Humanities desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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.

June 22

Law question (Not advice)

If a father vehemently rejects his son for being homosexual. Is that a crime (being the son a 17-year-old)? --SouthAmerican (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what jurisdiction? A lot of jurisdictions have laws against child neglect. The fact that it's due to homosexuality is irrelevant, what matters is whether the parent is performing their duties to that child (to feed, clothe, house, educate, maintain the health of, etc. the child). --Tango (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the father says 'you're a shame on us', Isn't that psychological harassment? --SouthAmerican (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what state of country? Laws are different in different places. Certainly this would not be prosecuted as child abuse in Iran, for example. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be construed as such by the person concerned, but whether it satisfies any jurisdiction's legal prohibition on what they define as "psychological harassment" is another question entirely, and that's where we'd be getting into legal advice if we offered any commentary on it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whether it's "psychological harassment" is an entirely different question from whether it's criminal, or whether it has precedent within civil law. As above, it depends on the jurisdiction, and probably on the court that the case would come before. — Lomn 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legal question, depending on the jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, I don't think that there is any real legal prohibition against mild parental verbal abuse of their children. Parents are allowed to say virtually whatever they want to their children, up to the point of tormenting them or causing them to become ill. I'm am not a lawyer, so none of this is legal advice, but I think the law draws the line at abuse with material effects, such as assault or neglect (e.g., failing to provide food, clothing, and shelter). What you have described, in my opinion, constitutes verbal abuse that by itself is probably permissible in the United States. I don't think that this is considered a crime in the United States. You are apparently in Argentina, and I doubt that it is a crime there. You might try asking on the Spanish Reference Desk, which might be more likely to have people familiar with Argentina's legal framework (but obviously also not qualified to offer advice). Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional abuse of children is illegal in some jurisdictions, but it has to be pretty severe to constitute abuse. It's not enough for it to just upset the child, it has to cause them significant psychological harm (eg. depression). --Tango (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important points: 1. The age of the child. (17 is border-line). 2. When did the rejection/neglect take place? When, by the age of the child, was this manafest? 3. The jurisdiction area where this took place. Without knowing these we can only point out the importance of them. There are a number of questions: 1. How did the father find this out? 2. Is there further factors involved? These factors all become part of the legal position and are an essential part of legality. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many jurisdictions, there is an agency devoted to the protection of minors; it may have a name such as Child Protective Services or, more generally, the Department of Social Services. Typically that agency has the right to intervene against abusive parents. That agency would have views as to whether a father's "vehement rejection" of a gay son would justify its intervention. John M Baker (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I've added some pointers to my entry just above as I am studying the legality for you, OP.) MacOfJesus (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search warrant for 1000 pieces of stolen luggage (not advice)

I recently saw a news article where a women was caught stealing a piece of luggage from an airport and then a search of her home revealed it was stuffed to the ceiling with other stolen luggage.
Stolen luggage
Now, I'm wondering how the police justified a search warrant in this case (assuming it wasn't just another dumb criminal who says yes to a police search).
I'm in no way looking for legal advice - somehow this story has just completely intrigued me.
I'm also looking to see if anyone could help me find the police report? Thanks! --mboverload @ 01:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, probable cause applies in this case. The woman is caught stealing something, based on her behavior or speech officers suspect this has not been a one-time event, so they have probable cause to examine her property (in this case, home) for additional evidence. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable cause is ultimately the domain of judges. Although there are some exceptions for the police, if the court signs off on a search warrant, it's rare that warrant is upset, in most cases. Plenty of exceptions, but they aren't the majority. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of why it is so easy to walk off with someone else's baggage. Despite the universal use of barcoded bag tags, no one has ever actually checked my baggage against my ticket before I've walked out of an airport.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:57, 22 June

