Humanities desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 18

Common Law/Modern law

what is the difference between common law and modern law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluelessnskool (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common law is not opposed to modern law, but to statutory law. Common law is a set of precedents in the Anglo-Saxon law system going back to Germanic law precedents such as weregeld (which is long unhonored). Non-common-law systems go back to statutory law which declares itself the sole law, such as the Napoleonic code and the inquisitorial system where judges sit as prosecutors rather than objective mediators between prosecutors and defense counsel. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to double check the historical and substantive function of the magistrate and the justice of the peace in terms of common law lacking an inquisitorial function; but, otherwise pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you prosecute 203 for his blatant plagiary below I will discuss how district attorneys and administrative law judges have replaced magistrates, seen as corrupt royal surrogates, in American law. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right after I file suit for slander. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best, you can claim ignorance, and say you violated WP:OVERLINK due to ignorance, not having read my response at all. But your indentation is a prima facie indication that you read the posts above yours. So good luck with the claim of innocence. :) μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response, but I opted to write my own since I didn't think yours was adequate for several reasons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If that's a homework question, it's a bad one, because those aren't opposites. Common laws are those developed by years of tradition and court rulings, as opposed to legislative acts. However, modern laws can be either type, or, more often, a mixture. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The modern law system in most English speaking countries is based on common law and supplemented (or in some cases invalidated) by statutes. Common law is the body of law that is set by precedent. Statutes are the law made by the legislature (congress, parliament, etc.), and approved by the executive (president, Queen, King, governor general, etc). As an example, see how statutory rape contrasts with rape generally. Common law systems also generally incorportate the adversarial system of judicial process, where both parties argue their case to an impartial judge. Common law systems often also incorporate a jury for serious criminal and in some cases also civil matters. Modern law in countries with legal traditions primarily sourced from the Napoleonic code have no common law. Their law is purely statutory. These juridicitons generally use the inquisitorial system of judicial process where the judge or a panel of judges investigates facts on their own. They don't generally have juries, though some do have the similar concept of lay judges. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most European countries using civil law have long since changed to an adversarial system, so that is not a useful distinction between common and civil law anymore. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. The article you linked to says, "It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law." 149.135.147.67 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As uncited as the statement you quoted. However you are correct, and I will amend my statement to only include the Scandinavian countries, which, though having civil law, changed to adversarial systems around 1900. My meaning was just to make clear that there isn't a clear inquisitorial/adversarial dichotomy between civil law and common law. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly remember seeing an article within the last few years about teaching Italian(?) judges and lawyers how an adversarial system works. —Tamfang (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Dole and his Cabinet

Can anybody help me identify who are the individuals in this image? The only figures I can guess for sure are Sanford B. Dole (center), Samuel Mills Damon (far left) and William Owen Smith (far right). I want to say that the man to the right of Dole is Lorrin A. Thurston but he has much more hair and his eyes look different than Thurston's. Also I don't think any of the three are James A. King or Peter Cushman Jones show in another photograph of Dole's executive council. Any help will be appreciated.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that the man on the far left is James A. King. It's pretty clear just from looks but if you need individual elements, blow up the photograph to full size; look at the eyes and the eyebrow (the giant hands are another minor detail). The general look but especially the eyes for Thurston are pretty unmistakable. The photograph from his article has a circa date and because of the hair, I'm guessing its a few years later but it's him. But after quite a bit of looking I cannot track down who the individual is next to Smith.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm – could it be F.W. McChesney? (Process of elimination and there an illustration at the bottom of this page not good enough to tell at all if it's him, but he does have a full head of hair and mustache like in the photograph.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of lockable doors - who had them?

I'm curious about the spread of lockable doors (and chests), over civilization-spans. I'm looking for any maps/figures/commentary, that give details of which demographics (of any area/culture/era) had a "lockable front door" over the course of recorded history. Ie. In the year (-500BC, 640AD, 1200AD, 1600AD etc) did an average labourer/baker/magistrate/citizen in country x, carry a padlock- or house-key around all day?

(No info found via lock (device) or locksmithing. A brief google found a few hints and some history, eg. Schlage's History of Locks, but no details on how widespread it was amongst any general populations.)

