Humanities desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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.

December 6

Church of Scotland patronage and legal terminology

Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1711 notes that patronage disputes sometimes reached the civil courts. Was there a specific legal procedure for such disputes, something comparable to the quare impedit process for patronage in England and Wales, or was it just another lawsuit? Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scots law equivalent is an action of declarator. There wasn't a specific form of declarator for an ecclesiastical patronage. The leading case is Macdonnell v Gordon (1828) - I'm not sure how to construct a neutral citation for that, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Commandment

Alright, I asked another question earlier but this one is actually important, so I'm asking twice in one day.

Does anyone know of any biblical stories relating to the Catholic Tenth Commandment (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods)? Here's some background: I go to Catholic school, and for Scripture class we have to make an iBook about the Commandments. I was born in October so I got the Tenth Commandment. I need to include a way that a biblical story relates to this Commandment. I did a Google search, and nothing came up. So, once again, can anyone help me find one? Thanks again in advance. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 01:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do people born in November and December get? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, since no one is born in November and December. For November "or" December, they get pumpkin pie or figgy pudding, respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could help? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! If I didn't add any of this stuff my teacher would fail me! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 01:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Luke 1021, don't forget to distinguish between jealousy and coveting, the former being appropriate in certain situations (consider the conclusion to the First Commandment) and the latter not. One relevant biblical account might be that of Naboth and his death. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the coat of many colors ? While it was his brothers who were jealous, that might be close enough. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the original meaning of jealous. My favourite definition is that you are "jealous of your own things but envious of other people's".--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, but it's certainly not a universal understanding. The definition I heard was that envy is when you want the same thing your neighbour has; jealousy is when you want your neighbour's things. Matt Deres (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jealousy is extreme possessiveness.[1] If your neighbor covets your wife, you get jealous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page says: "Examples of covetousness: Achan (Joshua 7); Saul (1 Samuel 15:9, 19); Judas (Matthew 26:14, 15); Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11); Balaam (2 Peter 2:15 with Jude 1:11)." By the way, it's not only Catholics who use the Ten Commandments; Jews, Muslims and even Protestants do too :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's usually Protestants who lobby for posting the Ten Commandments on public property. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably take a couple of tablets :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how old that one is? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Moses heard it in the pub the night afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the morning after the night at the pub. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: "it's not only Catholics who use the Ten Commandments" — I think UNSC Luke 1021 specified "Catholic Tenth Commandment (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods)" because others split the text into ten sections at different points. In particular, coveting your neighbour's wife violates #10 for Protestants and #9 for Catholics. See Ten Commandments#Traditions for numbering. jnestorius^(talk) 12:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, apologies to all. Alansplodge (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this bit in the Miranda warning?

"Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law."

Why is this there? What purpose dose it serve? Surely the point of the warning is to advise of the right to silence and the right to an attorney. Anyone being questioned by the police must surely know that anything they say may be used in court, they will know they're not just there for a chat. Is there any court opinons in the past that have dealt with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely" is always a problem in legal terms. How sure is this? How robust is this assumption? If the law is to be equally fair to all (a strong principle in US jurisprudence), then who would correctly understand this assumption and who could be misled by failing to do so? In UK law there is a notion of a "reasonable person", exemplified by "the man on the Clapham omnibus". This is the direction on which UK law is based and is one of the subtle differences to the US.

In the US, a viable defense strategy would be for a lawyer to portray their client, pejoratively but pragmatically, as an ignorant fool; thus someone who would not understand the unstated implication of the situation you describe. To avoid that, US law and Miranda has chosen to explicitly state these assumptions, leaving no room for doubt or an incorrect assumption. Some states even add a question "Did you understand?" after them (one might surmise that a legally safer, albeit longwinded, strategy might be to feign ignorance at that point). The underlying principle in the US stems from the Constitution and is that it's for the prosecutor to show that all suspects would have been made aware of the issues. In the UK it's largely to assume that if a "reasonable" person would act or interpret in some way, then it's the suspect's task to demonstrate why they would act differently.

The UK laws have changed over the years. From an initial assumption of a right to silence, and later requirement for this to be stated at the time of arrest, the 1994 PACE rules replaced that with an implicit threat that silence could also be taken as harmful evidence against the suspect in the future. This caution, and the potential assumption that a suspect either must speak, or should speak then (even before legal advice) has been questioned (weakly), as it goes against the type of situation that is the concern behind Miranda. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that despite the distinction you've drawn between the UK and US approaches, the caution in the UK (well, in England and Wales, at least; I'm not sure whether it's the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland) contains essentially the same warning as the one under discussion: "Anything you do say may be given in evidence." Proteus (Talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference becomes more evident in court. AIUI, a US court would take the view that any simple technical omission of Miranda procedure makes the case into something that a 1st year law student should then be able to have thrown out. It is much less clear in the UK: the CPS might choose not to proceed with such a case (as happened in the Becky Godden case) but it's not a legal inevitability that such a case would fail. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite common for police to behave as though they're just having a "chat" after arresting somebody, in hope of eliciting incriminating information. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, people have implicated themselves in the past after "just a chat". Consider a situation where a police officer says they want to talk to you "off the record". There is an opinion thatpolice are allowed to lie and whatever you say "off the record" can still be used against you, which many people would not naturally assume. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's the famous US case where the local police used a "lie detector" test by placing the word "LIE" in a photocopier and pressing the copy button whenever their suspect said "the wrong thing". This is simple browbeating of the weak, isolated and unsupported, which is exactly what Miranda sets out to prevent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if police are allowed to lie to suspects and use info those lies elicits, then how do the suspects know if the Miranda warning is true ? For example, if a police officer later says they gave the Miranda warning just because it's a technical requirement, and it doesn't really apply, how would the suspect know which is true ? StuRat (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity and convenience, any reference to the case(s) of this fake lie detector business? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would think anyone who fell for that could claim diminished capacity (or rather their lawyer could). StuRat (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Snopes lists it as "Legend", unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do. My conclusion after searching a bit is that lots of people on the Internet seem to believe it's a true story, but they tend to be people advocating anti-police positions. I did find a couple of cites claiming knowledge at one remove:

In this article it says that David Simon wrote such an incident into the TV series The Wire because he "saw Baltimore cops do it" and already knew that "it actually used to happen in Detroit".
And here in the book Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope, Mark Kelly says that his father was a cop who used to do it.

But of course that's that sort of thing that happens with legends: if you checked with Simon or with Kelly's father (if he's alive) they might actually say "No, I didn't see it or do it, but I knew someone who did". It sounds good but it's not strong evidence. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People v. Mays, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Such a good story, eventually the police just had to try it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cop lie I've seen most often on cop shows is, "Your partner [in the crime in question] has given you up." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or "we found your fingerprints." ("How do you explain that?" "Well, I've watched enough TV to think of several possibilities, of which the simplest is that you're lying.") —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In one of Agatha Christie's mysteries, after explaining how a murder was committed, Hercule Poirot declares to the killer, "You even left your fingerprints on the bottle"; and the reply is, "You lie! I wore--". Case closed. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth looking at the complex recent UK case involving the murderer Christopher Halliwell, the then unknown murder of Becky Godden and the career-ending decision of DS Steve Fulcher. [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extended explanation (with a somewhat cynical conclusion) can be found starting from http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2637 (lasts over 60 strips). – b_jonas 15:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]