Talk:Misprision

Literary criticism

The following paragraph has been placed in this article:

Also, a term in use in literary theory and criticism. This usage was brought into currency by Harold Bloom to designate a strong writer's creative misreading or distortion of a previous thesis or argument, perhaps causing the original thesis to be forgotten.

I have moved it here because it has no place in this article which relates to criminal law. It should either go in another article or in its own article, created specially (I suggest the title 'misprision (literary theory)'). I am not in a position to write that article. James500 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need another article it is already discussed in The_Anxiety_of_Influence#The_six_revisionary_ratios so it only needs a link.
QuentinUK (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/* Negative misprision */

Under "Misprision of treason":

"These punishments are not affected by the Forfeiture Act 1870."

What's the reference for this? The act itself seems to exempt treason alone, and, even then, loss of state job and pension (and, on my reading, franchise in Scotland) are the only penalties applicable, in addition to fine and imprisonment.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_treason : "It is punishable by imprisonment for life. It used also to be punished by forfeiture but that is probably no longer the case in England and Wales." ?

87.232.101.89 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cathal[reply]

Under the section of Positive Misprision, the term Misprision of Treason is defined, described, and the punishment identified in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 115, section 2382 Misprision of treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.220.50 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misprision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613175328/http://m.thenation.com/article/208593-you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history to http://m.thenation.com/article/208593-you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-convict for drug trafficking, wanting to travel to Ecuador Stinnett924 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ex convict, wanting to travel to Ecuador. He was convicted for drug trafficking to my knowledge. They are not permitted to enter an Ecuador. Can someone please Ex convict, wanting to travel to Ecuador. He was convicted for drug trafficking to my knowledge. They are not permitted to enter a Ecuador. Can someone please get back to me Stinnett924 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]