Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 4

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 4

Greek opinion polls?

Any links to Greek opinion polls (on party sympathies), from let's say the last month or so? --Soman (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling on "poll Greeks" brings this up as the fourth result. Textorus (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is a subscription service. Also, I'm not looking for attitudes regarding the bail-out deal, but party sympathies. I see references that Pasok has 14% support now, but can't find which opinion poll this refers to (would like to see how the other parties are faring as well). Greek language links would be ok. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to WSJ but the link comes right up when I click on it from the Google results. The relevant part you want from a poll published on Sunday, Oct. 30, is this:

The popularity of Greece's two major parties—the governing Socialist, or Pasok, party, and the center-right New Democracy opposition—continued to scrape lows, with Pasok commanding just 14.7% public support, and New Democracy just 22.2%. More than a quarter of Greeks, 26.5%, said they were undecided about who they would vote for if elections were held next week. But 55.2% said they would rather have Greece's political parties work together than have early elections.

Hope this helps. Textorus (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But I curious how these development affect the other parliamentary forces, such as the left and LAOS. It seems there is an additional 36.6% of votes to be distributed. Does the WSJ state who did the poll? --Soman (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With the numbers from the WSJ quote above, I found this link http://www.grreporter.info/en/majority_greeks_reject_decision_european_union/5352 --Soman (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Descendants of Cœur de Lion

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Viscounts St Davids are descended from Richard I. As Richard left only one son, Philip of Cognac, who died in his late teens/early twenties and left no issue, how is this possible? Textorus (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not, but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This obituary of the third Viscount (also from the Telegraph) mentions an ancestor fighting for Richard but nothing about being descended from him.--Cam (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Philip having died without issue; it only says that his wife failed to produce offspring. Most young medieval men sired children out of wedlock prior to and after their marriages. A man in his late teens/early twenties would have likely left behind a byblow or two.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What Jeanne says does tend to be true for men from the aristocratic elite, largely because young women might hope to gain privilege or other rewards by sleeping with a nobleman. I don't think that young male commoners in the Middle Ages were as likely to find young women willing to risk pregnancy out of wedlock. Marco polo (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And while that did happen sometimes, was there much to be gained from being impregnated by the bastard son of a dead king? Philip wouldn't have gained anything from it either. It seems extremely unlikely that he had any children, especially since there seems to be no other evidence for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Men normally don't think about anything beyond their own gratification whilst they are impregnating a woman. We really have no way of knowing whether or not he left descendants. Anymore than the average man today knows if he has any illegitimate children or not. I had a close friend who had her baby put up for adoption without the little boy's father ever being informed of his existance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's rather a glib view of men, women, and history. In any case, if Philip had a child and didn't know about it, and no one else ever knew about it either, and we don't know about it either, isn't this effectively the same as if he never had any children at all? And we do have a very good way of knowing if he had any descendants: the actual material evidence tells us he didn't. All else is speculation, and that's fun, but why not consider all the possibilities? IF Philip was at least a teenager while Richard was still alive, he was still a bastard and not in line to inherit anything. Richard was not the most popular ruler, since he was always off fighting expensive wars (or getting captured and in need of expensive ransoms). If Richard was already dead, Philip and his own hypothetical bastard(s) certainly weren't in any position to get anything from John, or Eleanor, or anyone else for that matter. Who would want to have an illegitimate child with an illegitimate child? But maybe he raped someone; it's possible, but if he raped someone important that is the kind of scandal that would have been recorded, and if it was some random girl, how would we ever know? And this is all assuming that Philip has the leisure time to go around trying to impregnate people, even though he wouldn't have been living the spoiled, do-nothing life of a legitimate royal heir who is actually in line for the throne - and there are plenty of those in history (medieval or otherwise) who did go around seducing women, without leaving any children. It's entirely possible to have sex without impregnating anyone, then as now, whether the woman is willing or not, and even if she are willing and specifically trying to get pregnant. And especially then, even if he did manage to impregnate someone, it was a lot easier for the child to die young without leaving further descendants. But we don't even know when Philip himself was born or died. All we know is that he had a wife who died without children, with no other indication that he had illegitimate children with someone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say may be right, Adam, but the assumption that Philip, as a bastard, was just turned out of the house to fend for himself with no job and no prospects doesn't seem quite right, not necessarily so. Our article on Philip says that his father left him the castle of Cognac - and presumably, I would think, the surrounding lands and tenantry, which would have produced an independent income for the boy. Illegitimacy was not necessarily the same as degradation and poverty for the children of kings: Philip's illegitimate uncle Geoffrey was brought up with the rest of Henry II's children, and Richard made him Archbishop of York, a very high ranking post, indeed. And of course, the progenitor of the English line, William Conqueror himself, was a bastard. So there may well have been an aura of the royal about our boy Philip; and of course, history records many, many royal mistresses who made out like bandits for their, um, services to the Crown. Even if it was just a medieval one-night stand, an obliging wench would probably have gotten a few gold coins to tuck into her chemise - it was the age of chivalry and courtly manners (not that some royal guys didn't act behave like bastards, then as now). But of course, we can't prove a negative one way or the other, unless the Viscounts have a genealogy back through some unmarried mistress of Philip's that doesn't turn up in a google search. Would be interesting to know, though. Textorus (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate offspring of royalty and the nobility were generally well-provided for as was the lucky girl's family; many royal mistresses were of the gentry or nobility themselves. In the case of Philip we will likely never know whether he left descendants or not; for that matter, we don't know if Richard had other (unrecorded) offspring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to the word "byblow", Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I also learned that word today thanks to her. --Belchman (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're both very welcome. This is where my avid reading of historical romances has paid off by having added such words as "byblow", "leman" and "wanton" to my vocabulary!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it said that the surname Carlyon is derived from Cœur de Lion. Whether that began through true heredity or through some other means I don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some if not all instances might be locational surnames derived from the two places in Great Britain formerly called Caerleon, or from Carlisle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely the way to settle this is to access the St Davids' pedigree? I have tried to access Burke's Peerage online but I get a 404 message. Perhaps it's available through a library. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Scrub that, it's not going to help - I found this which indicate it's of recent creation. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I've also found this which as a forum may be a better place for this query. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. The obituaries cited at thepeerage.com say that the late Viscount also held five separate baronies, one of which goes back to 1299 - just a century after Coeur de Lion's death. So maybe there is a connection somehow, albeit with a bar sinister. Not curious enough to seach any futher for it, but thanks for the tip. Textorus (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How are statutes of limitations good for the people?