Thanks =) -- Quiddity (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Padlock article has some information; "The earliest positive evidence of padlocks comes from the Roman Era, 500 BC–300 AD. They were known in early times by merchants traveling the ancient trade routes to Asia and China. Padlocks with spring tine mechanisms have been found in York, England at the Jorvik Viking settlement - dated 850 AD." As York was a bit of a frontier town rather than a high status capital, I suspect that their use would have been widespread in 9th century Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were also some more lo-tech ways to secure a door, such as having to reach thru a hole to undo a latch, perhaps with a watchdog on the other side who would tear the hand off of anyone but his master. StuRat (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder when they started placing locks on restroom doors. Must be a modern practice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, restrooms are a fairly modern practice. Outhouses may well have had locks, but probably more to make sure the door stayed shut and to stop animals getting in than to preserve privacy, I would guess (the design of outhouses is usually dictated by practicality). Our article does discuss the design of outhouse doors, but doesn't mention locks. --Tango (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous generations didn't share our squeamishness about bodily functions. At the Jorvik Viking Centre (home of the padlock mentioned above), they have a reconstruction of a Viking latrine - not much need for a lock on that one. Even more sociable was the Roman public toilet, where you could have a chat with the 15 or 20 complete strangers who were using it at the same time - examples survive from Turkey (pictured) to Hadrian's Wall. Into the 20th century, two-seater latrines could be found on farms across Europe and North America, although I suspect that they only had multiple occupancy en famille. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-seater latrines aren't as bad as 2-story latrines. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forge the Love Toilet: [1]. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The oldest known lock was found by archeologists in the Khorsabad palace ruins near Nineveh. The lock was estimated to be 4,000 years old. It was a forerunner to a pin tumbler type of lock, and a common Egyptian lock for the time. This lock worked using a large wooden bolt to secure a door, which had a slot with several holes in its upper surface. The holes were filled with wooden pegs that prevented the bolt from being opened."--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that description I'm not sure if that qualifies as a lock. How were the pegs removed ? If by use of a key, then, yes, it was a lock. If they are just permanent, or must be removed by hand, then I wouldn't call that a lock, it sounds more like the cotter pin on an axle: [2]. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on the Khorsabad lock here; " The key, also of wood, was of such dimensions that it had to be carried on the shoulder. This key operates a wooden bar, which slides from right to left and enters a square mortise in the wall." Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the 19th century most houses were both places to sleep and eat, and also, places to work and conduct social life. Houses were normally permanently staffed by men, women and children. Patriarchal heads of household would only need to lock things against people who would violate their rule or order either from inside or outside the house. Given that locks did not provide security against determined invaders, they were a poor choice for many uses. Correspondingly, given that at various times human labour was "cheap," often it was more sensible to maintain a body of armed men bound to the head of household if he possessed anything he did not want the rest of the household to possess. Locks and strongboxes have limited uses in such circumstances. The separation of production from domesticity changed this slightly. As did the increasing price of labour. But generally when considering the pre-modern, ask yourself: why buy a lock when you can keep a child or woman minding it? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, that's along the lines of what I was guessing, but when did that change (for the average citizen) ? When an area goes through industrial revolution? -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Department IIa of capitalist production develops proletarian needs beyond food and shelter. There's not much point busting down the door defended by 3 year olds, when all the adults and older children are out working, when there's no furniture and they've burnt the floorboards. So somewhere between proletarianisation and kicking the women out of the factories—probably as people stopped burning their furniture over winter and started to accumulate furniture, food stocks, tobacco stocks, and small items convertable to cash. I'd suggest that even then, few people locked their houses because they'd be commonly occupied—you get this in modern proletarian communities where the elderly lament, "Back in those days we never even locked our doors." Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's only considering the wealthy. Commoners didn't have a staff. If they didn't want somebody stealing their stuff when they went out, they had to take it with them, hide it, etc., since locking a thatched hut or equivalent isn't going to work, as anyone could break through the wall or roof. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commoners had a wife and children. The very point of gesturing directly at the oikonomy. I'd suggest you read some histories of peasant women's working lives. Plus they didn't have moveable property worth stealing given the tightness of communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Iliad, Hera's chamber (built by Hephaestus) has a lock (book xiv). So the idea was current at least by the 8th century BC. Zoonoses (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eyelashes stuck behind the eye

