Talk:Hanging/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hanging. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

In Brazil, the death penalty was abolished for all crimes in 1989, and the last man executed (28 Apr 1876) was a slave named Francisco (he murdered João Evangelista de Lima and his wife Josefa Martha de Lima; City: Pilar; State: Alagoas)... Correction asked by Celio Maielo.

text implies hanging is not a form of capital punishment in the U.S. Not so, it is the default form of infliction of the death penalty in Washington State where it was used at least twice during the 80s and 90s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.113.125 (talk • contribs) .

Should discuss hanging in United States and other countries than U.K. --Daniel C. Boyer

There's a certain amount of duplication with Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. I think most content should be merged in with that article. Mintguy (T) 23:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is certainly quite anglocentric. The timeline of penalties should certainly be moved, and probably the stuff about quartering/public executions too PRB 14:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[[1]] has quite a bit of text especially on US use. It would seem a good source or reference link. --blades 17:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No sources seem to agree on when hanged should be used. I don't feel like dictionary.com is the most accurate though, so I am going to propose we use the Oxford dictionary's definition which says hanged should be used for all executions, not just those ordered by a court.

[[2]] you can see it at this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.76.38 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone deleted that section. If it is not included, under which other pre-existing heading would you classify the Higgins hanging? Another reason it was added is because so much time has passed since the Higgins hanging, it took me forever to figure how to find anything ON the incident again (who would remember the name after all this time?). The next logical place to look is under "Hanging", in particular those that are "famous". This is a common sense minor addition to aid in finding more info on the PARTICULAR event (in this case, the hanging of Higgins in Lebanon).

If you have better suggestions for aiding the future searches for the the subject of this particular now that memories of it are growing faint, I'm open to your ideas. Tokalon73 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this short paragraph bizarre, considering pretty much every method has probably been used by various terrorist groups. Not to mention there are more characteristic methods of killing people to cause terror. 83.245.172.78 22:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference used which claims hanging originated in Persia over 2500 years ago is unscholarly and unreliable. Please either provide a proper reference or omit this claim.

Atefeh Sahaaleh is an Iranian girl who was executed in Iran and not India. Please make a seperate section for Iran and move this information there. In the current format, it looks like India and not Iran executed Atefeh, causing misunderstanding. It also tarnishes the image of India.

I would have edited the article itself to reflect my following comments but couldn't due to the protection.

As it stands, the article refers to the short-drop and long-drop methods but makes no reference to the "standard drop" or "suspension" hanging. Suspension hanging involves no drop at all - the subject/victim is raised into the air by the rope around his neck. (This is the type illustrated in the Iran picture.) As I understand it, the standard drop was the type used in the U.S. from at least the middle of the 19th century.

The British Home Office produced a surprisingly detailed pamphlet on this subject in the mid-20th century with the macabre title Setting the Drop. Much material on all this can be found at this external site [3].

Strangulation issue: perhaps the most neutral term is "asphyxiation". I believe that the routine autopsies performed on persons hanged in the U.K. ordinarily gave the cause of death as "asphyxia", notwithstanding that the long-drop method was used. Wulfilia 08:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It is ironic that the law in Britain until 1808 has the death penalty for attempting suicide August 07, 2005.

---

The contention that (after the institution of hanging methods that caused severing of the spinal cord at the cervical level C1 or C2) "(Actually strangulation remained the cause of death, but as the prisoner was rendered unconscious by the drop while this was happening, this was undoubtedly a kindness to both the victim and the witnesses)" seems wrong. After the spinal cord is severed there will be no spontaneous attempt to breathe (the phrenic nerve stems from cervical roots C3, C4, C5, below the transection), and I don't think strangulation can really be said to occur in the absence of an attempt to breathe. I'm also not certain that it's correct to say the "drop" causes unconsciousness: unconsciousness probably results from brain hypoxia. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Can the page really be right when it uses "seconds", as in the record being seven *seconds* from the time a prisoner leaves his cell until death? Surely this should be seven *minutes*?

Seconds is correct. In British prisons the prisoner was kept in the "condemned cell" next to the gallows so there wasn't far to take the prisoner. In the case of James Inglis it's probably not correct to say he was "pronounced dead" in 7 seconds, but it is recorded that he was very eager for his execution to take place, and practically put the noose around his own neck; the drop did take place that quickly. The British judicial system didn't believe in delaying executions for an unconscionable period as happens now in the US -- if you take a look at murderfile.net you'll see that for most of the period of the death penalty in the 20th century, executions usually took place between 3 and 7 weeks after the trial (the main exceptions being the executions at Shepton Mallet in 1943-1945, which were of US military personnel, where the execution was sometimes delayed for several months). -- Arwel 18:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

There appears to be a fair bit of information about asphyxiation vs spinal damage, but little or none (mention) of the effects, causes etc of interrupting blood circulation.