How are statutes of limitations good for the people? How is not punishing illegal behavior just because it occurred too many times around the sun before it got found out good? Please don't tell me "See Statute of limitations," I did. Just please give me a to-the-point example of why it would be bad to categorically say that it's impossible to prosecute a case that had perfectly fine evidence yesterday but not today without even leaving the opportunity for cases that have nothing but nothing wrong with the evidence?

From Statute of limitations with my counters in italics:

One reason is that, over time, evidence can be corrupted or disappear, memories fade, crime scenes are changed, and companies dispose of records. Yes, things can dilute evidence, but that shouldn't invalidate cases where all the evidence still is good The best time to bring a lawsuit is while the evidence is not lost and as close as possible to the alleged illegal behavior. Well, the best thing is for crimes not to happen at all, but we take what we get in life. Again, this shouldn't allow us to categorically invalidate cases where nothing is lost. And now that the crime is known about, what's the good in arbitrarily assigning a duration of time prescriptively to how close is 'as close as possible' when people are wanting justice for things such as rape, arson, murder (in Japan after 25 years), for instance? Another reason is that people want to get on with their lives and not have legal battles from their past come up unexpectedly. The injured party has a responsibility to quickly bring about charges so that the process can begin. Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As the header clearly says, this isn't a place for debates. However I will say clearly different people will have different views and if you think only your view is the correct one you're not going to get anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the topic is one that could easily arouse emotions, but if I am ignoring some objective reason(s) why it would be good to have statutes of limitations in all cases of a given type of crime instead of taking it on a case-by-case basis, I'd like to know what that/those reason(s) is/are. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It originated at a time where the primary evidence consisted of witness-statements. And as such if a case was reopened after a certain period of time, the accuracy of witnesses could not be deemed trustworthy. However with the development of forensic evidence, specifically DNA, it does seem like cases could be made in a lot of instances after the statute of limitation. I guess the main reason to introduce this was probably to alleviate the pressure on an already strained justice system. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can accept the practical if not ideal issue you point out of making a cut-off because the system isn't believed to be able to handle the volume of cases that would come in without the cut-off more than the reasons given from the Wikipedia article that I quoted above. Sacrificing justice for some being the price to pay to avoid delaying everyone's day in court by possibly years or more. Thanks.20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing the point it's not just about delays (which can probably be partially alleviated by increasing resources spent) but also about whether it's an effective use of resources to prosecute someone for some historic crime, particularly if it's low level offence. Note that even in your hypothetical but unexplained case by case basis, presumably you still need to investigate to some extent to decide whether it's one case worth prosecuting. Remember money and time doesn't come out of thin air. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well a simple example: You said 'Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook' but you seem to be ignoring the fact it's a binary (if we ignore things like sentence time). Either the state administers justice or it doesn't. If it does, then those who want to see justice or say it's unfair on the victim will say that's wrong. If it doesn't then those who consider it a waste of the governments resources, unfair to alleged perpetrators, not helping perpertrators reform and get on with their lives, may be even damaging to any victims, etc will say it's wrong. Your initial statement suggests you only think the first parties matter. (You now say on a case by case basis but you don't seem to have considered how this works. A national vote for every person past the statute of limitations? Randomly selecting people who will be prosecuted past the statute of limitations to try to please both those who want to see the state administer justice and those who disagree? ) Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we have laws in the first place, is to protect the individual from the abuses of the government. Laws exist to protect YOU, (yes, YOU OP 20.137.18.53). People, in their analysis seem to always think about the law as pertaining to OTHER people, as if no one is ever falsely accused. Well people are falsely accused A LOT. So tell me 20.137.18.53, how wonderful and fair a system do you think it would be if some snot nose decided to accuse YOU of molesting them, 25 years ago. How exactly would you go about defending yourself of that charge? Isn't it a bit obvious now, the answer to your question? Greg Bard (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto?