Just today an eyelash came loose and touched my eye. I tried to get it out but it almost got too far behind the eye. Luckily I managed to get it out. So now I'm curious, presumably many eyelashes eventually come lose and wiggle their way behind the eye one way or another. What happens to them? Do they accumulate or does the body have some way of decomposing them? ScienceApe (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no unobstructed passage right round to the back of the eyeball; the continuation of the inner surface of the eyelids and the outer surface (cornea) of the eyeball join up a little beyond where one can (without instruments and the risk of injury) see/access. I've been looking for a cross-sectional diagram in eye-related Wikipedia articles and their links that clearly shows this, but haven't succeeded so far. Anybody know of one?

Any eyelashes or other debris that finds its way towards the back of the "pocket" these surfaces form is usually removed quite quickly by the movements of the eye and the washing action of tears (which is their primary function). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eye irritants can be removed using an eyewash which is availible over-the-counter from any pharmacy. If you are concerned about anything in your eye, you should contact a qualified medical professional, and not ask people on the internet for help. --Jayron32 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the eyelid is connected directly to the cornea. More likely the sclera. Edison (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasional had a contact lens decide to "go for a swim". I've learned from experience not to try to dig it out, as it will return to the front in short order on it's own. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learn conjunctiva. A thin mucous membrane (essentially very thin skin contiguous with the cornea) separates front from back. In "runny eye", an irritant can even cause large amounts of fluid to build up behind the conjunctiva, which temporarily becomes more visibly separate from the sclera. It can even become wrinkled with age. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What classical(?) wallpaper pattern is this?

A thousand pardons for interrupting your Saturday afternoon with this request. There is a computer game which features on the protagonist's apartment walls a [wallpaper of interest]. Can someone advise me the name of the pattern or any class of patterns to which it belongs that I may then proceed to find furnishings which feature the same or a similar pattern? --2.97.21.248 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it has a specific name for the patter, but it looks to me like in the style of the "Second Empire" style, see this google image search, which turns up similar patterns. Second Empire refers specifically to a style which developed in the 1860s, during the Second French Empire. See also Second Empire architecture. --Jayron32 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible for introducing bills in U.S. congress?

Recently I ent a letter to my U. S. senator and the response I got was a thank you and that he would keep it in mind as he was voting. The subject matter I'm sure would take introducing a new bill, but by the sounds of it he is not the one responsible for that. So if not him, or exclusively him, who else would it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.71.234 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Senator can introduce a bill to the Senate and any Representative can introduce a bill to the House. However, writing a bill is a lot of work, and judging from the bad bills we've gotten in the past, many aren't very good at it. And, nobody wants to put in all that work for a bill that won't pass anyway, so they are quite reluctant to do so. So, the brush-off you got from him really means "it's not worth my time to introduce such a bill". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that under the Standing Rules of the United States Senate merely introducing a bill doesn't mean that it will even be voted on. I'm not sure exactly how the authority is derived, but the order of business seems to be set by the leader of the majority through the President of the United States Senate. After a bill is introduced, it is usually sent to one of the United States Senate committees for investigation and amendment. If the committee so decides, then the bill can be returned to the full senate who may further modify the bill. If there is an agreement to do so, the bill can either be debated on the floor and then voted on, or sent to another committee. There's usually more bills in any given legislative session than there is time to investigate, debate and vote on them all, so most bills just "die in committee", that is, the committee doesn't have the time nor the inclination to investigate them fully and make a decision as to whether to return it the the full senate, so it just gets forgotten about. You senator, particularly if they're a junior senator, is not going to introduce bills that don't have some particular importance, that is, they are either likely to pass, or they're going to generate attention. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Article 7, Section 1 of the US Constitution, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." So if your proposal involves raising revenue he is indeed unable to propose it (in a useful way at least) and you might want to write to your Representative as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puyi's apple

Okay, so I was a watching this documentary on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG5qIKvlblE&feature=relmfu, and in the last few minutes the narrator said that Emperor Puyi was eating apples when the news of his eviction from the Forbidden City was told to him and that the apple he dropped was picked up and later documented when the palace was reopened for the public. My question is how long was the apple on the ground?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayans and Aztec

