Talk:Jack Kevorkian

Perhaps we should consider using Template:Infobox criminal

I've noticed some discrepancies in coverage related to this subject, particularly the unusual fact that a person who claimed to have participated in several illegal killings and was convicted of one is not described using Template:Infobox criminal. Per the templates internal standard (with my bolding), "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals". As Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder, claimed to have committed other acts that were legally murder at the time, and largely gained notoriety for other legal infractions, this would seem like the appropriate infobox. Additionally, it should be noted that his murder trial and run-ins with the law are his dominant legacy (just look at today's OTD on the main page). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

He was not a criminal by trade. The Banner talk 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Several courts would disagree, considering the multiple suspensions and conviction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Kevorkian is first and foremost known as an advocate of euthanasia. So the infobox medical person is correct. The Banner talk 14:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And thus a year of constant vandalism from people angry by the labeling of Kevorkian as a criminal on his Wikipedia page was spared. Thank you for not indulging in Pbritti's moral drama, thus preventing a perpetual edit war. 47.5.131.46 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

As somebody who is not fond of the guy, no. I would prefer an infobox that involves more defining characteristics. Far too many people disagree with labeling him a criminal. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Trial confusion

The trial section isn't very good. There's a good piece at famous-trials.com (2019) on it. That piece makes clear that Jack was hounded by the prosecutor(s) - 4 trials, zero convictions. It also mentions that both the state supreme court and the appeals court made some decisions of questionable merit (about common law and "sole intent" respectively). It also makes clear that Jack was a publicity hound believing he was on a mission. The Wikipedia article quotes Jack as saying "we're all terminal". No, we're all not. The term has a specific legal/medical meaning. And to have a terminal diagnosis means to be highly likely to die within a fairly short time period (afaik, defined by laws in the various States). His conviction for 2nd Degree Homicide was beyond reasonable doubt. His victim signed an agreement to have a "competent medical professional" administer "active euthanasia" to end his life. The problem is Jack's medical license was pulled in 1991, making him, by definition, NOT a competent medical professional. Jack actively sought out and got national media attention after his actions and provided videos of his acts. He chose to represent himself and made what many legal scholars believe gross blunders during his trial. He promised, if convicted, to not eat in prison and starve himself to death. He was released in 2007, being paroled on good behavior. How much of ANY of the above does the Wikipedia article capture???~2025-31506-44 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

OH! I should also point out that the info box claims he was "active" up to 2011. No. False. He could NOT "act" as a pathologist after his medical license was revoked in 1991!!!. After that he was active POLITICALLY and in assisting suicides. (By definition not physician-assisted suicide).~2025-31506-44 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sentencing speech

The quote from the judge is misleadingly cut off. It seems to implicate only supporting his criticism of the law, not how she said he still is not above the law, or allowed to break it. After reading the quote, the „but:“-part of what she said is clearly missing, this hinders the neutrality a wiki article should show ~2026-39784-87 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39784-87: What additional words do you think should be added? JBW (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've now found the full text of the speech, and I agree that the selective quote here provides an implicit bias. I have added the next two sentences; do you think that's enough, or do you have any further suggestions for change? JBW (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)