I think that's because most hangings induce death by asphyxia, one way or another. I know of no postmortem findings attributing a hanging death to circulatory interruption. (I don't mean there aren't any, just that it is less common.) Wulfilia 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

While I was a medical student we were taught at the forensic department that the mechanism of death in hanging is neither bloackage of the airway passages or (usually) damage of the phrenic nerve . The obstruction of the interior jugular veins which are superficial enough requires little effort and is the most usual meachanism of death in hanging. The blockage of the venous drainage of the brain leads to cerebral oedema and reduces cerebral perfusion rate (thus cerebral hypoxia and death). The other mechanisms (the obstruction of the airway or the deeper possitioned carotids) are also possible but require far more force. (There are many instances of suicides that the victims' feet actually touched the ground and I know one incident where the suicide was lying having only his head hanging).

So I suggest reform of this article's section. If you do not object, or do it your self I may change the article in a few days -Leftytherobot 6 march 2006

I'd be interested to see a reference to hanging within the military; is it still available as a method of capital punishment to the US military, or the UK military for example? jamesgibbon 5 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

---

The assertion that "hung, drawn and quartered" is "grammatically correct" on the grounds that the victim isn't killed by the hanging seems silly. I believe that a common formula pronounced in the sentencing to hanging went something like this: "you will be hanged from the neck until dead".(in other words, a non-lethal outcome was recognized as possible with any hanging). Hanging no more guarantees death than electrocution (people electrocute themselves everday in household accidents, and live to tell the tale) so to assert that "hang" when applied to the torture method is a different word, with a different past tense and past participle, than "hang" when used for the definitive killing act, provides a poor rationalization for exempting "hung, drawn and quartered" from the rule applied to "hanged until dead". [hangs head in consternation] -- You know, I can't believe I even wrote that. Must be tired. Never mind....

Whoever wrote this, I have to agree. Perhaps a simpler expanation is that it's just too damned awkward to say "Hanged, drawn, and quartered." Exploding Boy 05:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Try clicking the link I provided and take some elementary school-level grammar lessons. Then stop complaining about things you know nothing about. --L. 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(referring to the painful perturbations caused by the short-drop) This could be a protracted affair and was primarily for the entertainment of the watching public: surely this entertainment was a side-effect. Doops | talk 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many basic mechanical errors at the end of the article which I indended to fix but am blocked from doing so. Could those who are not blocked fix those? User:Squige 02:52, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably that "hanged by the neck until you are dead" formula is the cause of our modern hanged/hung distinction. It probably wasn't clear, back in the day before standardization, whether the verb was a strong one or a weak one; the formula got made with it as a weak one; the verb, however, got regularized as a strong one; and then we step in on the scene and "discover" a new grammatical rule to explain this. But of course the wikipedia is no place for research; so I'll keep my speculations to the talk page. Doops | talk 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This article should probably be locked for a while, until the anonymous user who keeps beefing up the Singapore section goes away, or concensus is reached about it. As pointed out in comments on the reversion edits:

• The additions are seriously POV.
• Capital Punishment in Singapore already exists, and is a better place for some of this information.
• The Van Tuong Nguyen issue is already mentioned on this page under "Recent Hangings".
• As the anonymous poster is aware, there is also an article on Van Tuong Nguyen, where some of this information would be better included.

Evidently, the anonymous user feels that something needs to be said on the issue, but is going about it in the wrong way. This has become a major edit war, taking up at least ten of the most recent entries. Anonymous editor, please discuss your edits here and we can see if we can all work out how to progress. PRB 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me start - This sentence seems OK, as it relates specifically to hanging, and not capital punishment in general:

"Hanging remains the primary form of capital punishment in Singapore. Local laws mandate the death penalty for drug trafficking above certain quantities."

This commentary should probably not be here:

"Whether recent debate and international pressure resulting from the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van will lead to changes remains to be seen."

PRB 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the section before noticing the text here or looking at the history page. What do you ppl think of the outcome?--Huaiwei 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There's an anon user who keeps on resubmitting an extended entry about Singapore...have already reverted three times, and contacted him/her on the talkpage, but to no avail...could someone take a look? Bjelleklang - talk 08:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a nomination in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the problem persists.--Huaiwei 12:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops just realised it has already been nominated 2 days ago.--Huaiwei 12:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Also left a coupple of messages at WP:AN, which apparently have gone unnoticed so far... Bjelleklang - talk 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If this keeps on, I'll lock the article until things calm down. If it starts back up, feel free to leave me a message. Inter\^Echo 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected the page. Talk this out. I see very little dialogue. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon(s) do not seem to want to talk. Many editors have tried contacting them on their talk pages and there is a commment in the article itself pointing to this talk page. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

For the past days, various anon users have tried to add the following:

Singapore has an extensive history of hanging, currently employing mandatory state-sponsored killings as punishment for various crimes. The government controlled media of Singapore relinquish attention from anti-death penalty movements which are graphically stirring in the country since the execution of a 25-year old Australian, Nguyen Tuong Van, who was hanged on December 2, 2005 despite pleas from Australian politicians, religious leaders, cultural leaders, diplomats, Amnesty International and numerous other international pressure to allow a stay.