Did aztec and mayans ever clash, was there ever any war, did they traded with each other were they even aware of each others existance. --86.41.80.243 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They had contact with one another and they influenced each other's technology and religion. There were conflicts between the different groups in the pre-Columbian era, but it's important to note that these civilizations were comprised of city states that would fight each other, much like the ancient Greeks. So it's much more complicated than a "Aztecs vs Mayan" scenario. The details of much of their history was lost when the conquistadors decided the Mayan historical texts were heretical and burned them 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.41.80.243 -- There were many cultural contacts and commonalities within the general "mesoamerican" zone. However, the Aztec empire didn't start significantly expanding until about 60 years before Columbus, while the classical Maya civilization had collapsed about 500 years before that, so that the peak periods of the two civilizations didn't overlap. Both the Aztecs and the post-classical Maya revered the Toltecs... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban, al Qaeda and the U.S.

Is it true that the U.S. created and funded, and trained the Taliban and al Qaeda? Nienk (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's overstating it a bit. The US, Pakistan, and others funded al Qaeda, back when it was working to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. The US stopped funding it after the Soviets left, but the Pakistanis and others continued to fund it, in some cases up to the present. See al Qaeda and Taliban for details. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is overstating it more than "a bit". Even Stu's answer is an oversimplification. Here's a quick but more complete answer. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US channeled money through Pakistan to the (at the time mostly Afghani) Mujahadeen (not al-Qaeda) whose goal was solely to oust the Soviets. Bin Laden started an organization in Pakistan in the mid-1980s called Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to recruit and train foreign (non-Afghans) fighters to join the Mujahadeen. He funded his efforts mostly with his own millions and Saudi money and eventually received material and most likely logistical support from Pakistan. A few years later he began recruiting in the US as well. In the late 80s toward the end of Soviet War, MAK set up camps in Afghanistan. After the war (and after the US discontinued its support of the Mujahadeen), many Mujahadeen fighters desired to "take the struggle" to other parts of the world and MAK, working with Mujahadeen leaders (particularly Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom it is known received support from the CIA), absorbing their fighters and resources and eventually evolving into al-Qaeda. So the US never created nor funded al-Qaeda directly (although it is unknown what assistance was given to MAK in the early years) but it did inherit money and assets that the US and other nations provided for the Mujahadeen. As for the Taliban, that was one of many groups that vied for power in the chaos in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. It was heavily funded by Pakistan and the Saudis but never the US, although it can be argued that since the US supports and gives aid to both Pakistan and Saudi Arabi, some of the money was bound to have originated in the US. As you can see it is a complicated topic that plays out (often covertly) over decades and there is no simple answer.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's answer is simply wrong. It's highly dubious whether the U.S. did anything more than informally coordinate logistics and supply with Bin Laden's organization in the 1980s (which was not al-Qaeda or terrorist at that time, and which had plenty of donated Arab money, and so was not dependent on the U.S.), while the Taliban did not coalesce as a significant grouping until after the U.S. was largely withdrawn and disengaged from Afghanistan. What is true is that Pakistan always supported the most reactionary and extremist Islamist factions in Afghanistan (first Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, then later the Taliban), and made it a condition of the U.S. being able to work in Pakistan to support the mujahideen that significant funding must go to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The United States is guilty of agreeing to a Pakstani bargain to funnel large amounts of money to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (which did absolutely no good whatsoever in Afghanistan), but innocent of everything mentioned in Nienk's and StuRat's posts... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US did fund Afghan extremists at the time, see Operation Cyclone. Yes, they were the precursors to al Qaeda, not al Qaeda proper, but this is quite irrelevant. And saying they weren't terrorists is a matter of opinion. To the Soviet Union, they very much were. As our article says: "Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 commonly known as the term blowback. The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country." Yes, some disagree, but you can't say I'm "simply wrong" unless you have some really strong evidence that I, and everyone else who believes so, are wrong. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. did agree to a Pakistani bargain that large amounts of money be channeled to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but broad sweeping assertions about U.S. funding of al-Qaeda are wrong. Al-Qaeda was only just starting to be organized in 1989 when (according to the article which you yourself linked to) "American funding of Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami party was cut off immediately". Furthermore, al-Qaeda was a predominantly Arab organization, not an Afghanistani organization. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had some kind of association with Osama bin Laden at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, but Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was not a "precursor" of al-Qaeda in any meaningful sense. According to Maktab al-Khidamat, the bin Laden organization of the 1980s didn't take a turn towards terrorism until ca. November 24, 1989 -- and didn't receive U.S. funding before that time, anyway. What the U.S. is guilty of is bad enough in its own way, but it's extremely pointless to tack on additional imaginary non-existent sins. AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As some other people here have already said, the U.S. never gave money to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, since these organizations didn't exist yet in the early and mid-1980s. In the 1980s, the U.S. did give money and aid to the Mujihadeen (some of whom were Islamic extremists who would later form and join the Taliban and al-Qaeda) to help them fight the Soviets. However, the more moderate Mujihadin (Ahmed Shah Massoud, etc.) also probably got some money and aid from the U.S. in the 1980s as well, so it weren't only the Islamic extremists who were getting U.S. aid to fight the Soviets. I did hear in a documentary (I'm not sure which one) that the U.S. considered the mode radical Islamic Mujihadin to be better fighters because they were more passionate, but again, the U.S. probably gave a lot of aid and money to the moderate Mujihadin as well. By the time that the Taliban was created and al-Qaeda established a safe haven in Afghanistan, the U.S. essentially stopped its large-scale engagement (including giving large amounts of money) in Afghanistan since it felt that Afghanistan was no longer a vital strategic interest to the U.S. after the U.S.S.R. withdrew from there and collapsed. Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions about Italia