This link makes it sound like theft is a large problem between the times of checkin and the baggage claim area. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is obvious: The risk isn't deemed to be worth the cost of preventing it. Checking that everyone has the right bag would involve significant monetary cost (you need to hire people to do it) and would slow everything down (which would annoy passengers and make them less likely to fly through your airport). --Tango (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask where Airport security managers perceive the risks to their jobs. Everything is an economy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a cartoon from Mad Magazine in the 1970s. "See the well-dressed man leaving the baggage carousel with two large suitcases. How come he was carrying no luggage when he checked in?" I've only had my baggage tag verified once in hundreds of flights all over the world; I was in my early 20s. It's surprising there's not more of this type of pilfering going on. --Xuxl (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion of the ease of stealing from airport carousels a couple of months ago. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only time (in my experience) that airports check luggage is when you have transported a firearm. I've heard of people packing a flare gun in their luggage. Under FAA rules, it's considered a firearm. There is an extra card to fill out to declare the firearm, but you can rest assured that they keep an eye on that bag at all times. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course most people fly all the time and never have their luggage stolen or even accidentally taken. Unless you are carrying something obscenely valuable (which you shouldn't check on a plane!), the worry seems misplaced. The odds of your luggage being stolen seems ridiculously low, even with a dedicated luggage-thief (who probably gets 1 or 2 bags per plane at most—a 1/150 chance or so, assuming they chose your particular flight). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negro slaves

From which areas and tribes did the Negro slaves come to the USA? -- 89.247.118.151 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See if the page on Atlantic slave trade has the information you need. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Sochaczewski

Looking at the several interwiki pages for Aleksander Sochaczewski (1843-1923), I see his birth name variously given as Sonder Lejb (or Lajb), but it's unclear which (if either) is the surname. "Sonder" (or "Sender") being a Yiddish form of "Alexander", and his birthplace being Iłów (not Sochaczew, though perhaps there's a family connection?), I'm not getting anywhere with searching for further information on him. Any ideas for verifying his name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read Polish, try this Zoonoses (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speculate that Lejb was his second given name, equivalent of the English Leo and Hebrew Arieh. He may have been given two names in honor of, for instance, two grandfathers or other respected ancestors. As for the surname, Iłów lies only 19 km away from Sochaczew, a county seat, so there's certainly at least a geographic link here. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House MD and the law

I was watching the House episode Act Your Age and there is a scene where an eight-year-old boy grabs Cameron's (Jennifer Morrison) ass. Actors who play young children are almost invariably older than their character, but the person who played the boy was 11 at the oldest. Assuming the scene was real and not CGI or some kind of stunt/illusion: is there a law against making minors do stuff like this? Obviously Morrison consented because actors and actresses do stuff like that all the time so it technically wouldnt be considered assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.7.141 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Making"? I don't think network TV shows use conscription to fill roles. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be illegal here, exactly? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't somebody please think of the children? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that someone his age is not able to give consent (law), and this could be construed as a sexual situation. So something like that. It would be like an older man to ask a young girl to touch his genitalia- even if the girl agreed, it would no tbe legal. 76.230.7.141 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I don't know how the law applies in California, but if I were the director and I were concerned about this, I'd frame the shot so the kid was off screen and the camera only captured his arm and hand during this shot, and I'd have an adult hand double take the place of the kid for that shot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the important question is whether the act is of a sexual nature. It is certainly supposed to portray an act of a sexual nature, but is it sexual it itself? I guess, based on the fact that it happened, that the law in California says it isn't. --Tango (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do post here if you happen to confirm or disprove your guess. I'm curious about that too. 189.94.152.240 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far nobody has mentioned the parents. No, the child can't give consent but a parent or legal guardian can and would likely be present for the filming. As things of a sexual nature go, this is barely on the radar. Take for instance Thora Birch's topless scene in American Beauty. She was 16 at the time which is below the age of consent (18) in California. So her parents had to sign off on it. Somewhere around here there's a list (or there used to be) of appearances of nude minors in films. Dismas|^(talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the parent's consent is required for them to take part in any TV show. A child can't sign the contract, after all. However, some things are illegal even with the parent's consent. As our article on Thora Birch says, there were child labour representatives on set during the filming of her nude scene. They were there to ensure her rights as a child weren't violated. That scene was legal, I presume, because it wasn't sexual. The same issue arose in reference to Wikipedia with the Virgin Killer album cover - it's legal because it isn't sexual, even though the model is a minor, but it's a difficult legal issue and the Internet Watch Foundation felt it was illegal and advised ISPs to block the page for a time resulting in a media storm. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post that too, but if this case is considered 'sexual' then not even the parents can give consent (law), the question is: what the law understand this is. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winged victory of Samothrace in 3D online