By the way, do limitations on ex post facto laws affect the statute of limitations? Like, if the legislature decides that due to DNA evidence certain rape cases can be tried even 35 years after the fact where there's physical evidence, can they simply pass such a law and go after the culprits? Wnt (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. In the case of new technology, there doesn't have to be a new law permitting each and every advance in the field of forensics. They are already permitted for in the law, as far as courtroom procedures are concerned. The crime itself is separate and distinct (and therefore the statutes of limitations on them) from any methods we use to discover the culprits. Greg Bard (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of reliable legal sources that address all the concerns heretofore raised in this thread:

• • "Statutes of Limitations" in Criminal Law and Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal, 2008. (law textbook)
  • "Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview," Congressional Research Service, 2007. (page 1 has a nice overview of the general topic)

Textorus (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The FAS link (though I don't know why they'd have it) is clear that the statute of limitations can be extended retroactively unless it has expired, oddly enough. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if a crime isn't that severe, then it may just be for the good of everyone to let past crimes slide and focus more on the present. Another idea is that if a crime was really that egregious, then surely it would have be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities long ago. Perhaps the powers that be want to discourage people from holding onto secret knowledge until the time is right and then exposing a crime, which is maybe not such kosher behaviour since it carries the idea that a crime isn't worth reporting until there's some potential profit margin for the person bringing it to light. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, if a crime is not investigated promptly, it's far more difficult to get a complete and accurate history of what happened (people forget, evidence is spoiled, etc...). Without a good understanding of what happened, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is far higher. SDY (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The roots of statutes of limitations go all the way back to ancient Hebrew law, believe it or not. The concern was over vengeance, where the victims of a crime and their relatives might pursue vengeance well out of proportion to the severity of the original crime, even visiting it on family members or descendants. This vendetta mindset was considered more damaging to the society than the crime itself. In Hebrew law - if I remember the details correctly - a criminal could flee his homeland to another city, and the victim and his family were forbidden to pursue him there. Then after a certain amount of time had passed (25 years in the case of murder, I think) he could return home (a very important principle in ancient judaic philosophy) and the victim and his relatives were forbidden from reprisals. This ideal gradually mutated - the state took control of the punishment of criminals and formalized the ideal that justice should be a balance between reparations to the victims and the interests of civil society (including those of the perpetrator).

