to decide guilt? See wrongful execution for "child killers" who turned out to not have killed the child at all, but by then it was already too late.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn has a valid point here: Europeans are not always against the death penalty. When a child gets abducted, raped and murdered, you'll find plenty of Europeans claiming to the return of the death penalty. Of course, you won't change the laws in the heat of the circumstances. Quest09 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, neither you nor Jeanne have a valid point. "Europeans" is not some monolithic monstrosity with one opinion that changes back and forth. In most of Europe there is a strong societal consensus against the death penalty. That does not preclude the minority outside the consensus to kick up a stink every now and then, especially if an opportunity for populists arguments arises. Neither the majority nor the minority is inconsistent or hypocritical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Jeanne's argument is based on a common fallacy. When someone is executed, unfairly or not, some people make a fuss about the existence of the death penalty. When a child is killed horribly, or whatever, some people call for its return. But they are not the same people - and there is therefore no justification for calling any of them "hypocritical". Most people in the world never publicise their views either way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@Stephan: I didn't say Europeans are a block with one opinion. So, don't pretend that someone said something that he didn't say. Jeanne pointed to the fact that they are not a block. She was criticizing hypocrisy here at the RD, from some editors. She was just saying that is not exactly right to say that Europeans are against the death penalty. Many of them are not against it. She's was actually attacking a fallacy: civilized Europeans vs. brutal Americans. In Germany they executed people until 1989. So, it's not a question of why the US is so different. It's not. Quest09 (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, West Germany abolished the death penalty with the Grundgesetz in 1949, the GDR abolished it officially in 1987, and, apparently, last executed someone in 1981. So no, even if you include the remnants of cold war dictatorships, people were not executed in Germany until 1989. More to the point, I thought it was clear to all involved that "Europe" in this context referred to modern European democracies, and not to e.g. Stalin era communist regimes or Franco's Spain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"people were not executed in Germany until 1989" ? You mean they were not executed AFTER 1981 ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He means, "It is not the case that people continued to be executed in Germany until 1989". There's an unfortunate ambiguity in his sentence that makes it sound like he means Germany didn't start executing people until 1989, but clearly that isn't what he meant. Pais (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing evidence of hypocrisy among RD editors. Our article defines hypocrisy as "the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, ideals, thoughts, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have". What editors in this thread have pretended to have beliefs, opinions, etc., about the death penalty that they don't actually have? Pais (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's only hypocrisy if you know you are wrong, but the editors don't know that the US is not much harder on crime than the Europeans, and historically it was not much harder. The US simply had and has more crime. It's simply false information and I cannot prove that they don't really believe in that, even if there is plenty of reason not to treat a group of people like a block. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just that the U.S. doesn't care what other countries think about the death penalty; the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, tacitly showed that they don't care what the U.S. Constitution says either. Despite the fact that capital punishment is blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, the court decided that Americans' enjoyment of the spectacle of state-sponsored murder is more important than constitutionality. Pais (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, the "fact" that the U.S. doesn't care what other countries think about the death penalty is largely irrelevant to the OP's question. The OP was simply making the comparison. The fact that so many editors are determined to tell us the former "fact" probably says more about their feelings about those strange foreigners than the USA's real reasons for its use of capital punishment. The question is still a valid one whatever Americans think of foreigners. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the US constitution is against the death penalty: it's against cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is not unusual, is it? Quest09 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither were the other punishments that the 8th amendment has been held to prohibit, before it was held to prohibit them. Pais (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe those were usual, but cruel. A punishment must be cruel and unusual to be banned. Quest09 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't think killing someone is cruel?? Pais (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But the US constitution is against cruel AND unusual punishment. A punishment has to be both to be against the constitution. Quest09 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the application of the 8th amendment to such once-usual punishments as "drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive, or disemboweling" was incorrect? Pais (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's cruel and unusual, applying the 8th is right here. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Hanged, drawn and quartered that suggests it was used in the US anyway, although maybe I overlooked something? The usual execution method in those days was simple hanging, which, if done correctly, was a pretty quick death, and probably less cruel than electrocution. Lethal injection doesn't qualify as "cruel". Cruelty involves torture or "dying a slow death". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is putting down an animal considered cruel? Maybe if you draw and quarter it. But a lethal injection of an animal is a mercy killing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment is not unconstitutional in the US. In fact, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically allows for it in its text. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? Not in the text quoted at the article you linked to. Pais (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 'nor be deprived of life', liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