Is there a way to watch that sculpture in 3D online? --Belchman (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've found, but for several short movies from all angles try the Winged Victory of Samothrace's article's external link: Interactive multimedia feature on the Louvre website. Click "View the feature" and in the top-left menu appearing after the Intro, click "The Pose" -- note the thumbnails on the right -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Victoria

Why is Victoria (Sweden) tan? Her parents (especially her father the king) look fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.149.234 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't strike me as so tanned that it needs a special explanation, maybe she just spends more time outside than her parents, but looking at her background I see her grandmother on her mother's side was Brazilian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all children are like their parents or siblings. For instance, I tan better than my sisters, who have extremely fair skin that peels in the sun. Victoria obviously inherited more melanin from her Brazilian grandmother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Bertrand Russel

Is Bernard Russel most profilic writer in philosophy in 20th century? Can this be verified? Or is it better to say that he is one of the most prolific writers?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this sort of thing is not far off the mark. Mind you, most of the serious issues had already been dealt with long before the time Russell starting putting pen to paper, so I wouldn't want to overstate how important he is in Western philosophy -- he's more of a pedant than a truly original thinker.

I would also add that more and more philsophy came in the accessible, entertaining forms of fiction, film, music, video games, and sporting performances, as media expanded from just print, to all that we have today. Vranak (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. WOW. I've seen a lot of ignorant statements on these desks but this has to be the winner: "he's more of a pedant than a truly original thinker." Vranek, PLEASE learn something about a subject before commenting on it. And, in second place: "most of the serious issues had already been dealt with long before." Do you know ANYTHING about 20th Century linguistics or logic or analytical philosophy? 63.17.50.124 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or mathematics. Or pacifism. Or agnosticism/atheism. Just because he didn't make the Philosopher's Song doesn't mean he wasn't a key thinker in at least a half dozen fields. And if you prefer the sound-bite style, Einstein thought he was brilliant - almost the very last thing old Albert ever did was sign the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Matt Deres (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell has never done anything for me, and I don't mind telling you. Nietzsche has the ubermensch, Kierkegaard has the Knight of Faith, Kant has the categorical imperative, Tsunetomo has 'accept death and be blameless' -- what does Russell have? Vranak (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are absolutely right: a philosopher's merit is to be judged by whatever one-phrase cliche he/she has come to be identified with by people who only know enough about philosophy to answer a crossword puzzle clue. Shakespeare had "To be or not to be," Jack Nicholson had "Heeeere's Johnny!', FDR had "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Rodney King had "Can't we all get along" -- what did Confucius have? Confucius ... what a lame-ass! 63.17.62.100 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in a sober discussion, might I suggest you lay off the sarcasm. It is impossible to respect such an approach, or a person who takes it. Vranak (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, to call these mere catchphrases is to miss the point incredibly. These are core concepts that inform and permeate the entirety of their work. As far as I know, the most radical concept that Russell ever came up with was no more sophisticated than Borat -- "I like sex! It's nice!" Vranak (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two great things Russell had:

Russell's teapot
The attack on inductivism. You know, with the chickens and the benevolent farmer.