Unfortunately (in the US anyway) there's been a push towards more and more severe punishment (the state becoming a proxy for vengeance due to political pressure, rather than an instrument of justice). too bad… --Ludwigs2 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ludwigs2's notes on ancient Hebrew attitudes towards assylum, see Cities of Refuge for the cities he mentions. --Jayron32 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Supreme Court has held:

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity. Toussie v. United States, 397 U. S. 112, 114-115 (1970)[1]

The example of child molestation is poor example as there is no statute of limitations for child molestation in certain states such as Florida, Mississippi, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Michigan. We are now also seeing a DNA exception to the statute of limitations in some states such as California. Where the identity of the defendant is conclusively established through DNA evidence, there will be no barring of the proseuction by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for the rape of a minor is when the minor reaches 50 years of age. The legislative trend is to expand or eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. That was not a good example. As for how ex post facto laws impact the statute of limitations, they do, but if prosecution was still possible at the time of the extension, the prohibition against ex post facto laws does not apply. Only in those cases where the statute of limitations had run will a later extension not include those crimes. Gx872op (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Texas judge currently in US news who can easily be seen and heard beating his daughter on video (which evidence was not withered by time) and will not be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations is what brought on this question. As for what I was saying that I accept the idea of the strain on the legal system being more of a valid reason for making a cut-off than the nebulous notion that some people want to forget about it or that in some cases (to some people) it's not worth the effort, the end result of a cut-off may be the same, but at least the former is motivated out of impartial necessity, while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook. Note that in this specific case, I acknowledge that knowingly sitting on the evidence helps to hold up the statute of limitations ruling. But what if someone else had caught this video if it were done outside (or even if the judge himself had recorded it unbeknownst to her) and held onto the video and cruelly given it to her the day after the limitation had run out?20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary moral issue here is protecting citizens from false accusations, and false prosecutions. Court case load or "strain on the legal system" is a ZERO priority as far as moral justice is concerned, and that argument has no place. In direct answer to your last question about someone cruelly withholding evidence... it's terrible, and too bad, however in the scheme of things the truth is that A) <shocking>we don't have to punish every single criminal for civilization to remain intact</shocking>. B) It is better to have 100 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person be wrongly punished. C) Just having the video evidence, and not being able to prosecute actually makes some justice possible, in that now the world knows, and can judge the judge for themselves. His reputation suffers accordingly. As far as the cruel withholding is concerned, there is no way to differentiate that person from someone who just didn't think the video was anything special or meaningful and just put the recording aside and forgot about it innocently. The truth is that, in that case, it's just a bonus that we should be grateful for.Greg Bard (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But the issue isn't just about 'moral justice' but what's the best overall outcome. I don't know whether this is much of a concern re:statute of limitations, but whether prosecutions for offences are an efficient use of resources (which may include the investigation & court costs & time and the cost of any punishments handed out) are a commonly discussed issue including by lawmakers. The resources can to some extent be boiled down to time and money (some would say time is money but from a societies POV, time is limited by population so if you need more of your population-time on criminal justice, you're taking it away from elsewhere). Since no society has unlimited resources, there is always going to be the question of where to direct those resources. So in criminal law, the question of whether spending the resources to achieve some idea of 'moral justice' (or whatever) as opposed to other things, like reducing the chance of injustice in the first place is an obvious one. And this is ignoring the possibility the resources you spend on certain prosecutions which may have limited benefit even if they are successful (which again may be a big if) will in fact reduce the chance of a quick or successful prosecution in other cases where the 'injustice' is seen as greater. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. First of all the moral priority is, well, morality. I am always surprised when I run into someone like this who places no value on morality, but then I ask why am I so surprised. What the "best outcome for all" is, is a matter of interpretation, an interpretation of what is the utilitarian thing to do. Utility isn't a moral value, it is a name we give to a collection of results, and does not involve any actual real moral principles, just consequences. I could easily take a utilitarian approach that supports my view: i.e. the "best outcome for all" is to make sure to respect the rights of the accused because that is the moral priority, and upholding moral priorities has it's own consequences. The judiciary has been underfunded traditionally. There are all kinds of systemic political reasons for that, and they are all, in reality, lower priorities than supporting our judiciary so as to ensure "justice for all." That is the reality. I don't have to pretend about it. The case load of the judiciary is a ZERO priority, as I have already stated, insofar as the moral priority is concerned (and for those who are morally unreflective, the moral priority is ALWAYS the real priority). Overburdened courts and police can NEVER be a reason for taking some action or not taking some action, insofar as institutionalizing a principle of law is concerned. If statutes of limitations being abolished had the effect of (somehow) relieving the caseload, that still would not be a reason to do it. The reason to have statutes of limitations is to protect the accused. Period. If somehow the overburdened courts and police was a reason to do anything, wouldn't it be a reason to properly fund them in the first place?!? Greg Bard (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Long time later so I won't reply in depth except to point out once again that resources are not infinite. 