A capital crime is one for which you stand to lose your head, i.e. to be put to death. And it says you cannot be deprived of life "without due process". Hence, with due process, you can be deprived of life. That seems clear enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement "a person may not be deprived of life without due process" does not logically entail "a person may be deprived of life with due process". Pais (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly does. Otherwise it would say that you can't be deprived of life, period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It gives one context in which a person may not be deprived of life. It does not exclude the possibility of other contexts in which a person may not be deprived of life. Pais (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your logic does not make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sure it does. If I state a limitation on something, it does not logically imply that the stated limitation is the only limitation. If a restaurant owner puts up a sign saying "No smoking in this restaurant", that does not mean smoking is allowed everywhere else in the world except in that restaurant. Pais (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Pais logic is entirely sound. The sentence in question talks only about what can happen without due process. It is entirely neutral on what may happen with due process of the law. By your (flawed) argument, the fact that the US Constitution states that nobody shall "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" means that they can be put "in jeopardy of limb" once, i.e. that chopping off someones hand or leg is sanctioned by the constitution (as long as it's only once per offense, and with due process). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law" should prohibit killing in self-defense and in war. Pais (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment in the 18th century would have been hanging, drawing and quartering, beheading, boiling in a pot or burning at the stake. The death penalty in general wouldn't have been deemed so. The majority of voters in the states which have the death penalty support it's use and most likely care not a whit about outside opinion. My home state of California, despite its freaky, liberal veneer has it and its former Austrian-born governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did not hesiate to apply it when the situation arose. I don't believe all Europeans are against the death penalty but their own governments are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A significant problem with the death penalty in the US is not its existence, but its arbitrary application (or lack thereof). One of the more blatant cases was Susan Smith of South Carolina, who drowned her two sons by sending them into a lake, locked in a car. Yet no death penalty for that white woman. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What you believe about "all Europeans" is beside the point - and in case you hadn't noticed, we generally elect our governments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't mind that Europeans elect their governments do you?Quest09 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So do Americans, and many Americans oppose the death penalty for various reasons. It's just that the "cruel and unusual punishment" argument is off the mark. The "capricious and arbitrary" application of it, in seeming violation of the 14th amendment, has helped to erode it state-by-state, and it will likely disappear eventually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Either that, or it will start being applied in a non-capricious and non-arbitrary way, so that everyone from jaywalkers to serial killers can be assured of being executed by "humane" (snicker) means like lethal injection. Pais (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no death penalty for jaywalking, other than the risk of getting run over. So do you claim that putting down animals via lethal injectionis also "cruel"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, no. But if the alternative to abolishing the death penalty is applying it in a non-capricious and non-arbitrary manner, it may be someday. And I don't think the Bill of Rights applies to animals. Pais (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the bill of rights, I'm asking about the term "cruel", which you seem to misunderstand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose then it depends on the circumstances. If the animal is in incurable pain, then putting it down by lethal injection less cruel than the alternative of leaving it alive. But since most victims of the death penalty are not in incurable pain at the time of their execution, the comparison is invalid. Pais (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Then your definition of "cruel" makes no sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Killing someone is more cruel than leaving them alive, unless leaving them alive means leaving them in incurable pain. But the law applies differently to humans and animals anyway, since in most jurisdictions (in the U.S. anyway) euthanizing a human being who's in incurable pain is illegal. Does that mean cruelty to humans is legal in those jurisdictions? Pais (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is that execution is cruel; however, the law says differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the Supreme Court has said differently. And it has happened before that the Supreme Court has reversed earlier rulings, when it has come to realize that its previous interpretation of the Constitution was mistaken. Pais (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has never declared executions to be "cruel and unusual punishment". If they had, no states would be allowed to do executions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I know they haven't (or rather, they have, but they later reversed themselves). You said, "Your argument is that execution is cruel; however, the