1) Who were public security keepers in that era (Leonardo da Vinci's era), royal knights or "polices" or something?

2) If I recall correctly, courts were in church's hand, right?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) No royal knights. Each nation had it's own army, but this is a bit past the age of knights (except in a ceremonial way).

2) Each nation had it's own legal system, but the Church also had a parallel system, where they tried people for crimes against the Church. However, if the nation protected a person from the Church, they may have been safe (this is what happened when Martin Luther opposed the Church, in what is now Germany). StuRat (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's (or should I say "its"?) anachronistic to refer to states of that period as "nations", particularly in Italy! —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Some seemed to be a little bigger than city-states. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, did lawyer-like and investigator/detective-like exist in the era? --Lê _{talk-contributions} 03:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they had the equivalent of a prosecutor/investigator, but no real defense lawyer. You had to defend yourself, although you could sometimes have witnesses speak on your behalf. Note that trials then tended to be show trials, where, rather than getting to the truth, they wanted to justify a decision they already made, in the eyes of the public. This did lead to something similar to a plea bargain, where, if the accused would agree to confess to their real or trumped-up offenses, they would be given a lighter sentence. If you tried to claim you were innocent, then they would likely find you guilty and give you the full sentence, regardless of the evidence. Thus, the courts of the time were a means of controlling the population, rather than ensuring justice. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. and serial killers

I have read from several sources that most of serial killings in the World take place in America. Why are there so many serial killers in the U.S.? Nienk (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if that's really true. Serial killers in the US likely just get more publicity. In other nations they may not be called that. Mexico has had a huge numbers of unexplained murders of women, for example, but you barely hear about that. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)And I have read from several sources that that is a misconception. Serial killings seem to be more sensationalized in the US media and that probably accounts for the misconception.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with StuRat. You will be surprised how many murderers get away in China, for example. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think Rwanda. For so many people to have died in Rwanda, there must be lots of people in Rwanda who have killed hundreds of people each. This makes the USA's gun problem look rather tame. Of course, the USA is supposed to be a bit more civilised than Rwanda, but that's the way the dice roll if those are the choices you make about your laws. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you count conflict murders the US would gain a few hundred thousand serial killers. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of serial killers by country gives some info, but, again, note that they may be severely under-reported in many of those nations. However, the relatively large population in the US combined with availability of handguns may put the US number higher than most. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many serial killers use guns to kill their victims. The only one that comes to mind is the Craigslist killer. Though they may use the guns to control their victims when abducting them or whatever. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I saw a documentary recently about a French couple who were serial killers. Apparently the police at first dismissed the idea that it was a serial killer commiting all of the murders because serial killers are "an American phenomenon". It's surely easy to find the couple I'm talking about by looking at List_of_serial_killers_by_country#France, but my company's filter won't let me access what it terms "violence".

