Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

Are sex crimes and immoralities treated with harsher penalties than other types of crimes?

Are sex crimes and immoralities (sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual molestation, prostitution, etc.) treated with harsher penalties than other types of crimes (theft, embezzlement, robbery, shoplifting, driving violation, underage drinking, libel and slander, etc.)? Why or why not? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of sex crime. Crimes of the "sexual assault" variety, up to and including rape, are seen as particularly heinous because of the profound psychological effect on the victim, and as such are usually meted out harsher penalties than other assaults. Other crimes of a sexual nature, especially so-called "victimless" sex crimes like prostitution aren't given as harsh of a penalty. You've lumped a whole lot of crimes together in your question, and they are really very different sorts of things. --Jayron32 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the OP has specified no country. All the cases specificied except libel/slander (well NZ technically still has blasphemous libel but no other form of criminal libel AFAIK) are crimes in NZ in a number of circumstances, whatever you may think of the penalty. Prostition is usually not within certain limits (obviously things like underage prostition are). Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the United States, and I hear and see crime stories in the news once in a while. I know that convicted sex offenders are registered and cannot live near schools. I am not sure whether or not there is a crime, that is not of a sexual nature, but still somewhat like having an offender registry where the person's personal information and crime are displayed on a website for the public to see as a warning. I conjecture that that would be an embarrassing experience to have your name exposed on a public website, a place where a potential employer can check out and look at your criminal history (if you have any). SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that in many jurisdictions in the United States, sex offenders must register and have many restrictions placed on where they can work, live, and travel. This is above and beyond their convictions and any time served, fines paid, etc. It's definitely unusual. Formal punishment/restrictions for most crimes end after time is served. The general exception to this are from felonies which in some jurisdictions can permanently strip you of the right to vote. I don't think anything other than sex crimes gets you into a situation where you can't choose where you live. There has been quite a lot of argument about this in the United States. Those in favor it are in the "I don't want a sexual predator living next to my child's school" sort of argument, which is easy enough to empathize with, especially since recidivism is very high amongst some forms of sexual crimes. Those against this requirements point out that these laws inadvertently often end up concentrating sexual predators in communal living situations on the outskirts of town, which does little for their reintegration to "normal" life, may encourage their predatory lifestyle, and thereby be responsible for said recidivism. There's also the more general issue of whether you can have permanent, potentially unconstitutional penalties placed on people well after they've done their mandated time. It's a tricky issue and hard to make headway on, because almost nobody really wants to stand up for sexual predators, but on the other hand, the unintended consequences of these kinds of restrictions may be worse medicine than the disease. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay there can sometimes be a degree of "moral panic" surrounding sex crimes. I have observed occasions where fairness, justice, common sense, and the presumption of innocence go out the window. This is particularly true of the legislature, who can make populist laws without much thought as to the practical ramifications. Teenagers engaging in consensual sex being labeled "sex offenders" (and made to register as such) would be one example amongst many. As is the fact that those who fall under suspicion often find their career destroyed, no matter how thoroughly they are later acquitted. (Theo Theophanous springs to mind as an example in my city). There are websites devoted to this problem. 58.111.167.32 (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a link, Megan's Law is the catchall name for US laws requiring law enforcement to make sex offender registration info public. "Megan" refers to the murder of Megan Kanka--a terrible crime that got national attention and resulted in many of these laws being passed. The sex offender registration page has more info, and for countries other than the US. Mr.98 is quite right about the topic being tricky, to put it mildly. The lifetime requirement to register and be publicly known is perhaps the crux of the controversy. I worked for a county government for several years and while I had far fewer ethical issues come up than I did working for KPMG (my god!), this was one. I didn't have to work on the county's public sex offender information website, so I never had to figure out exactly where my ethical line was. I still don't know exactly where I stand, but it is amazing and a bit shocking how much information one can quickly obtain about any and all sex offenders over the web--at least in some US counties. Mr.98 mentioned the "issue of whether you can have permanent, potentially unconstitutional penalties placed on people well after they've done their mandated time". There's definitely some controversy over this aspect of sex offender registration. There are other examples of penalties that continue after a person has served their time. Felony disenfranchisement comes to mind. Oop, just noticed you already mentioned that, Mr.98, doh! Pfly (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to compare sexual and non-sexual crimes (aside from assaults and murders with or without a sexual element), but in the USA, UK and many other countries, selling sex is a much less serious offence than selling drugs. Although drugs also have a moral element. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, sentences for "first degree rape" can vary among the states from 1 year to life, with an average of 16 years sentenced (if not served). Before 1977, some states imposed the death penalty for rape. So far as the US is concerned, in cases of date rape or acquaintance rape, where a couple might go out drinking, then go to the apartment of one of them, start making out, then a rape occurs, without evidence of a struggle, authorities don't always prosecute, when she says it is rape and he says it is consensual, on the basis that in a "he said, she said" case it is hard to get a conviction, even with evidence that sex acts took place. If one person says the other pulled a gun and robbed him, prosecution is more likely, when the alleged robber is caught with the victims property, and a "He gave it to me" defense is not often successful. Thus it may be less likely for some sex crime to be prosecuted than crimes of the other sort, whatever the penalties are if there is a conviction. Edison (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient China

