Humanities desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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.

March 8

Impossibility defense

In Nevada, a man has been charged with attempted murder after attacking a mannequin in a manner that, according to police, proves that he thought he was attacking a live person. Judging by their words in the article, the public defender will be mounting an impossibility defense, since obviously one cannot kill a mannequin, but the article says that the Nevada Supreme Court has previously rejected this defense.

Are there other US states in which an impossibility defense is impossible (how ironic...) or possible only in extremely limited situations? The article mentions a Pennsylvania case in which a woman who accidentally spiked her husband's coffee with sugar, rather than her intended arsenic, but was still convicted of attempted murder. However, this seems to be different because the woman's actions didn't harm her intended target (the action of putting sugar in coffee can't cause harm, unless the subject's blood sugar is dangerously high), while the Nevada guy's actions really did cause significant damage to his intended target (presumably he could get convicted of vandalism at the minimum) and his mistake was merely going after the wrong target. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most crimes require both mens rea and actus reus, that is one must have the mindset of malfeasance (or at least neglect) and actually commit an positive action, or neglect to commit a require action. I'm not sure what that has to do with your proposed scenario, but those terms will likely be useful for you in your research. --Jayron 32 02:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article you linked to links to People v. Lee Kong although that case seems more similar to Pennsylvania. It also links to People v. Dlugash which seems similar but only deal with crimes that are attempts and our article says it a legal impossibility rather than a factual one. Finally it links to United States v. Thomas (1962) which is both listed as a factual impossibility example and also where there is probably a crime anyway, although it was marital law rather than state. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my non-lawyer eyes, the "mannequin" case seems like there should be a much stronger argument for impossibility than in the "coffee" case, because in the "coffee" case there was a real person that the defendant was indeed attempting to murder, and failed only because she used the wrong powder; in the "mannequin" case, on the other hand, there was no real person who was the target of the assault. The property damage is a separate crime/tort, not relevant to the charge of attempted murder.

I suppose I might see it differently if they could show there was a particular person that he thought he was attacking (because then there would be an identifiable "victim"). But of course killing a random person on the street is just as illegal as killing one you know, so it's tricky. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the subject, actually uses a rejected impossibility defense as its first example of an impossibility defense, referencing People v. Lee Kong. (Shooting at the location where you believe to target to be is still attempted murder, even if they moved, and the shots therefor posed no risk). Actually, every example listed under factual impossibility at Impossibility defense involves the defense being rejected... that article needs some help. Here is another case State v. Mitchell rejecting the defense, and duplicating verbatim parts of Impossibility defense, but also mentioning that 37 states reject a factual impossibility defense. It may help better frame the discussion both here, and in that article, to start with some cases where the impossibility defense DOES apply. Here is a case People v. Jaffe accepting the defense, though it really seems like a state split, rather than some clear logical line. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what would happen in the case of someone who tried to kill someone else by means of, say, witchcraft. My guess is that such cases are simply not brought to trial, because no prosecutor wants to stand up in front of a jury and accuse someone of trying to work deadly magic. But do the attempt laws apply to them on their face, and if so, would impossibility be accepted as a defense? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witness: "Your Honor, I saw the man sitting at the defendant's table as he stretched out his hand, holding a stick and pointing it at his wife, and I heard him shout 'Avada Kedavra' as he did this!" Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have talked about this possibility (see here), but there doesn't seem to be any US case law or statutory law on attempted murder via witchcraft, explicitly. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems impossibility is not a defense in Oregon https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.425 and probably Califonria ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2243_cfa_20000327_102147_asm_comm.html I think you'd have to comb through the laws state by state to get a comprehensive list. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I feel rather silly — the introduction to the impossibility defense article says that 37 states have prohibited the defense, and the third page of the cited source says "Thirty-seven states have explicitly eliminated impossibility as a defense to a charge of attempt", and that statement cites the relevant code sections for the thirty-seven states in question. The article even addresses voodoo. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counties requiring condoms in porn movies