law says differently", and I responded that it's the Supreme Court, not the law, that disagrees that execution is cruel. Pais (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Until or if the high court decides that executions are cruel and unusual punishment, under the law they ain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon further article-reading, I've discovered that as recently as 2005, the Supreme Court has decided capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment, but only for people who were under 18 at the time the crime was committed. How they intend to jibe that with the Equal Protection Clause is a mystery to me, though it seems to be consistent with a more general attitude in Western society that adults are second-class citizens compared to children. Pais (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the current caselaw on the equal protection clause has diferent levels of scruitiny dependent on what is the ddistinction being drawn. Majority vs Minority would be tested under rational basis review, which is a quite easy standard to meet. Also, keep in mind that because of Stare Decicis, the decisions of the Supreme Court are a binding source of law, not just a secondary authority. The Supreme Court has decided that execution is not per se creul and unusual, so as of now, that's what the law is, like it or not. It is true that precedents can be overturned, but they are the exception, not the rule, and this is only done in circumstances in which there have been important legal developments or other relevent changes to justify reopening the issue and then coming to a new decision. Judges are not free to reopen a case just because they don't like it. (By the way, I would like to go on the record to say that I am against capital punishment. I think that it is an inherently immoral, but I also believe that the constitution permits it, just like slaverey was constitutional before the 13th ammendment. Despicable? Yes. Unconstitutional? No.) Rabuve (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to take exception to one editor's anti-American sneer about "land of the free". Being a land of freedom of choice, the concept is that people choose to commit crimes, and by extension, choose their eventual punishment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just as the Geschwister Scholl chose to commit crimes and chose their eventual punishment. Pais (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which they obviously did. They chose to become martyrs. In Nazi Germany, yet. A good contrast is that character in Norway, who committed mass murder knowing that, at worst, the state would give him free room and board for the rest of his life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "that character in Norway": before the fact, he must have known (and has apparently stated) that he would more likely than not be killed by the police when they appeared at the site, so it is not clear that (a threat of) capital punishment would have changed things. Jørgen (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment is neither a deterrent nor really actual "punishment" - it's permanent removal from society, to a place they aren't going to escape from and cause further harm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would call Bugs interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to be so wildly stretched as to not possibly be valid by any reasonable person. By his logic a law permitting for the chopping of of arms or legs as punishment would also be valid. Isn't that right Bugs?! I don't see how you would escape that consistently. The reality is that capital punishment is clearly unconstitutional under the "cruel and unusual" clause. It is recognized as constitutional by our Supreme Court currently, however that is the "reality" according to them. Neither I, nor any decent American recognizes that it a reality that it is okay for our government to kill as a punitive measure. Nothing in the text expressly permits capital punishment. It is only a function of wild interpretation. If we permit wild interpretations, then we (and by "we" I mean us reasonable, decent people) can also call any absurd and immoral policy "constitutional." We cannot, so therefore it's not constitutional. Greg Bard (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You certainly mean Eight Amendment, which is the one dealing with cruel and unusual punishment, don't you? Anyway, I have no doubt that many, many people don't see the death penalty to be in contradiction to the US constitution. Quest09 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Bugs was interpreting the Fifth Amendment and that is what I was commenting on. My appeal to the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual" clause supports my conclusion. Because while Bugs appeals to the legal principle that the Fifth Amendment contains an exception that proves that there exists some rule of which it is an exception, the Fifth Amendment isn't about punishment. The Eighth Amendment is about punishment and clearly establishes a prohibition. I don't see a reasonable interpretation that calls capital punishment non-cruel, and I don't think any other reasonable, decent person does either.Greg Bard (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't the case, Greg. If execution per se were "cruel and unusual" the Fifth Amendment would separate "life" from "liberty or property" - it would say, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime," period, "...nor be deprived of life," period, while deprivation of liberty or property would still be possible, but only through due process of law. Instead, all three things must be confiscated via due process. Your opinion that execution is per se cruel and unusual may be "reasonable, decent," but it is not shared by an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens, nor was it held by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Eighth Amendment is silent on execution, and since execution was widely practiced for a long time before and after ratification, common sense would have to agree with the Court that the death penalty is allowed under the Constitution. What the Eighth Amendment does is, at most, allow community standards to dictate what punishments are acceptable. For the record, I'd personally outlaw the death penalty on Fourteenth Amendment grounds (except where a charge of terrorism is in play, maybe) since its application is incredibly skewed and unrepresentative of the actual population of criminals.