Like many Asian countries, Singapore has an extensive history of capital punishment, currently employing mandatory execution as punishment for various crimes. The only execution method currently employed is via hanging using the long-drop method. There is little evidence for a change in policy such as the adoption of lethal injection, with the Singapore Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng informing the Parliament of Singapore that the government "had previously studied the different methods of execution and found no reason to change from the current method used, that is, by hanging".^[4]

Hanging remains the primary form of capital punishment in Singapore. Local laws mandate the death penalty for drug trafficking above certain quantities. Whether recent debate and international pressure resulting from the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van will lead to changes remains to be seen.

Singapore is one of the few countries in which citizens who hold contrary views to the death penalty are liable to criminal charges as well as state sponsored harassment. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent backlash against artistic displays vilifying 'state sponsored murder' as the artists put it, with officials destroying the artworks within hours of the displays opening.

Despite the fact that many of them are told on their own talkpages, they continue. They also disregard the following comment in the article source: Do not add material to this section that does relate specifically to the application of hanging in Singapore. This section is not designed for commentary and criticism of capital punishment in Singapore in general. Please discuss on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanging#Singapore

In my opinion, Hanging describe the recent events pretty good, and I see no need for a further debate on Singapore in this article, especially not as Capital punishment in Singapore already has a section that debates many of the same issues, and that could very well be expanded with a part about the recent hanging in particular. Hence, I see no need for more information about Singapore in this article as it currently stands. Bjelleklang - talk 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of sockpuppets. I will warn (in comments) they will be blocked on sight. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

He is back as Dfgert (contributions - talk) Weregerbil 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And also as Cvbdfg... Bjelleklang - talk 13:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And Fghrty, Ghjtyu, Poiuyt. Hey, I just figured out the pattern in those sock names :-) Type them on a qwerty keyboard. Weregerbil 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

All of them are blocked now:

1. 2006-02-18 03:26:22 Natalinasmpf blocked "Fghrty (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
2. 2006-02-18 03:26:08 Natalinasmpf blocked "Ghjtyu (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
3. 2006-02-18 03:25:28 Natalinasmpf blocked "Cvbdfg (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)
4. 2006-02-18 03:25:15 Natalinasmpf blocked "Poiuyt (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal sockpuppet)

— Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello to the anons and others adding to the singapore section. Please note the discussion above on gaining a consensus as to the content of this sectoin. If you have a different opinion, rather than trying to force it on the page (it won't work, there is a lot of people watching for it and it is considered borderline vandalism without consensus) please discuss here your view on how we can develop this section. novacatz 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of all socks who have vandalised the Singapore section of this article and replaced with their own POV version.

Blocked IPs / socks struck out.

For the record, Jachin (talk · contribs) was the first to insert the Singapore section, which was POV right from the start. [5] However, he has made other useful contributions before and after the edit so he is not in the below list. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Cvbdfg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked
2. Poiuyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked
3. Ghjtyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked
4. Fghrty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked
5. Dfgert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Mnblkj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 203.218.45.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 203.218.82.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 219.77.100.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 219.77.103.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 203.218.81.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 219.77.104.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - blocked till 12 March 2006
7. 219.77.104.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
8. 203.218.81.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
9. 219.77.96.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
10. 203.218.82.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
11. 203.218.81.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12. 218.102.64.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
13. 203.218.81.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
14. 219.77.104.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
15. 203.218.47.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
16. 218.102.61.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
17. 218.102.61.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
18. 203.218.232.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
19. 219.77.104.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
20. 203.218.47.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
21. 203.218.232.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
22. 203.218.82.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
23. 203.218.47.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24. 203.218.45.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
25. 219.77.100.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
26. 203.218.80.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
27. 218.102.79.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
28. 203.218.81.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
29. 219.77.103.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
30. 219.77.104.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
31. 203.218.81.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32. 203.218.80.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
33. 203.218.47.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
34. 203.218.46.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
35. 203.218.81.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
36. 219.77.100.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
37. 218.102.79.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
38. 203.218.80.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
39. 219.77.96.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
40. 84.19.182.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41. 203.218.45.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
42. 213.216.199.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
43. 80.190.243.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
44. 130.161.82.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• External link: Capital Punishment U.K. - Contents Page — contains alot of information about hangings.---Marcus- 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• External link: The process of judicial hanging — excellent resource. ---Marcus- 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved these into the main article upon unprotection. --Marcus 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this article from editing by unregistered users and those with few edits. The frequent identical undiscussed modifications amount to vandalism in my opinion, though the same section or part of it could be added after discussion, subject to consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that '"strong evidence of malice" in children aged 7–14 years old' was punishable by death. I could be mistaken, but as far as I know this is misleading. Children between 7 and 14 could be executed *for a capital crime*, like an adult, if there was strong evidence of malice in the commission of the crime. Megalophias 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganised large parts of the article. In particular, UK-specific parts of history were moved to "Hanging by country - UK" section. Also I have inserted a properly sourced reference to the Singapore's unwarranted (IMO) modification of an artwork that commented on its mandatory death penalty policy. This was a part of the anon's preferred "state-sponsored killings" version and I believe that not all POV ought to be thrown out, per what Tony Sidaway said above, hence the Singapore insertion. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempted suicide as a capital offense has always seemed a very stupid idea to me. JIP | Talk 10:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually would make much more sense to punish only a successful suicide by capital punishment. --Wutzofant (✉✍) 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Judas Iscariot does note the fact that the New Testament records two completely different traditions regarding the end of Judas Iscariot's life. The one mentioned in this article is the highly romantic story from the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which a remorseful Judas returns his thirty pieces of silver to the Temple authorities and hangs himself, whereupon the Temple authorities declare that the money cannot be accepted back because it is tainted with blood, and they therefore use the money to purchase a "potter's field" in which to inter the remains of strangers and the indigent - the field aquiring the name "Field of Blood" because of its connections with the betrayal of Jesus.