213.122.11.217 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, "prolific" has something to do with quantity rather than quality. As I understand it the OP asks if Russel was the writer who published the greatest amount of philosophy books in the 20th century, and not whether his philosophy was relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To address the OP's question: It is highly unlikely that Russell is the most prolific, in terms of pages published specifically as "philosophy" (he wrote quite a lot of informal prose, as well). For example: Sartre's Being and Nothingness, Critique of Dialectical Reason, Saint Genet, The Family Idiot, plus a host of smaller books and a constant stream of journal articles, certainly match the total number of pages Russell published specifically as "philosophy"; and if "writing" is broadened to all of Russell's work, Sartre's novels, plays, and memoir (and transcribed interviews, while we're at it) would also be comparable. Sartre is a random example; others could think of many more, I'm sure. 63.17.50.124 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question might hinge on whether to consider his correspondence as part of his philosophical writing. As our article notes, he maintained a huge personal correspondence, of which only some has been formally published. I don't know the topics covered (a lot of his stuff is more political than strictly philosophical), but I doubt people were writing to him to get his opinion on the weather, so to speak. McMaster University has more than 30,000 letters and I don't believe their collection is near complete. Even for a guy who lived a century, that's a lot of letter writing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surname of the Dukes of Norfolk

Why did the children of Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk and all subsequent descendants take the surname Fitzalan-Howard? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fitzalan (or FitzAlan) family originally held the Earldom of Arundel. The 19th Earl died without male issue, so the title went the son of his daughter and her husband, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk: Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. There was then lots of fun stuff involving treason and titles being taken away (attained) and then given back by future monarchs. It seems that after all that, Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk and 31st Earl of Arundel, decided the honour his forebears and give his children the old name of Fitzalan that had died out along with the 19th Earl. As far as I can tell, there was no particular reason for him to do that, so I can only assume that he just felt it was a good idea. Interesting, he wife took the double-barrelled name when she married him (Charlotte Fitzalan-Howard, Duchess of Norfolk), but it seems he never changed his name. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tango. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the maternal grandmother of John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk (who was killed at Bosworth, fighting for his friend and king Richard III, and known as Jockey of Norfolk), was Lady Elizabeth FitzAlan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all unusual for two old aristocratic families to have multiple marriages between them. I expect the marriage I mentioned is the relevant one, since it was in that generation that the name died out and the Earldom transferred to the Howard family. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lady Elizabeth FitzAlan had actually married Thomas Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk and their daughter, Margaret had married John Howard's father, Robert. The marriage between the 4th Duke of Norfolk and Mary Fitzalan which you cited was the first marriage between a Fitzalan and a Howard. I only brought up the earlier connection to show that the Howards already possessed Fitzalan ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now another questions follows: who is eligible to succeed to the Earldom of Arundel? When the last FitAlan earl died, the earldom devolved upon the son of his late daughter, meaning that it does not pass only to heirs male. However, the earldom passed to heirs male instead of heirs general in several occasions before and after the death of the last FizAlan earl. Is it some kind of semi-Salic rule, where female heirs can succeed only when all male heirs die out? Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight David Eisenhower biography

There is very litle (none) information on Eisenhower's mother. There is a great deal of speculation that she was a women of color or more specifically of African descent. I have seen pictures and being from New Orleans I very rarely fail to see African ancestry in people of color. And if the picture I saw of Mrs. Eisenhower is truly his mother she obviously did have african ancestry. She certainly was not white. I have read she was from Ohio and in that area it was well known among African americans that she was black. You should at least recognize the controversy even though it is probably not verifiable. The absence of any information stands as silent testimony to the very high probabilty that she was black. Other presidents also are said to be black. Warren g. Harding attended a no longer existent Historically Black College/University. Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson likewise are believed to have questionable 100% white ancestry. Painful as these concepts may be to white Americans, we must look at our history realistically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.213.161 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The absence of any information stands as silent testimony to the very high probabilty that" we should include any damn thing that pops into someone's head? No, sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Sorry to be blunt, but that's what your argument boils down to. — Lomn 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, though, that Eisenhower's family tree is pretty well documented. You're welcome to dig up reliable sources on his ancestors. As for Warren G. Harding, he attended Ohio Central College. OCC was not segregated, but was not an HBCU either. — Lomn 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the OP is so pained by this so-called "controversy." DOR (HK) (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "the controversy" was well known, then there are doubtless newspaper refs documenting that Axis propagandists publicized it or made assertions during WW2, or that his opponents in the 1952 presidential election used it in a whispering campaign, as they did against Abe Lincoln in 1860. There is nothing like that in the Google News results for 1941-1953, although it is impossible thus to prove a negative. On the blogosphere, sites of dubious reliability state that Ida Stover Eisenhower's mother s Elizabeth Link, was an African American from Mt. Sidney, VA, and make inferences from the appearance of Ida's hair and facial features in her 1885 wedding photo on the Eisenhower website cited above for the family tree. Edison (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph jefferson, brother of thomas jefferson