But aside from medical considerations of the actual pain delivered by the specific method of execution, there's no objective standard by which you can claim that the death penalty is inescapably, in and of itself, cruel and unusual. Now, that moral opinion may eventually become powerful enough to justify the abolition of the death penalty nation-wide. But any claim or implication that anyone who doesn't share it is some kind of degenerate sadist is well beyond the pale of civilized discourse. And like some pro-life claims, that makes it hard for people who disagree with it to believe death penalty opponents are willing to share a democratic country with them. Moral absolutes are the fastest way to civil war. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that a lot of people (of all ideological stripes) hope and expect laws to reflect morals. There are lots of things that are morally repugnant that are nevertheless legal; not just the death penalty, but also war, adultery, divorce, Jersey Shore, and so on. And a lot of people (including me, I admit) get upset when the laws permit the government to deny its own citizens basic human rights, but all we can really do is hope that standards of decency continue to evolve. Maybe someday there'll even be a presidential candidate from a major party who's opposed to the death penalty. Pais (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything morally repugnant on war, adultery, divorce, or Jersey Shore. The last three are a legitimate individual choice, the first, if it's a case of self-defense is perfectly acceptable. Quest09 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is a legitimate individual choice, that doesn't mean it isn't morally repugnant. I find violence in self-defense (whether at the individual or the national level) immoral, because I try to follow the Sermon on the Mount in making my moral decisions; but I realize not everyone shares my views. Pais (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If a US presidential candidate took a stance against the death penalty he would fail to get elected. Simple as that. The majority of Americans want to see murderers permanently removed from society, not housed, fed, entertained and educated with their hard-earned dollars. It's a fact of life. Accept it and get over it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, many Americans seem to be happy to let some murderers get away with a slap on the wrist. Also, due to the extensive legal protections, currently it is actually more expensive to execute a person than to imprison him for life in the US, even at the abysmal standards of US prisons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Abysmal standards"!!!!! Oh dear, then we better get to work at upgrading them all to the standard of five-star hotels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one talking about 5-star hotels Jeanne, such dishonesty in debate does you no favours. DuncanHill (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How or where am I being dishonest? Perhaps a wee bit sarcastic, but dishonest?! I don't see it that way. Honestly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You implied that people describing American prison conditions as abysmal wanted to upgrade prisons to 5-star hotels. That was dishonest. It maybe that you don't feel that American prison conditions are abysmal, in which case you could have said so and said why. You didn't, you made (by implication) a false claim about those who disagree with you. DuncanHill (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when the majority of Americans were in favor of slavery, and a US president who took a stance against it would have failed to get elected too. Fortunately, people didn't just "accept it and get over it", they worked to change people's minds and to show how thoroughly evil an institution it was. Someday, the American people will enter the 20th century and come to the same realization about the death penalty too. One thing that annoys me about the Roman Catholic Church is that even though it is equally opposed to abortion and the death penalty, its hierarchy in the United States only makes an issue out of abortion. The bishops tell the priests to tell their congregations not to vote for any candidate who supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, but never say anything about voting against candidates who support the death penalty. An RC woman who has an abortion can be denied Communion, but there is no such punishment for judges, jurors and executioners who impose the death penalty. Pais (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because people choose to murder, but they don't choose to be conceived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Officially, the Roman Catholic church is just as opposed to capital punishment as it is to abortion. The choice some prelates make to speak out against one but not the other is the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And what do you expect? A RC condemning abortions because it's murdering an innocent life, and condemning the death penalty, because it's murdering what? Quest09 (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The death penalty is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Executions are lawful (in states where the law permits, obviously). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But how can one be revolted by the very idea of capital punishment, but simultaneously say that abortion is a woman's right to choose? At least with capital punishment, the subject is an adult who has been found guilty of a crime they knew attracted such a punishment. But with abortion, the only possible crime involved is the abortion itself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When you kill someone convicted of murder (who may or may not actually have done it), you deny them the chance to seek redemption from god. You also destroy one of god's unique creations. Of course, if you're the sort of person who wants to kill people you'll find an excuse to justify it. But the RC church position is very clear and consistent, even though priests in the USA choose not to mention one part of it very often. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the length of the appeal process, they've got plenty of time to find redemption. The Roman Catholic Church officially opposes war, capital punishment and abortion; as well as unlawful taking of human life, obviously. But as Jack indicates, abortion is unique because the embryo or fetus has no choice in the matter. The warrior and the murderer do have a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The RC god says that you don't get to choose to end a human life - for all human life is valued by him. If you're not an RC, fine, you may believe otherwise. What was being objected to was the way in which some RC priests in the US choose to ignore certain parts of church teaching when they offer guidance to their flock on voting. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The dilemma you run into there is self-defense (as discussed in a section below here). If someone comes at you or someone else with a weapon, and you have the means to stop him but you refuse to act, you are allowing murder, and that's also sinful. So you have to look at what is the "greater sin". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion shouldn't really be dragged into this as there are those who prefer the snarling Old Testiment "eye for an eye" God while others opt for the gentler "turn the other cheek" Christian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity does not advocate allowing a murderer to have his way with you and your family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There are obviously many ways, particularly when you are referring to an early term abortion but this discussion seems to have gotten way off-topic not only for the original question but for the RD Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Turning the other cheek works for Jesus, but as a mere mortal, I am all for defending myself. Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on people, this wasn't supposed to be a general debate about the death penalty, and the original poster wasn't looking for explanations why the U.S. doesn't have the death penalty. I think I gave a good explanation with the Gini coefficient - the ordinary life of the poor sets the baseline for all other punishment statuses. I'd like to hear other ideas, though... Wnt (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)