A completely different story is pictured in The Acts Of The Apostles, in which a seemingly remorseless Judas Iscariot keeps his thirty pieces of silver and uses it to buy his own field, from which he apparently derives both pleasure and profit until he meets a completely accidental demise by tripping and falling (possibly over a precipice?!, meeting the ground with such violent force that his abdomen bursts. In this story, the field receives its "Field of Blood" label because of the rather gruesome end of its owner.

I think it would be fair to amend the mention of Judas to include disclosure that the story of his suicide by hanging is only one of two conflicting accounts of his death. I would not do it myself, because a) I am not sure how to word it in such a manner that Fundamentalist Christians would not take offense, and b) I personally feel that it would introduce a digression completely outside the scope of the subject of the article. Shoshani 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stood the article was more of an historical reference to the histories of GB and US hangings.
Merge and moved Recent hanging with capital punishment
Sorted Historical references and current references by country
Removed needless detail from the UK and US sections of historical date - kept references to the existing main articles by country
Updated and added to historical and current hangings
--User:greroja Aug 14, 2006

The image of Atefeh Sahaaleh in this article though vaguely related to the history of hanging, seems quite off topic. If there was a separate article which lists people who have been executed by hanging then it would seem appropriate but the presence of this image in this article seems a bit closer to propaganda than encyclopaedic practices
I agree... the image was leftover from the rewrite. I don't know about propaganda... but its inclusion adds nothing to the article Updated and added to historical and current hangings
--User:greroja Aug 15, 2006

It seems to me that nowhere in the article does it actually say what hanging is - it goes from a very vague "form of execution" straight to the kinds of hanging and the detailed medical effects. Shouldn't the introduction include something along the lines of "Hanging involves placing a noose around the condemned person's neck and removing all other forms of support", or "Suspension of the body weight from the neck" or something similar?

If you agree, could someone with better writing skills please add something along these lines? Pennoze 05:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this deletion: [6] . The comment directs us to Capital punishment in Canada, but the info there appears to be exactly the same as was deleted here. In addition there's the unsubstantiated sentence, "One unpublished execution too place on January 3,1972 for military crimes." If that's documented, the Canada info should be restored to reflect it. If not, the Canada section should be restored as is. Either way, it shouldn't be deleted. - PhilipR 01:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough with Billy Bailey. The article mentions him in the same contexts, and links to his article, three separate times. Should we consolidate mentions of him and only include one link, if possible? Vbdrummer0 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan there are 78 people in death row, but in this article, 88 people.. so which one is up-to-date? And maybe we should just link to the "Capital punishment in Japan" page...