'properly fund' meaning funding them to pursue cases even when the benefit of doing so is unclear means resources may be diverted from elsewhere where they will have a greater benefit. For example, if rather then pursing someone who has no more children, is not going to have any more children and may have even learnt to accept what they did was wrong and have a good relationship with the children they abused you use those resources to fund greater intervention to stop new children from being abused, there's no reason why this has to be seen as 'immoral'. (Note that these may not be the case here, and don't apply to the statute of limitations per se since in such cases there is no discretion based on the facts of the case, but they do apply to the general point namely why use of resources may be considered.) Of course child abuse may not be a great example to use here anyway as it's a more extreme crime, but there are plenty of lower level crimes where this is clearer. Speaking of lower level crimes, there is also a belief in some circles that the burden of knowing you are at risk at any time is a punishment of sorts. You claim that the burden on the courts and associated parts of the criminal justice system like the police can never be a reason, yet this ignores the fact I already pointed out, it is often a reason, your personal dislike for it not withstanding. I don't know where you come from, but in many countries the police will simply not investigate some lower level crimes because they lack the resources. Plea bargains and agreements to plead guilty are made not simply because the prosecutor isn't convinced they will win in court or that they may get a longer sentence, but also because they recognise sometimes it's better to accept a less outcome if the outcome is good enough rather then bringing every possible case to court with all the resources that requires. Cases where the prosecutor and other relevant parties like the attorney general or whoever is responsible believe there is a some (but far from definite) chance of winning in court may not be brought if the odds aren't that great and the actual crime is minor yet the prosecuting the case may devote a large amount of resources. In many countries, this is going on all the time, whether or not you personally believe it should happen is besides the point. In the US, here BTW are some examples where increasing the burden on courts is discussed as one of the reasons not to do something [2] [3] [4]. Here is one where shifting the burden [5] is suggested. This one discusses the fiscal impact of a law which will in some cases increase the statute of limitations (and other things) [6] [7]. (The later actually says the cost increase may be minimal to the courts but may be not for the prosecuting.) While there's no guarantee the lawmakers involved have any consideration to the report which may have been required by the rules of the body involved, one of the reasons why such reports are made and required is because lawmakers do consider fiscal implications of the laws they make. Note that this doesn't mean that the priorities and decisions are necessarily right, there is often a lot of debate over that. But ultimately that's a matter of opinion and not something the RD is intended to deal with. And I thought I made clear none of this relates to my personal opinion on these matters which I've attempted (and I think mostly succeeded) in avoiding expressing my personal opinions, simply in explaining the multitude of reasons why such priorities and decisions are made. P.S. Note that I never said the efficient use of resources was a major consideration when it comes statute of limitations, in fact I made it clear I wasn't sure if it got much consideration at all in that case, I simply pointed out it is something considered in many cases including when it comes to prosecutions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In any just society with rules to maximize justice, those exact same rules will also, by necessity, also cause (sometimes grave) miscarriages of justice in certain cases. That doesn't mean that the rules have no purpose, or should not exist. A similar problem to what 20.137 notes is the laws prohibiting double jeopardy. Such laws exist to prevent the state from vexatious prosecution by repeatedly bringing the same charges over and over even if there is little or no chance of a guilty verdict. However, the same law also allows that, sometimes, a guilty person will 'get off' and be immune from being punished for that same crime, no matter how heinous. Such a person could literally confess to the crime and describe exactly how they did it immediately after the conclusion of their trial, and suffer no prosecution for that crime. Society has decided that such a thing happening is, on the balance, less destructive to society than would be the problem of vexatious prosecution, and so laws against double jeopardy exist. Similarly, laws exist to prevent evidence gained through unethical, immoral, or illegal means from being admissible in court, even when such evidence would be very damning against the defendant. That is to discourage police and prosecutors from using unscrupulous tactics to gain such evidence; again abuses by the state against possibly innocent people are seen as worse than a guilty person evading punishment for their crimes. It is the same here with statutes of limitations. --Jayron32 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