"From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia jump to: Navigation, search randolph jefferson (october 1, 1755 – august 7, 1815) was the younger brother of thomas jefferson. He was thomas' only brother to survive infancy, and was a twin to anna scott, thomas' youngest sister. Randolph was 12 years younger than thomas and lived at monticello for many years. He married his first cousin anne jefferson lewis in 1781 and was widowed some time between 1792 and 1807."

What is the source of the information concerning, "Randolph...Lived at monticello for many years"?

William G. Hyland jr. (e-mail redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.22.1 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've removed your e-mail address to save you from spambots. All Reference Desk questions are answered here at the desk. 2. I have taken the liberty, in this edit, to add a "citation needed" tag next to the sentence you're asking about. This doesn't answer your question, but alerts other editors that a citation is needed — really, every fact cited in a Wikipedia is supposed to have a reference. If the tag stays on that sentence for a long time then you or some other editor may remove the entire sentence. ("Long time" often means months around here. It could mean days, or, of course, if you can cite a source that states otherwise, you should just remove the inaccurate sentence yourself, replace it with a referenced statement, and include a mention of the reference. See WP:REFERENCES if you're interested.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], Randolph lived on his own plantation at least since 1781. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal jargon

I'm looking to compile a list of commonly-used legal terms that look like ordinary words but have specialized meanings in law. Can someone help? --96.227.54.93 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, color, taint, sugar bowl, passing off, yellow dog, elephant test, I know it when I see it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery (law), Sentence, Equity, Blue pencil, Capacity, Consideration, Mistake, Negligence, Necessity, Offer and acceptance, Presumption, Reasonable doubt, Ripeness, Standing, Stopping the clock, Unclean hands, Unconscionability, Undue hardship, Undue influence. See also Category:Legal doctrines and principles and especially Category:Legal terms and children. There must be many. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continue (to stop for now), plea (not only its ordinary legal meaning but also its informal use to mean a plea of guilty), evidence (if it's not presented in court it's not evidence), witness (anyone who testifies, not necessarily someone who saw the crime happening). At least in some legal systems the duration of a prison sentence is often less than the indicated number of years; analogously for life sentences and death sentences. I don't think "reasonable doubt" belongs on the list, though. --Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, June 23, 2010.

My favorite example of this kind is to take. Another good example is interested. John M Baker (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Interest" isn't so much a different legal usage, just a slightly archaic everyday usage. In old books you read about someone being a "disinterested friend", for example, which means they think about what's best for you, not for themselves. --Tango (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinterested," yes, is still widely used to refer to neutrality, but I think "interested" in the sense of being directly affected is less common in ordinary usage. But you're quite correct that, regardless of how common or uncommon the term may be, there is a nonlegal use with a similar meaning, so in that sense it may not be what the OP is looking for. John M Baker (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fee:" in law, a heritable estate in land. In feudal law, fee was another term for same as "fief:" land granted to a vassal by a lord. "Devise:" in law, "to transmit or give real property in a will." Also will, fee tail, binder, bar, bench, briefs, count, discharge, information, issue, motion, sanction, sentence, and settlement. Edison (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One I just learned today is information. See also wikt:Category:Law.—msh210℠ 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge," as in "carnal knowledge." Edison (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also "knowledge" as in Scienter, or a willful criminal act. Plus there's nuisance, Table (parliamentary), Standing (law) (and yes, Wikipedia has an article on the "human position in which the body is held upright", too), arbitrary, putting toothpaste back in the tube, Delegation (law), notice, rule, Relevance (law), Code (law), Accessory (legal term), "justice" to refer to a human being, and my favorite, material. --M @r ē ino 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]