In general, you can get some indication of whether or not your assumption is valid by looking at that list. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That list does include far more serial killers from the US (on a separate page), but classifying murderers as serial killers (or not) is inherently biased, so you can't go by numbers alone. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not biased, it's clear under FBI rules that a serial killer is that who kills three or more people during a period of time. Nienk (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but other nations don't follow FBI rules. And, even if they did, many local authorities would intentionally list murders that seem related as separate "isolated incidents" to avoid bad publicity. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point StuRat, which is why I said some indication. Remember I can't even see the list let alone evaluate it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor is that a serial killer may be more likely to be so specified only after they are caught, since the police like the publicity of having caught a serial killer, but dislike the publicity of not being able to catch one. Thus, nations which have more success in catching them are likely to have higher numbers. Also, in a nation where they don't have the resources to fully investigate murders, nobody will ever connect the dots to determine that a serial killer is on the loose. This might explain why the number of serial killers listed in third world nations is so low. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of the police having no resources to even be able to tell that a serial killer was operating in their jurisdiction is Verry Idham Henyansyah. He killed most of his victims in a rural village before moving to Jakarta and being caught almost instantly. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No couples listed under France. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the map, specifically at the nations with incredibly high (relative) murder rates. And then look at the nations that are likely to regularly utilize the best forensic technology. They don't overlap. The US has an unusually high murder rate for a developed nation, as well as disproportionate press coverage of serial killers. So looking at all this, all I conclude is that, amongst the nations with lots of murders, ours is the only one using the best technology to connect the murders. I just doubt that even murderers caught in an impoverished nation would be successfully tied to other murders they may have committed. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that intentional homocide includes non-murders like manslaughter, justified killings, etc. It may even include deaths in war, but I'm not sure of that. I don't know if the press coverage of serial killers in the USA is any greater than in Australia or the UK. They are pretty sensational events. You're right about the killers in poorer countries though. The earlier victims of the one I mentioned above are only known because he confessed. Apparently the police weren't even investigating them as disappearances, let alone murders. And what's with Greenland on that map? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland had 11 homicides per 56,194 residents in 2009, so the rate is correct. I was also under the impression that as a developed nation Greenland would have lower homicide rates. A8875 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to numbers that low, it's almost random. This is similar to how the Concorde went from the safest plane to the most dangerous, after one crash. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought as well, so I looked into the data. Turns out it's been consistently high (at least between 1995 and 2009). This does not match my previous impression of Greenland at all.

'	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Count	11	3	11	6	11	13	17	12	5	11	10	10	2	6	11
Per 100k	19.8	5.4	19.7	10.7	19.6	23.1	30.1	21.2	8.8	19.3	17.5	17.5	3.5	10.5	19.2

A8875 (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This chart makes me suspect these are grudge and alcohol related. I have an indigenous friend who committed a stabbing in a bar. Is there any info on the nature of the murders rather than just their number? μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our wonderfully unreferenced article: Law enforcement in Greenland. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"while the bigger towns have jails, the sentences are brief and its inmates can be found drinking on holidays" -- my kind of country. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with all 3 responses above from μηδείς, Someguy1221 and μηδείς timestamped before mine.)

According to [3] which were examining data from 1968–2002, most homicides were impulsive and alcohol related. Combining with data above with the data in [4], it looks to me like the rates went up from 1968 to a peak in about 1988 and then came down again, although it's so noisy given the low number it's difficult to draw this conclusion with any real confidence. From the same article "In 119 of the 308 homicide cases, victims were killed by shot-guns or explosives, 95 by cutting or piercing objects". It also notes the rate is considered high for Nordic countries and cites [5] which although I haven't read suggests alcohol and drug abuse have been big factors in the increase in homicide rates in Nordic countries in general. (N.B. I'm just following the source in referring to Greenland in this way, so no disputes over this please.) Law enforcement in Greenland which seems to primary consist of repeating stuff Lonely Planet said mentions alcohol and drug use as being linked to most crime there. [6] [7] mentions alcoholism as a problem.