'while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook' - seems to prove my first point. Since as has been explained, as is obvious, ultimately the law can only be in favour of one 'outlook', this suggests you are convinced your 'outlook' is the correct one and are unwilling to accept not everyone agrees with you. If there was no statute of limitations because 20.137.18.53 doesn't think there should be one, then the law is still 'favoring one group of humans' outlook', it's just that you're saying it's okay because it's your outlook. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying any specific view on the statute of limitations is right or wrong, simply that there are plenty of reasons why people may feel one way or the other on the matter, and as with most things, if you automatically reject someone else's arguments as wrong because you disagree with them, you're not getting anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To the original poster: rather than discussing in the abstract how the statutes could be good for "the people", whatever that is, let's talk about how they could potentially be good for you. They could be good for you because you might someday be accused of something. That would cause you serious negative consequences whether the accusation is true or not, and whether you are convicted or not. Perhaps the prosecution's case, if brought on the basis of evidence involving fading memories and such, would not stand up, but it would still harm you to have it brought at all.

So the statutes say that, after a time that is likely to have rendered evidence unreliable, we bar prosecution. This protects you from having ambiguous evidence from long ago used to bring a case against you. Against this, you have to weigh the value of being able to bring cases based on more solid evidence against the unambiguously guilty. I am not saying whether the current statutes strike the correct balance, but I think you have to remember that, just because an accused person is not convicted, does not mean that person is not harmed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Curse of the Hope diamond

Regarding the curse of the Hope diamond, is it true that the Smithsonian's fortunes have been increasing while the United States' have been in decline? Dualus (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Google News, Smithsonian set record attendance last year. It is well known that the U.S. economy has been suffering for the last 10 years. -- kainaw™ 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, setting record attendance records is only one possible measure of success. That doesn't necessarily mean they are a financial success or considered to be a quality museum. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the indirect advertising via Bones (TV series) has helped? HiLo48 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the term for the verve/initiative/morale/spirit of a group of soldiers that was considered the most important factor in who won or lost a battle, rather than real strategy?

I used to hear it a lot, but it's completely left my head. I don't even know if it's a whole truth or one of those mythical attributes applied to commanders in the middle ages, and British officers in ww1. It would be phrased like " Commander X was confident that the ______ of his troops would win the day" Bewhatever (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word is just morale, but sometimes the french term esprit de corps (lit "spirit of the body", better translated as "spirit of the group") is used. --Jayron32 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Or you might be thinking of their élan. Textorus (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's élan. Thank you so much! I was going crazy from frustration.Bewhatever (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Textorus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers were often enjoined to be "men of pluck and dash". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When I pluck and dash, my wife complains. She wants me to stay around and cuddle for a while afterwards. --Jayron32 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Women often fall for dashing pluckers. Textorus (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The pheasant plucker™? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we all getting in early for Thanksgiving? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Espirit d' corps? Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Aka Esprit de corps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that another similar term is 'fighting spirit'. Flamarande (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sky Pilot, how high can you fly......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we ever apply terms like that to our enemies? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of opposing force morale as a decisive factor is often conducted by military intelligence. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who you mean by "we", the media and general public generally wouldn't. Professional military do. As observed it's also an element of assessing the combat effectiveness of an opposing force.

ALR (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was partly thinking of the Japanese "fighting spirit" in WWII. It was rarely doubted, but I cannot imagine anyone using the term élan to describe it. It seemed to be largely based on a love of the Emperor. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books, I found only one use of élan applied to Japanese forces during WWII, in a U.S. War Department handbook. As opposed to Japanese "élan vital," which is a different concept. I didn't try to perform an exhaustive search; but my sense is that military élan is a complimentary term, more likely to be used about one's own or an ally's troops than of the enemy's. Textorus (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd Indian Mutiny

My late father once mentioned that he was in India after WW2 finished, and took part in a strike, which he referred to as a second Indian Mutiny. He quoted this as the reason he didn't claim his medals and wouldn't buy a poppy. I have been unable to find any detail on this, and wonder if someone out there can help me with this. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it have been the Royal Air Force Mutiny of 1946? Textorus (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More likely the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, which was more far-reaching. --Soman (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus, you're probably spot on because he was a RAF wireless operator. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, you might be able to order your dad's service record from the War Office, or whatever it is they call it nowadays. I just saw an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? on youtube where someone did just that. Textorus (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The National Archive

ALR (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my father's records are kept by the RAF Museum at Hendon, and I have it on my "things to do before I die" list to go and research there. Doing it from a distance costs money which I don't have, and going to London costs money which I don't have. I've got as far as I can without spending money, I'm afraid. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My father was in the REME in Calcutta 1943-46. He spent his time in the post war months trying to stop the locals from killing each other (not very successfully by all accounts). Alansplodge (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)