Is there a list of counties in California that require performers to wear condos (condoms(I misspelled)) when filming porn movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think very few jurisdictions would require wearing buildings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I found so far before I asked my question. Ventura County passed a condom requirement and so did Los Angeles County. Which other counties have this requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my question is inappropriate because it deals with a dirty subject?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was inappropriate, we'd remove it. I'm having trouble searching because of the overwhelming presence of Measure B and California Proposition 60 (2016) in the news stories. There's some interesting stuff here that mentions companies moving out of state to escape the law in LA County. This mentions that it's technically been a health and safety requirement statewide for some time (no word on what happened to the goggle requirement mentioned). This suggests that it is just the two counties (as of 2013), with Ventura county specifically following in LA's footsteps (as it were). Matt Deres (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No response after 5 hours" doesn't mean it's inappropriate, it means no one who saw this post in those five hours knows the answer. Assume good faith, friendo. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public health and safety is not a "dirty" subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did the RMB devaluation end?

The Chinese government has been devaluing the RMB since the early 90s. And now recently I read that it's been manipulating it in the opposite direction, i.e. overvaluing it as of 2017[1].

1. When did the RMB devaluation end?

2. When did the RMB over-valuation begin?

I'm just an amateur, not a currency trader, so I don't need exact dates (exact dates are probably hard to come by anyhow). Just a rough year/month would be great. Thanks. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Currency_intervention#Chinese_yuan, it sounds like the devaluation is going on as late as 2010. But unfortunately it doesn't given an end date. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RMB has generally been appreciating since about 2005, when China changed from a peg to the USD to a limited float based on a basket of currencies. In 2008-9, due to the impact of the financial crisis, the RMB was devalued to deal with the general slowdown of the Chinese economy and falling property prices. As the impact of the financial crisis dissipated, the exchange rate mechanism for the CNY was further liberalised from May 2010, from which point it has generally been slowly appreciating again (although since 2014 it has depreciated against the USD, this is more due to the appreciation of the USD against the basket).

My impression is that it is not a consensus view that China is deliberately overvaluing the RMB today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II's longest-serving Prime Minister

My calculations indicate that Denzil Douglas was Queen Elizabeth's longest-serving prime minister of her reign (so far). However, there does not seem to be a list anywhere that confirms he is the longest-serving PM. Does anyone know of one?

The closest we seem to have is List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, but you probably already knew that. It's a start anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I originally used! It's a valuable resource. When I have time, I'd like to make a page: List of Queen Elizabeth's prime ministers by time served.

Just to provide context, Denzil Douglas was prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis from July 1995 to Feb 2015. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a column of time served, and then make the table sortable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are flexible in your definition, have a look at Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam who was chief minister of Mauritius before independence, then prime minister thereafter, making a total of more than 20 years (1961 to 1982). Wymspen (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is always one who makes it difficult to decide on a definitive answer!

Robert Menzies (Australia) beats Denzil Douglas even if you only include the Elizabethan years of his office! Djbcjk (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how, Menzies served just over 18 years in total, and about 14 under Elizabeth. Denzil Douglas served just over 19 years under Elizabeth. Menzies fails on both counts. --Jayron 32 04:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Numbered' companies in Canada

There seem to be many companies in Canada just with a number in the style 7654321 Canada Inc., not with a distinctive name. The List of companies of Canada implies that none of them are notable. Does this mean that companies don't need a name in Canada? Is it possible to enclose which companies chose to have it this way? Is this scheme also used in other countries? --KnightMove (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a short article titled Numbered company. There's a few refs and external links that may lead to more information. --Jayron 32 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, you can buy a new company "off the shelf" from a lawyer's office or similar, when you are to start a business. Many people find this is easier than to go through the procedure of founding and registering a company yourself. Companies like these usually have some kind of generic name before being bought. I supposed these number companies are companies of that kind. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British intelligence agency 'BTSS'

Coverage of the recent Wikileaks release makes mention of an apparent organisation within British intelligence called BTSS. This is for example mentioned in the same breath as MI5 in the Wikileaks press release: "The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS." Looking to find out what BTSS might be I see that we don't have anything in Wikipedia, and what I can see that turns up on the web is just from the last day or two in relation to the leak. Can anyone work out what is actually being referred to here? Wyddgrug (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything specific, but BT is the abbreviation for British Telecommunications, now a private company but formerly the government monopoly corporation for telecommunications. Intelligence and Government in Britain and the United States notes surveillance and signals intelligence cooperation between MI5 and BT. Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of MI5 is the Security Service or SS. Perhaps that is part of the acronym there? --Jayron 32 14:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian seems to think it stands for British Security Service [2] although the way they indicated that is IMO misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They have it in a quote as if it's from the original document, which made me think it might just be internal CIA jargon for British intelligence, with the SS standing as Jayron suggests for Security Service, but when you follow the link to the document as published by Wikileaks it's clear that it was added by the Guardian as a gloss, on what basis is not clear. Wyddgrug (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Value of work done by women