Where can I find some great pictures and information about the Great Wall of China and the Macau Tower in ancient times?? Thank you!!HyperStudent (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to already know you way around enough to find their articles, since you already added a note to one of their talkpages. Try following the links to Commons near the bottom of the two articles for pics of each. And would you mind not bolding arbitrary sections of your posts, its distracting and unnecessary, thank you. He iro 02:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the bold is the OP's way to express the fact that they are hyper? --Lgriot (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find any information about the Macau Tower in ancient times, since it was only built in 2001. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction started in 1998, though. Maybe the OP is young enough to consider anything from last century ancient :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find information about the historical Great Wall in the History section of that article. There are historical photographs of the wall before modern restoration in the Commons category called "Historical pictures of the Great Wall of China" and "Defense of the Great Wall". There are very few historical paintings or drawings depicting the Great Wall - Commons has a couple udner the main category and in "The great wall in art" but they are not "ancient" per se. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reward for information leading to a conviction..."

Something that always troubled me: Here in Australia (and presumably elsewhere) police often offer rewards for information leading to a conviction in respect of an unsolved crime. (Most go unpaid, but that's a separate issue).

My question is: In many of these cases, a conviction hinges not on the reward-seeker providing information to police, but on his testimony in the witness box. How is this accepted by the courts?! If a witness is in line for a million-dollar reward if the accused is convicted, doesn't this give him a million reasons to lie to the court, if he thinks it will make a conviction more likely? Isn't this a form of a blatant bribing of a witness?

For argument's sake, if the accused was to respond with publicly offering a reward to anyone who could come forward and testify as to his innocence, would this be similarly acceptable? Or would he be charged with ~~obstruction of justice~~ perverting the course of justice?

Have any jurisdictions found a way to deal with this problem, by somehow separating the reward from hinging on the accused's testimony? Or limiting rewards to information (i.e. which allows police to uncover other evidence) rater than one's own testimony?