Without wanting to turn this discussion in to too much of a political discussion, it's possible the firearm availablity is a factor, as the availability of a firearm could easily turn a nasty alcohol or drug fueled dispute into a homicide. If for example only 10% of firearm related homicides would have been homicides without a firearm, you reduce the number to about 209 from 308. To try and keep people happy, I would note even then the rate would still be high in worldwide terms and the study also mentions that the penal system is mild with even murderers in prison often being able to keep a job and family relations in the community.)

Both our article and the news sources note problems with domestic violence. The journal article didn't mention domestic violence and generally I think, women are much more likely then men to be victims of domestic violence related homicide then men and only 39% of the homicides were women so I presume plenty of them are not domestic violence related, but it's still possible a signifant fraction are.

BTW, the study's primary aim was to see if there was any seasonality in suicide and homicide rates (and therefore possible linkage to light levels) but they found none for homicide rates although I presume the low rates over their study even given the large study period made it difficult (I didn't check to see if they noted this). Incidentally, the study notes a few cases of people killed in multiple homicide events, but it seems from [8] even a 3 homicide event is still a big enough deal to result in lowering of flags etc. As an aside, we seem to have dealt with this issue better then the comment section here [9] where there was a lot of mention of the Greenland issue but little good analysis.

And in case people are querying my EC above, yes, it did take that long (I started researching at 3:30), because finding, intepreting and composing relevent info from sources, and checking assumptions (some of which isn't shown here due to the lack of sufficient quality sources like Greenland firearm availability) takes a lot more time then the random unsourced suppostion which started the dicussion I ECed with. This isn't unusual, for me and others I'm sure and I wouldn't normally comment about. Except I followed the correct indentation A8875 was using before the table induced problems which μηδείς unfortunately did not so left my comment above theirs after the EC. Which unfortunately lead to a problems after μηδείς moved my post, hence the hidden discussion below which I found particularly frustrating given that I had already spent a lot of time on this (the earlier time wasn't wasted, the later...). And while the supposition appears to have been correct, it IMO wasn't that important to the discussion, hence the frustration evident below.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

preemption discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have moved Nil's response below the ones that predated it by up to half an hour and changed his "below" to my [above]. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reverted you. Your change made my statement make no sense. My response clearly was not an EC with all the responses above otherwise I would be replying to nothing. Given the poor indentation here, I feel leaving my response above even if it was after is the correct course of action. While I appreciate A8875 started the indentation issue due to a formatting issue with table usage, they did indent their post correctly initially and there was no need for you to follow the table induced formatting problems (I admit I intially did but changed my mind when I realised it may cause unnecessary confusion and following the proper indenting should be much of an issue, and this was before I saw any of the replies below). In fact you didn't even follow it since you didn't indent your post at all, so it's not entirely clear to me if you're intending to reply to A8875 or start a new discussion. If you were intending to start another discussion, then it was completely appropriate and normal for me to leave my post where I did regardless of chronological order and even if I had seen your posts before I started replying if I was replying to A8875 as I was.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC>)

You modified your identation below so it looks like you're replying to A8875 but considering I'm following the proper indentation level of the thread before the table induced formatting issue and you're not, it's still confusing to have my reply below yours. And it is also confusing if you arbitarily move my post where I made it clear my post was an EC with all posts below which included yours but was no longer clear after you moved your post. Also it doesn't look like you notified Someguy1221 despite the fact it sounded like they were replying to you but this is no longer clear from the indentation. I've modified my wording above but given your failure twice already please do not move my post, as I've said, if you choose to fix your indenting level, I will voluntarily move my post. How you ident is to some extent up to you but if people feel your identing causes confusion, don't be surprised if they post above yours even you post before and your post is intended to be at the same level of identing. Edit: Sounds like it was not μηδείς who did the moving and perhaps changed the indentation level below. I've wasted enough time on this dumb issue so can't be bothered tracking down who did it, but whoever did it, please don't do it again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]