What reasons have been expressed by employers and payroll managers for paying less money to women than to men for equivalent work? (This may interest User:Keilana.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most won't, at least not in the U.S., because acknowledging there is a bias in the workplace can open the company up to a discrimination lawsuit. The gender wage gap is mainly an issue of systemic bias, meaning that because of decisions that women make (such as becoming mothers or using maternity leave), employers favor them negatively due to a perceived drop in work performance or attendance/reliability (even if this drop is imperceptible or nonexistent).--WaltCip (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, I've heard one or two people say "Men should be paid more than women because men pay more in expenses to keep a roof over the family's head."--WaltCip (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Where? When? It must depend mostly on whether there's legislation against the practice. Traditionally it was "because they're women, what do you expect". Now it is more likely to be "do we do that? don't think so", or "you can't prove it", or "the work's not exactly equivalent", or "there are more men in the higher grades but it's working its way out", or "because the silly things will go off on career breaks". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your replies. I found six excuses at http://time.com/money/4285843/gender-pay-gap-excuses-wrong/.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption that humans should live "ethically"

Why do humans believe that they should live "ethically"? What is ethics for? Why is it considered immoral to kill or hurt other humans? Why is it immoral to hog all the resources? Is morality for binding humans together to share scarce resources, or is morality for reducing suffering? What is wrong with suffering, even though suffering is necessary to improve? Why can't humans just allow themselves to endure suffering instead of avoiding suffering? 107.77.193.107 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read "Ethics" and see where it leads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also A Theory of Justice (preferably the book, not just the article) and, for a much lower level view, Altruism (biology). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How many years do you have? In general, the branch of human knowledge known as philosophy attempts to answer many of these questions, (especially the ethics branch astutely noted by Mr. Bugs above), but there is no way we can summarize all possible perspectives on the questions you ask in a simple thread. The source and necessity of ethics and morality has wildly varied perspectives, from the the theological arguments known as Thomism (after Thomas Aquinas), to the Utilitarianism of Bentham and J.S. Mill to the Nihilism of Nietzsche and 30 other philosophical schools that I haven't bothered to list, there are WAY too many perspectives to answer your questions in a pithy little thread on this board. --Jayron 32 02:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an evolutionary perspective, there are whole books on the subject, such as "Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser. AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP wonders about why it's immoral to kill, all he has to do is ask himself, "Do I have a problem with someone killing me?" If the answer is "Yes", then he has the answer to his question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. While I strongly support concepts like the golden rule or the categorical imperative, the symmetry that underlies them is not self-evident. Why should I, Jupiter, care about what you bovines feel or experience? After all, I'm more important (to me), and because I'm important, my opinion counts! ;-). From a pragmatic point of view, of course, if I behave anti-socially, the more social members of humanity may well band together and break my nose - that's reason to behave well. Add a few hundred generations of evolution and sexual selection for people with unbroken noses, and it becomes an ingrained principle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The initial point was illustrated by Dogbert when he said, "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant."[3] And your second point explains the process of how deeds come to be considered "immoral" - it doesn't just happen overnight. Some of the OP's questions don't stand up to scrutiny, as they contain questionable assumptions, such as "suffering is necessary to improve." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for some background to the above comments, when AnonMoos brings up biological rationales, he's using a well-known tradition called natural law (one philosophical school for ethics), whereas Schulz's point about society keeping him in line, is part of social contract thinking. --Jayron 32 14:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could also read about Ayn Rand and her ideas about rational egotism at Objectivism (Ayn Rand). If you read about how Ayn Rand herself got on it might make you think twice about her philosophy which was far too shallow to really encompass where her own best interests lay. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions rest on ill-founded logic. There have been plenty of human societies that have had no problem whatsoever with killing, hurting or sucking up resources. There is no absolute and unarguable human ethics or morality code, only subjective ones. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]