Yes, I know the defence lawyer will no doubt put the reward-incentive issue forward aggressively in cross-examination of the would-be reward recipient witness - "you have a million reasons to lie, don't you?" (and in his opening or closing address to the jury) but how is this enough to address the problem? 58.111.167.32 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least with Crime Stoppers, which also seems to exist in Australia, then the information is supposed to be anonymous. You would never be asked to testify in court. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's bad? What about people who make their living as expert witnesses? No one is going to hire an expert witness who has a reputation for saying "My tests can't prove who the killer is." APL (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the defence might be quite interested in hiring an expert witness who says 'those tests can't prove who the killer is' (perhaps as I know form my tests). Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we end up with two sets of "expert witnesses", one of which will lie their asses off to say any defendant is guilty, and another set which will say any defendant is innocent. I can't see how such testimony contributes in any way to determining who is actually innocent and who is guilty. I would think any paid witness would be immediately disqualified as having an obvious conflict of interest. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then how would you get uninvolved experts to testify? You can't expect judges and juries to be experts on technical subjects. APL (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could refer to previously published works from "experts". I do think the jury would need to study up, too. For example, to determine whether two fingerprints actually match, instead of having one expert say they do and another say they don't, have the jury look at them directly, and provide info to them on how many points normally are expected to match to declare the prints a match, according to the various experts. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many offers of criminal rewards are for information leading to an arrest, and they don't mention anything about having to testify in court (examples [1][2]) Most prosecutors and judges aren't stupid enough to offer evidence that'll be easily discredited by the offer of money. (I also seem to recall reading that most rewards are not actually paid out.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most rewards of Crime Stoppers are not paid out because they are not claimed. Possibly people just want to put things straight. 88.8.67.30 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you're right some rewards just require an arrest, some rewards do require the info lead to a conviction [3] [4] [5] [6]. However a point the OP seems to be missing is that even in this case, it this doesn't mean the person has to testify. If I identify person Z as the perpetrator of a crime and police investigate and find sufficient evidence for a conviction it's likely I would qualify without having to testify. I presume in some cases it may be desired you will testify although as mentioned by AB, if you're provided the info to Crimestoppers your supposed to be anonymous so all that could happen is the police could make an appeal for the person who provided the info to come forward and testify. But relying solely on one witness's testimony for a case tends to be fairly risky even without the financial component. For this and a variety of reasons, I think in most cases the police would hope they can gain sufficient evidence from any info, without requiring the person coming forward to testify (there's often a reason they haven't come forward before and it often isn't the lack of a reward). Edit: BTW one of your examples does appear to require a conviction as well. And as a note, rewards for helping find the location of a known individual don't of course generally require a conviction because there must be a reason why they are already wanted. Oh and even if you do testify don't think you're going to get the reward if you're the perpetrator [7] Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional IRA spokesman's accent

What's the accent of this PIRA representative 1 from? --Cerlomin (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland? --Jayron32 19:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your reply but that's obvious even to me... I heard that cities in Northern Ireland have different accents, and the accent of Ulster is different to that of the rest of Ireland, or maybe the spokesman is faking a little (or exaggerating) his Irish accent. Sorry for not being clear enough. --Cerlomin (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the Language Desk for this one. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to define the accent precisely. All one can say is that it is a northern Irish (not Northern Irish) accent, a mixed accent. It is an accent from the northern half of the island of Ireland, and not necessarily from Northern Ireland. The accent is not especially intense or localised, leading me to suspect it might be from a northern county of the Republic of Ireland. It sounds middle class rather than working class. It is very unlikely you will be able to pinpoint it to a city; the accent is too generic and bland. The way he talks is insufficiently localised. In addition, you said, "the accent of Ulster is different to that of the rest of Ireland". Please note that the province of Ulster straddles both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This accent is likely an Ulster accent, but could also be a northern Connaught or northern Leinster accent – he could be from County Sligo or County Louth, neither of which is in Ulster. It is not necessarily an Ulster accent, though it is certainly northern. Some accents can be identified as coming from a city, or even a particular suburb sometimes, but this is not one of those. — O'Dea (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a border accent. I agree with O'Dea that it's not a Northern Irish (as in six counties) accent. The person speaking is obviously well-educated with good, precise diction. Not sure about Louth, perhaps Cavan?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above two comments in general, but wouldn't exclude an Armagh connection in the mix. Probably 3rd level educated in the south. RashersTierney (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mask doesn't seem to be muffling his voice, so I reckon this was made between 1988 and 1994, when the law that the voices of terrorists and their spokesmen could not be broadcast meant that the voices of republicans on TV were dubbed by actors (he mentions Mrs Thatcher, so before 1990). The actors usually tried to match the voice they were dubbing reasonably closely. The accent isn't very different from Peter Robinson's, and he's from Belfast - to my ear it sounds like a Belfast actor making an attempt at a south Armagh/border accent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listened again. Could well be dubbed. Not a trace of Peter Ribinson however, unless the same (southern) actor dubbed him at some stage too! RashersTierney (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. --Cerlomin (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]