Since the long drop distances and forces where originally worked out by an English hangman, they are naturally in English units (no, you don't detect any "US influence" here, sorry). I have no problem with translating them to metric as an parenthetical, but I do have a problem replacing them with metric units. If things are designed in English units, they deserve to be mentioned forever more in English units. If (for example) the Saturn rocket was designed in feet and inches (which it was) then those should forever remain the defining units used, and metrificationists can always provide translated stuff later. Note that this is not the same issue as scientific measurements, such as the distances to the planets, which might in some cases have been first expressed in miles, but it's pointless to leave that in anything but historical summaries. Science measurements of natural phenomena are not tech-design issues. SBHarris 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. IIRC the earlier rev of the article seemed to be affirming these distinctions for the present. The historical material is fine as it stands, but if a definition for present-day forms of hanging is desired, it should be primarily in SI. - Regards, PhilipR 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SBHarris 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a line about an audible fart noise being heard at the hanging of Saddam hussein. It sounds suspiciously silly to me, so I treated it as vandalism. if there is a legitimate source for this, feel free to revert, although I doubt it...--Tiberius47 08:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The references by country section takes up WAY too much space in the TOC - which is why I took them out of the TOC. Please discuss it here if you think the TOC really needs to be a full foot in height. Fresheneesz 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted the headers, as I'd like to see each country outlined somewhat more than what is possible with using only '''. There is quite a lot of text in the list, so it could be useful to make it a little more easy to read. I agree about the TOC though, so I replaced it all with html which keeps the appearance but doesn't list in the TOC. Bjelleklang - talk 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that the ToC is too long. The advantages, though, are ease both of navigation and editing. A couple of thoughts. Is there any way to split the ToC into two columns? Another suggestion would be to put a gallery of images to the right of the ToC. Having said all that, if you decide to revert to the previous arrangement then I will go along with it. Life's too short to have a dispute over this :-) TerriersFan 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put the contents on the right to deal with the length of the menu issue - what do folks think? TerriersFan 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok for me :) Bjelleklang - talk 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored the section with tocright, have also readded links to articles on capital punishment for relevant countries and states. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein's death was not a suicide as the article currently reflects. Maybe a section on famous people hanged would be a noteworthy section to add. TW 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. TerriersFan 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hanging of Barzan Ibrahim (Saddam Hussein's half-brother)and Awad Hamed al-Bandar - 15 January 2007.

Mention should be made of the decapitaion of Barzan. This could also be discussed in the section about the various drom distances/methods (?).

Agree. Obviously they have somebody who is a fan of the LONG drop (they certainly broke Saddam's neck effectively), and when you get out at the end of that, you risk decapitation. As is illustrated in the article and as happened, I suppose, to Barzan. That's about equivalent to being beheaded, and probably even more humane than hanging. Albeit maybe a bit more shocking to the viewers, who will be standing there with their popcorn, expecting quite a different show. SBHarris 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

See also Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1#this should read Hung not hanged

I've reverted the claim that hung is correct in this phrase. The source is a sample page from a self-published business training book on the website of the book's author. The page doesn't cite any further sources, only the "logic" that hung is correct because that part of the punishment was not intended to cause (immediate) death.

It's charming, but usually wrong, to apply logic to English usage, as seems to have happened in this case. The actual usage seems to be that hanged is more correct, but hung also appears colloquially, e.g. in the famous Pepys quote. I haven't been able to find any other source for the idea that the distinction depends on the intention of the hangman, so I think the given source must be disregarded in this case. Eleuther 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to Peypes report on the execution of Thomas Harrison, on 13 October 1660 he went "to see Major-general Harrison hanged, drawn; and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition." (www.pepysdiary.com and Project Gutenberg) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Under "medical effects" it says decapitation... no duh? remove this.

Can someone tell me exactly how the distances are calculated? 80.47.208.148 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1,000 foot lbs/weight of prisoner = drop in feet. ths is a rough assumption and other factors of build and height are taken into account. (Olaf1 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

I have the news that Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to death by hanging almost 3 weeks ago. Here's the link if you want to know more about it, okay? BTW, I'm updating the article, alright? --Angeldeb82 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the names under notable suicides to it's own list. No point having a bunch of names here when there's probably a lot more that could be added. Also included a section for people executed under capital punishment to avoid people inserting Saddam Hussein and others to the list of suicides. See List of notable people who died by hanging Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will in the next few months add a section on SA's use of hanging during the apartheid era. The use was extensive and often political. Capital punishment has since been abolished.

