Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Dorsey v. United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 16:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dorsey v. United States

[edit]
(
)

Created by Lord Roem (talk). Self nom at 22:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • - Length, Date, and Cite all check out. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Striking the original hook; I don't see where "lenient rules" is supported anywhere in the article. Less draconian or racist, perhaps. (The decision's language of "more lenient" is a comparative, not an absolute.) And it applies to crack cocaine only. The key here is really whether crimes committed before the Act and its new rules were passed could still be sentenced under its guidelines rather than the unbalanced pre-2010 guidelines. A more interesting hook should be able to be crafted that reflects this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I like your ALT better, Lord Roem, but is it quite "retroactively"? It applied to crimes committed before the act passed only if sentence had not also been given before passage, not to sentences already given before the law passed. It was only for these old crimes not yet tried or tried but not sentenced, right? Is there a way to say this, or is "retroactively" the closest possible approximation? I was also wondering whether adding something at the end like "to crack cocaine offenses" would make it more hooky ... or less. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "retroactively" is probably the best (and easiest) way to say what the Court decided on this highly-technical issue. Because, it is about whether to apply it to people convicted before the law was passed; i.e., does it apply to convictions pre-law. I'm not opposed to adding "to crack cocaine offenses". I guess the new hook would be something like:
  • ALT 2 ... that the United States Supreme Court decided in Dorsey v. United States that a new law on crack cocaine offenses applied retroactively? -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Lord Roem. Both ALT and ALT 2 are properly sourced in the article, and the promoter can decide which one is more effective as a hook, as both are approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dorsey_v._United_States&oldid=828969738"