Humanities desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 21

USA federal lawsuit killing from police.

In my city Chicago, countless times in low-income neighborhoods, the girlfriend makes a 911 call on her boyfriend, and the police end up killing him. Then in a federal lawsuit, the guy's parents win 100% of the money, and 0% to the girlfriend. (And his parents choose not to give the girlfriend any money cuz her 911 call led to their sons death.). However, what if she were married to the guy? Does she get 100% of the money, or do the courts split it 50% to her, 50% to his biological family? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

That would depend on the laws of the region. Also, I doubt it's "countless" times this happens, or it wouldn't be on the news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is federal court, then it shouldn't depend on the state or city, right? And while police killings are on the news, you are right that police lawsuit conclusions are not as much on the news. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

D'oh! You're right. The question becomes, are there hard-and-fast federal rules, or does an individual judge have significant flexibility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case would presumably be based on a wrongful death claim, which allows the court to assign a financial recompensation. It would normally not be heard in federal court, since it is not covered by federal question jurisdiction unless a violation of the Constitution is alleged. I think that a case will normally be brought on behalf of the decedent's estate; at least, I could not find an example of a case brought on behalf of their fiancé(e). But this is not based on a thorough examination. Reportedly, under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, the children and surviving spouse are eligible to file a lawsuit and recover damages, or, in their absence, other relatives such as parents or siblings.^[1] --Lambiam 12:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that takes it back to the state level. And it also demonstrates the value of marriage vs. mere cohabitation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois offers essentially no legal recognition for non-married couples. Other states have different laws, YMMV, etc. --Jayron 32 16:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 197x my childhood dentist split from his wife and said, "Alimony? Ha, we were never married." As I misunderstand/misremember they had moved from Iowa, where commonlaw marriage was recognized, to Illinois where it is not. The kids picketed his office. —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The federal lawsuit would probably be 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights wouldn't it?

...cases alleging damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have been held to have distinct purposes that has expanded the recovery of damages for the pain and suffering of the deceased before his/her death and for recovery of damages for the deceased’s “right to life” by the heirs or the authorized representative of the estate...common law provided that tort claims for personal injuries abated upon the death of the injured party. As a result of obvious injustices caused by the common law rule, most states (except Idaho) have enacted statutes "survival statutes," allowing tort actions to survive the death of the plaintiff. § 1983 contains no language addressing this question and there is no codified federal survival statute, these state survival statutes provide the vehicle in recovering damages in survival claims under §1983.

[2] fiveby(zero) 02:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is two and sixpence in American money?

Can this English money of 1663 be put in today's American money? Can "three and sixpence" of the newspaper article of the 1663 English money be put into today's American money? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What fraction of a pound would that be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1971, 12 pence (d) = 1 shilling (s) / 20 shillings = 1 pound sterling (£): see £sd.

Thus 2s 6d in modern British decimal money is 12½ new pence or one-eighth of a pound. We had a 2s 6d coin called a half crown.

3s 6d = 17½ new pence.

Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this converter, 2s 6d or 12½ new pence equals just over 16 US cents, but in my 1960s childhood, a half crown coin was sometimes called in London slang a "half dollar", because it roughly equalled that amount at the time. How are the mighty fallen. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking what the value of 2s 6d in 1663 would be today, this converter from the UK National Archives gives a result of £13.15 in 2017 (US$17.23), equivalent to a day's salary for a skilled tradesman. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge:, I don't know where you're finding skilled tradesmen to work for £13.15 a day! To the OP, we have a template - Template:Inflation that automatically converts amounts of money to their modern equivalent - but only in the same currency. So 2/6 in 1663 would be equivalent to £24.16 in 2023. But how you convert that figure to USD is more problematic - which exchange rate would you use? Chuntuk (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was badly worded, but if you click the link, the National Archives says that a skilled workman earned 2s 6d a day in the 1660s. Workers are better looked after these days. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It fluctuates day to day, This converter only does whole pounds as inputs, and £19 is about $26. --Jayron 32 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: That's kinda my point. {{Inflation}} works out the "current" value for the most recent year it can - as I write, that's 2019, but if you're reading this post deep in the archive many years hence it'll be showing some later year (assuming the pound lasts for many years). We'd need some other template - or enhancement to {{Inflation}} - to allocate a representative exchange rate between currencies for each year, so we could have it say "equivalent to £a, or $b, in yyyy" and contain all the calculations within the template so they stay up-to-date. Chuntuk (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons of purchasing power are only reliable over short periods... over long time spans, changes in prices give only the very roughest and most approximate idea of changes in the value of money, says the University of Exeter. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are various inflators one can use to gain an idea of values over time. The website MeasuringWorth gives the following values for 2s 6d in 1663 inflated to 2020 :

In 2020, the relative price worth of £0 2s 6d from 1663 is:

£19.60 using the retail price index

£19.40 using the GDP deflator

In 2020, the relative wage or income worth of £0 2s 6d from 1663 is:

£260.00 using the average earnings

£433.00 using the per capita GDP

In 2020, the relative output worth of £0 2s 6d from 1663 is:

£4,430.00 using the GDP

They have a page Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth which readers may find helpful in considering the above. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan's mention above of the slang "half a dollar" reminds me of something that we have discussed before on these Desks - that is a comparison of the silver value of currency over time. The dollar is, or was, as we all recall, essentially a measure of silver. England still used a silver-based currency in 1663. So one comparison would be between the silver embodied in 2/6 in 1663 and its value today. According to our article Penny (English coin), one troy ounce of sterling silver was equivalent to 62 pence. 2/6 is 30 pence. People more patient than wot I am can do the maths. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pitiful 10 US dollars. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During much of the medieval period in certain parts of Europe, a tiny silver penny was nominally or supposedly the value of a day's agricultural labor, but many peasants rarely saw coins, or if they had coins, hoarded them and used them infrequently for special purposes (not for ordinary daily transactions). AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]