--Tiucsib 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference 3, '"Canadian Injury Data", Statistics Canada', leads to a 404. --Ubern00b 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. According to Lucy Moore in The Thieves' Opera, "[T]he automatic drop---intended to cause the neck to break at once, thus resulting in almost instantaneous death---was introduced in 1760" (page 198). I thought the short drop was the method used until 1850, when the standard drop was introduced in the mid-19th century, and the long drop in 1872. Can someone give me proof that the automatic drop was introduced in 1760, please? --Angeldeb82 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a claim in the article that this was 'traditional' for poaching the king's deer. This is unsourced apart from the Joan Baez version of the song mentioned, and seems unlikely - the Charter of the forest in 1217 made poaching the king's deer longer a capital offence. It became capital again with the Black Act in 1723, which was repealed in 1827. The Newgate Calendar mentions several deer poachers hung for their crimes, but the only mention of a silk rope is for a murderer who asks for one[7]. So, there appears to be no evidence that in those 104 years there was any kind of tradition, this is just an elaboration by the singer. In any case, I'm with Mintguy above - this section should be moved to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom --Bazzargh (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting confused! Amnesty International USA claims that Iraq's death penalty was reinstated in August 2004, but sources say it was reinstated in May 2005! Which date of the death penalty reinstation in Iraq is correct? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Notable hangings in movies and tv-series" where hanging is important part of the plot. I think there should also be this kind of topic. Examples: In "Winds of War" (Robert Mitchum etc) was shown hanging of those who try to assasinate Hitler. In the movie it was done with pianowire, no drop but put gently to hang from the neck (Hitler: "Nice ropedance"). Another: when filming Braveheart Mel Gibson was hanged by lifting, the prop was not done well enough, rope started to tighten on his neck and Gibson started to faint(Source Making of Braveheart DVD extras). Still another: In a Finnish movie "Maa on syntinen laulu" (The Earth Is a Sinful Song) (1973) one caracter comits suicide by hanging. It was done without any harness or tricks, stuntperson was an artist who did this kind of show, was able to hang from the neck for several minutes. --RicHard (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hang_'Em_High" staring Clint Eastwood,as a man who survives a lynching. Maverick again Mel Gibson on the noose. Cat_Ballou: Imagery from the hanging scene of Jane Fonda was used in spoofs advocating her execution for treason following her 1972 visit to Hanoi.--RicHard-59 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In Copycat_(film) both the serial killer and copycat are trying to hang Sigourney_Weaver using steel rope. In The_Silence_of_the_Lambs_(film) "Bufffalo Bill" kills some of his victims by hanging, although it is not shown in the film. --RicHard (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure if this should be listed in the main article, as it could quickly resemble a listing of random trivia. Also, what about other medias, such as books, cartoons, computer games, and so on? Also, I wouldn't really say that hanging was an important part of the plot in Braveheart, but rather the method of execution. I haven't seen the the other movie you referenced, but judging by the Wikipedia entry, it doesn't seem like hanging is (an) "important part of the plot". Bjelleklang - talk 12:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of hanging in movies, I removed the reference to Back to the Future Part III in the section regarding firing a shot "just before the slack in the rope straightens." Marty McFly is pulled up by his neck; therefore, there is no slack in the rope at the time Doc Brown fires his weapon. Keraunoscopia (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a YouTube video of the execution of the Nazi Karl Hermann Frank in Prague here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgPsUytsLmY - I mention it because the trapless gallows apparatus used is just about the most bizarre I've ever seen. Frank is strapped into a harness, then hauled to the top of a tall post. A guard nooses him and the guards holding the harness rope releases it; he drops perhaps 4 feet. Does anybody know if this was a standard sort of mechanism in Czechoslovakia or elsewhere in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.19.30 (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on Karl Hermann Frank contains this line:

• After being convicted of war crimes and the obliteration of Lidice, Frank was sentenced to death and hanged, via the Austro-Hungarian "pole method," in the courtyard of the Pankrac prison in Prague before 5,000 onlookers on 22 May 1946.

I came here to see if there was any explanation of this method. I see another user has found a Youtube video (I've moved the comment down here), but that video has now been deleted. It'd be helpful to add a description of this if we can find a proper source for it.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At least two states in the USA use hanging as a secondary methold whith one stste (Deleware) that once used it, is it worth making a map on it? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 1:34, 21 August 2009 (AT)

This is an archive of past discussions about Hanging. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Can someone please correct the statement "Scientifically, the person dies by strangulation" - this is not necessarily true.

Firstly the word "scientifically" is awkward in this setting. The sentence would sound better starting as "Death is caused by either one of a number of mechanisms .."

i. Cerebral hypoxia secondary to compression of neck vessels (the mode of death in "strangulation") is one cause but is only seen in short suspension hangings and is very unlikely in a competently performed judicial hanging. ii. Systemic hypoxia secondary to vasovagal stimulation. iii. Trauma to the brain caused by severe decelerative forces in a long drop judicial hanging with sudden and catastrophic failure of repiratory and cardiac control centres and secondary systemic hypoxia. iv. Inadvertent decapitation in a long drop hanging with a poorly calculated drop (as in the Iraq hanging of Barzan al Tikriti. v. Systemic hypoxia due to tracheal compression in an "incomplete hanging" (such as a drunk person falling asleep with their neck over a raised object)

As a reference, you could quote Bernard Knight's book on Forensic Pathology or any major postrgraduale textbook of anatomic pathology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek1975 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "sphincters will relax spontaneously and urine and faeces will be evacuated" incorrect? Is it not the bladder and the bowels that are evacuated?80.202.210.59 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because the sphincters that hold them in are relaxed. That is why hangmen used to tie cords around the ankles of trousers, so as to stop the effluvia spilling onto the floor. Not much, anyway.86.43.191.172 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note also the special knickers provided to Ruth Ellis and other women following an unfortunate occurrence during the hanging of Edith Thompson. --CliffC (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The claims were uncited, though I also thought they were a bit too fawning:

The materials necessary for suicide by hanging are easily available to the average person, compared with firearms or lethal poison. It is a deceptively simple yet highly effective suicide method.

