Miscellaneous desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

April 17

Form of words for sentencing to death in USA

What is the precise form of wording used by a judge in the USA when handing down a sentence of death? Does it vary from state to state? --Viennese Waltz 10:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it varies from judge to judge. Are you used to the English thing, with the wig and the black hanky? Americans are less traditional about such things, I guess. --Trovatore (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was expecting some kind of formality to the process, given its gravity. --Viennese Waltz 10:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a particularly noted example (albeit from some time ago) by doing a Google search on the phrase "Jose María Martin, stand up!".

On a more contemporary note, when California switched from cyanide gas to lethal injection, the gurney was placed inside the old gas chamber. I have the notion that this was in part because some inmates had been formally sentenced to die "in the gas chamber at San Quentin", and the authorities didn't want to open up a potential legal challenge by doing it somewhere else. --Trovatore (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The procedures of each state certainly could be expected to vary, especially as regards the death penalty, which I think in some states is decided initially by the jury and affirmed or declined by the judge (as with California) and in other states might be solely left up to the judge (I can't name any, though). The transcripts of the Scott Peterson trial may provide some insight.[1][2] The jury's statement was simply, "We the jury in the above entitled cause fix the penalty at death." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The jury does not officially sentence the defendant in California. It is still necessary for the judge to pronounce sentence on some later occasion. I believe it is possible for the judge to overrule the jury and sentence the defendant to life without parole instead. (The reverse is definitely not possible; if the jury has rendered a verdict of life without parole, the judge may not impose death.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the state - curiously enough, each state has its own laws. Florida is one of only three states to allow a judge to override any jury decision - including the ability to impose a death sentence contrary to the jury verdict (modified by the Tedder case which said the judge should give "great weight" to the jury position). [3] which implies that in each of the other states with capital punishment, the judge does not have that authority. Collect (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of state soveriegnty. The Fed generally doesn't get involved in the states' business unless there are constitutional issues. (I realize that comment severely downplays the reality, but that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a federal constitutional decision, I'm pretty sure, that requires a sentencing trial by jury in death cases. I am surprised to read that Florida still allows the judge to impose death if the jury has not done so; I'd like to know if this is current, because I thought that sort of procedure was struck down by this decision whose name I can't remember. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2006, anyway, Florida was still doing things that way:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search finds [5] which suggestds perhaps Trovatore is thinking of Ring v. Arizona which found (if I understand it correctly) it's a problem if the judge renders the verdict based on additional facts/factors/circumstances/considerations that were not part of the jury analysis but doesn't make it a problem if the judge makes the decision based solely on what the jury has already accepted. However one justice did express the belief it will make problems for states like Florida. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Nil. I think that was indeed the one I was thinking of. --Trovatore (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no state in which the jury actually sentences the defendant. Even if the judge has no discretion at all (don't know if there are any states like that) it is still the judge who must formally impose sentence. Yes, that's a formality, but formalities were what the original poster was asking about. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I should have made that clearer in my own comments. The jury recommends a sentence, in states where it is authorized to do so. In the formal sentencing in the Peterson case a few months later, the judge stated he could not see any evidence that justified overturning the jury's recommendation, so he agreed with it and upheld it. The judge seemed to be talking in a rather low-key, conversational manner in these transcripts, minus the movie-drama kind of stuff like "You shall hang by the neck until you are dead!" and so on. Generally speaking, courtrooms are not nearly as exciting as they're made out to be in the movies and TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, in at least one case in Florida, the words used were "You are hereby sentenced to death." That sounds fairly standard. Marco polo (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, please note that there is no death penalty in 14 of the 50 U.S. states. Marco polo (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC) note: this comment amended by another user. — Lomn 17:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, also note that the Federal death penalty applies to certain crimes in all 50 states. APL (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-appetite pill?

Hello, would there be any kind of pill or other supplement that would lower our appetites thus help us lose weight? Where would I find them? Thanks. --98.190.13.3 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awaiting the "We don't answer medical questions" responses here, but this can be discussed in a general sense I'm sure. There certainly are drugs that claim to do this. Where I am in Australia one has just made the news.... "A jockey who used a slimming spray is suing the company after he was disqualified from a race he won for being too light...the product featured on Channel Seven's Today Tonight program in mid-February...the company said when the product is sprayed onto a person's tongue it fooled the brain into believing they had eaten." So there you are, a drug that claims to do just what you ask, and an unwanted consequence, for both parties! HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Anorectic. And no, we can't give advice on them, or on where you can get them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your doctor. Any diet program with any integrity will advise you to consult a physician before starting a diet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read 19th century ads -- they even sold tape-worms to people! The best "appetite suppressant" yet found is a nose clip so all food is fairly tasteless. People who can not smell their food will generally eat less. They also get grouchy. Collect (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Collect. What?! I have chronic anosmia and I eat virtually no processed food but my appetite outstrips my bodily need, I would welcome losing a few pounds. I'd be interested in a citation for your claim. Richard Avery (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of cites on such. [6], [7] etc. It appears to be a lot more common than I had thought though. [8] states that Zicam may have some connection with some cases. Just found [9]. [10] is not really MEDRS but states: Overweight subjects tended to be better at picking up food smells than thinner people, especially if they'd just eaten. [11] is an older study from 1949. Anosmia appears to have a number of possible causes, so I guess it depends on the cause as to how it affects a person's appetite. For folks witout anosmia, though, reducing the sense of smell does appear to reduce appetite. It also would tend to confirm that a person who stops smoking (which reduces the sense of smell) gains weight. Collect (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with appetite suppressants, or just about any other weight loss scheme, is that the body "fights back". That is, when it detects fewer calories coming in than it is used to, it will make you hungry, no matter what it takes. These are evolutionary adaptations which were vital to prevent people (and earlier animals) from starving since the start of life on Earth, so overriding them is not easy. The result is that many diets work, at first, but then backfire and you gain the weight back, and maybe a bit more. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most food lowers my appetite after eating it. Some serious illnesses also suppress my appetite. – b_jonas 22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]