160.39.220.172 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is stated: "It was considered a humane improvement on the short drop because it was intended to be enough to break the person's neck, causing immediate paralysis and immobilization (and probable immediate unconsciousness)." I fail to distinguish between paralysis and immobilization. E.g. Muscle immobilization in Wikipedia redirects to, well, Paralysis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.190.78 (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In Feb. 1977 brief details of the Admiralty method for a hanging from the yardarm was published.

Does anybody know who was the last man to be hanged from the yardarm by the British Royal Navy?AT Kunene (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for more information on the so called bog men which were often found to have been hung. However no mention at all of them or other instances of ritual hanging are mentioned and I think this should be addressed if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.96.226 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and evidence of hanging early in history. However, I question the use of the term "ritual hanging". For the most part, the article discusses execution by hanging, and a judicial execution is definitely ritualized. Unless, you mean something else pertaining to bog body culture? Boneyard90 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:The hanging of two participants in the Indian Rebellion of 1857..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The hanging of two participants in the Indian Rebellion of 1857..jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent good faith additions to the section on India because it is a summary of the current status in India, and by adding individual cases, we run the risk of creating a list. There is a main article on capital punishment in India, and that's probably where detailed updates should be added. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Anonimski changed the caption to include womeen which is good but (at the risk of WP:OR) if you look carefully at the picture- the fourth from left- it is almost certainly a male (re: white shirt sleeves + black waistcoat- quite distinct from what the women are wearing), so the caption should really state that it is either both or 'citizens' etc. Secondly, I have swapped it with the Landsberg photo, so the photo of the A/H pole method is now aligned to the relatively detailed description we have given. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. When I browsed through the book "Léta zkázy a naděje" I realized that I should update incorrectly dated pictures on Wikipedia, and I had to replace the description with "civilians from Mačva" since it was unattested by the authors. Anyway, I looked more closely, and some of the victims seem to have male outfits. I agree with you, and I'm going to fix it. Anonimski (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, good man. Didn't want to do it myself as not an expert, and have no sources. What do you think about the two pics I moved? If you think it doesn't work like that, feel free to revert. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

why is decapitation considered an unfortunate possible result of long-drop hanging - presumably, that's comparably quick and painless? Aryah (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

... but rather distressing for the observers and those who have to clean up afterwards. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. Is that really the answer? (Is there a citation for it?)

The article discusses the idea that the rope can be too long or too short. It explains the problem with a too-short drop: the subject suffers an agonized death by strangulation over a long time. Is it true that the only problem with decapitation is that the observers might get upset? (Do they expect to see nothing upsetting when they show up to watch a person be deliberately killed?)

The part of the article that says decapitation is a problem should devote at least a sentence to explaining why. TypoBoy (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous user has added the merge template to the page, but has provided no reasoning. I left a message on their talk page, but unless anybody has any objections I'm going to remove it. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the merge tag. Sort of a WP:SNOW in advance; the proposal has essentially no chance of being adopted. If the IP is serious about it, he/she can replace the tag, and then we'll have to go through the tedious motions. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what's going on with all these recent edits and revertions?
Richard27182 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, certainly I don't know. Most of the recent IP edits are not actively horrible, but they definitely don't seem to be an improvement, and changes that are not improvements should not stay. If the author wants to discuss them, the talk page is right here. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, the changes are not poorly written and they expand certain bits. There is also a reliable reference present so these changes should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No idea. As the 1967 vs. 1985 reverts concerning Australia may have been due to a mere differences in interpretation, I have re-worded that part of the text to make it clearer (link). Hopefully that part remains more stable now. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about all the other stuff that's been going back and forth, but the part about India using the short drop method is definitely incorrect and should be removed.  I realize that the Wikipedia article specifically on Capital punishment in India says the same thing, but it too is wrong on that point.  See the following links:

• http://www.dailyo.in/politics/shiv-aroor-india-today-yakub-memon-long-drop-death-penalty-yogesh-desai-nagpur-central-jail-executions-william-marwood/story/1/5356.html
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hanging-is-the-least-inhuman-form-of-execution-Apex-court/articleshow/48220402.cms
• http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/a-rope-and-planning-for-his-last-breakfast-how-nagpur-jail-is-preparing/
• http://www.rediff.com/news/report/kasab-indias-309th-convict-on-death-row/20120829.htm

I'm not claiming that these are all wiki-grade sources (ie, meet the standards required for an actual reference in an article); but I believe they are sufficient reason to remove the reference to India using short drop until if and when it can be properly sourced.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm planning to remove the words "using the short drop" from the line "All executions in India are carried out by hanging, using the short drop" within the next few days.  If anyone would object, please indicate so now (and your reasons for objecting), and we'll discuss it.  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

NOTICE: I've gone ahead and made the change I proposed.  There are no reliable sources cited to back up the claim that hangings in India are done by short drop; and I have actually presented references (above) showing that in fact the long drop is used.  As I've requested before, if anyone disagrees with this edit, please discuss it here (including presenting your reasons).
Richard27182 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't first aid for hanging a crucial bit of information? Considering it may not always be too late as is stereotypically assumed? http://www.cprcertificationonlinehq.com/first-aid-hanging-strangling-throttling/

Please add suitable first aid information. 117.223.177.100 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's inaccurate, and I would say also erroneous, to state that Adolf Eichmann, executed in Israel, was a Nazi leader. He was only a Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer. Carlotm (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's probably WP:OR to make the distinction. Anyway; it would hardly have suited Israel to have it otherwise, would it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, can you explain yourself better? Please note that Obersturmbannführer is equivalent of lieutenant colonel. Carlotm (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this revision, I think this article was originally written in British English. Seemingly over the years it has evolved into a mishmash of dialects as it has grown. Per WP:RETAIN, it should stay in Br Eng unless there is good reason to change it. --John (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In the "Short Drop" section, strangulation is mentioned as taking about 15 to 20 minutes (without specifying whether that refers to the onset of either unconsciousness or death) and is described as leading to a "more protracted, grisly and painful" death as compared to normal and high drops. But both the section directly above it - "Suspension" - and the article on strangulation describe the quick onset of unconsciousness ("Prisoners are often reported to have little or no struggle before they go limp"; "The reported time from application to unconsciousness varies from 7–14 seconds if effectively applied to one minute in other cases"). Because the "Short Drop" section mentions the death as being more painful, it implies that the "15 to 20 minutes" line refers to unconsciousness, which directly contradicts both the article on strangulation and "Suspension" section. I have trouble finding a reliable source on this topic, so someone else who doesn't or someone in the medical/biological professions might want to help clean this up. - RichLow (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am almost certain that the short drop section is wrong, or that it gives a false impression at least that a prolonged and painful struggle was the norm. It wouldn't depend solely on the length of the drop but also (and probably more so) on the noose. What material it is made of, how wide and what kind of knot is used. If everything is right with the noose, it should put the pressure on the cartoid arteries and stop or severly restrict blood flow to the brain, leading to unconsciousness very fast (see Cerebral_ischemia#Background). If there's any truth to stories about a 20 minute struggle of a hanged person, it has to be because the noose was too loose or too stretchy or for some other reason failed to block the cartoid arteries. In that case, the cause of death would probably be eventual suffocation which would be a painful and drawn out process. --Bjarki (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There are people who hang themselves for reasons of sexual pleasure, and take videos of the procedure (of course they intend to not COMPLETELY hang themselves). Sometimes this goes wrong and ends in death by strangulation (autoerotic accidents). Anny Sauvageau (and others) published their evaluation of 14 filmed hangings in Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2011. Result: Onset of unconsciousness sometime between 8 and 18 seconds after start of free (i.e. unsupported) hanging. During the next minutes unvoluntary muscular movements (decorticate and decerebrate rigidity). End of all muscular movements: 7.5 minutes after begin of free hanging.

Provided the neck ligature effectively closed the blood vessels (which ought to be the case when the noose is free-running, and the downward force is sufficient), unconsiousness will come in soon, and the movements which are so distressing to onlookers will have nothing to do with a conscious "struggle". Death time is a completely different thing, depending on your definition. Brain death will occur sometime around 6 minutes after the stop of blood circulation to the brain, and heart death, owing to the independent working of the cardiac pacemaker, will occur several minutes after that. Experiments carried out by the British in 53 hangings of war criminals at Hameln showed that audible heartbeat will stop at around 15 minutes after opening of the trap doors, and inaudible heart contractions were found to continue until 25 minutes after drop (by ECG).--Kauko56 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Any practitioner of Judo can confirm that strangulation involving constriction of the blood supply to the brain is relatively quick and painless. Judo strangleholds mainly use the collar of the victim's jacket to tighten around his or her neck. In a well-applied stranglehold the victim loses consciousness within 20 seconds, and sometimes too painlessly for the victim to tap a submission. Death would take longer, but for obvious reasons that is seldom put to the test! Judo contest referees have to be vigilant for loss of consciousness, though this is not always easy if the stranglehold is combined with a hold which may obscure the victim's face. In un-refereed practice (randori) judokas are usually advised to submit as soon as they feel the hold come 'on', which can be detected by a singing in the ears.86.183.202.171 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking of something -- didn't Aaron Hernandez commit suicide by hanging himself? Do you think you could consider adding some mention of this?

70.187.183.248 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Who's he? — fortunavelut luna 07:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)