Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

Immigrating to US

Is it possible for an MBBS graduate from Pakistan to immigrate to the US? What is the procedure? After immigrating, can they establish own private practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toy Making (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, doctors and surgeons from countries outside the U.S. have to re-qualify by way of an accredited residency in the U.S. if they wish to practice in the U.S. Here is the American Medical Association's guideline for all doctors trained outside the U.S. and Canada. However, before a foreign national can take up a residency, he/she must first be certified as qualified for it by the Educational Commission of Foreign Medical Graduates, which has established a multi-step process involving the accrediting of foreign degree-granting institutions and the testing of clinical and technical knowledge, leading to a J-1 visa. The immigration part is handled separately by the U. S. Department of Immigration. Bielle (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coroner

Why is county coroner an elected position? CTJF83 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a recent expose on incompetent US coroners on PBS. The PC answer would be that this is so they will be more responsive to the needs of the public. The reality, though, is that this is needed to prevent the job from being given to incompetent relatives and contributors to the county executive or other officials as political patronage. When so appointed, the results are disastrous (such as murderers getting away with it). Even so, they often have too close of a relationship with police departments, such that they will find out what the police want them to report, and will report exactly that, regardless of whether it's true or not. (Note that the coroner often doesn't do autopsies and lab work directly, but hires the medical examiners who do.) StuRat (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment by Tom Lehrer is reverberating in my cranium just now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I have a book on my bedside table that covers that issue in some detail. "The Poisoner's Handbook" (ISBN 9781594202438) gets into the birth of forensic medicine, and deals with the incompetence and corruption among coroners when it was purely a political patronage position. Interesting read, by the way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what whoever sleeps beside you (if anyone) thinks of your current bedtime reading of choice. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You'd have to ask his soon-to-be-late wife that question, but you better be quick about it. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It's next to the parasitology book. Hmm. Maybe she should worry.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coroner does the legal paperwork surrounding reportable deaths, and is usually the one who decides whether an autopsy will be performed in non-criminal cases. Generally a county coroner has a background in the court system; many are former court clerks or deputy sheriffs. They're elected because they're loosely considered part of the judiciary, but problems with nepotism and privilege have something to do with it as well, as said above. --NellieBly (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that coroners are mostly not elected in parliamentary countries like United Kingdom and Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.55.174 (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do they solve the problem of incompetent party cronies being appointed ? StuRat (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners in the UK are directly responsible to the Queen, and as such the Queen appoints them. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The queen appoints the Prime Minister too, it doesn't mean that the PM is beholden to the queen or that she directly oversees his effectiveness. --Jayron32 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having the Queen appoint them solves some problems. Presumably she has enough money to not be very vulnerable to bribery, so won't be appointing judges or coroners in exchange for "campaign contributions" (as we call bribes to politicians in the US). And the risk to her of exercising inappropriate influence over them once appointed would be the potential to have Parliament eliminate the royal dole. However, I doubt if the Queen really can give much thought to each appointment, so must just rubber stamp a list written up by an underling, who then has the real power. Also, I'd have to think that somebody in the royal family who came before a judge or had an interest in having a coroner cover up a homicide could depend on the royal appointees to do as they were asked. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think so. I mean, it was fairly minor, but the Princess Royal has been found guilty and fined for both a traffic offense, and an offense under the dangerous dogs act. It's actually pretty funny to imagine a judge 'doing as asked' on a homicide case involving the royal family. I mean, the press would be all over that, and there would be really nothing at all in it for the judge. Have you ever seen Utopia, Limited? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Queen could send a million pounds sterling their way, if nothing more subtle. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans seem to have a Wizard of Id model of how constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies actually operate in the modern age. I'm not saying there's never been corruption in high places (there's been a lot of it); but to assume that, because the Queen is fantastically wealthy, she would choose to use her money to circumvent the law she has pledged to uphold whenever a case happens to involve one of her family, is an assumption that has no legs. Remember, politicians come and go; their time in the spotlight is essentially limited. But the Queen is there for life and is above shabby politics; she is the embodiment of the state itself. She doesn't have to submit herself to the judgement of electors, but she has to satisfy other, more ineffable criteria.

By the way, your template for the assumed lack of moral integrity of judges and others in positions of authority flies completely in the face of your arguments for the election of such people. Why would anyone ever bother casting a vote if the person elected is assumed at the outset to be corrupt or susceptible to corruption? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack makes an excellent point. Why would one expect candidates for coroner to be more honest or less corruptible than individuals running for other offices? Compelling coroners to run campaigns would seem to be one of the most potent ways to ensure that their offices are biased and politicized from the moment they get to work. In the United States (which seems to be the only democracy where this particular form of idiocy is practiced to such an extent) why would one expect a coroner elected with the assistance, advice, and funding of party apparatchiks and shadowy political action committees to be entirely impartial towards the organizations that got them their jobs? How many Americans carefully examine their ballots, tick the straight-ticket Republican box, and then say—"wait, I better have a Democratic coroner, just in case!"

The very first Google hit I got for Republican coroner was this editorial, regarding the Republican primary race for coroner in Indiana's Allen county. Apparently Indiana law doesn't impose any requirements for basic skills or qualifications on their coroner; you can become county coroner without having any medical knowledge whatsoever, as long as you can pull in the votes. And since Indiana lets you vote for a straight ticket (that is, cast your vote for the same party in all the races) by checking a single box, there are likely a lot of voters who won't even see the coroner's race, let alone carefully consider its candidates—so becoming coroner is actually just a matter of winning the primary for the right party. How many friends do you need to have to win the coroner's primary? Betcha it's not very many. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that coroner isn't a position leading to vast wealth and power, so candidates for that office don't do much campaigning. Nobody is going to give a coroner candidate millions of dollars, either. So, elections for such low-level offices are largely devoid of all the money which so thoroughly corrupts those seeking higher office. The most campaigning you're likely to get from a coroner candidate is an appearance on the public access channel. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really explain why you think that elections will protect us from "incompetent cronies", nor why elected candidates would be less susceptible to million-pound bribes.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They would still be vulnerable to bribes and incompetence, but hopefully wouldn't work for a party boss who appointed them and would protect them (presumably the same party boss also appointed the District Attorney and/or judge, and can ensure that no charges are filed or else they are dismissed). StuRat (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! CTJF83 09:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wider issue than just coroners: the same difference in approach between the US and many commonwealth countries can also be seen in the appointment of judges. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you avoid the problem of corrupt and/or incompetent judges who dismiss cases against those who appointed them ? StuRat (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple levels of government. If a county judge does something like that, the state courts might look into it. If the state court does that, perhaps federal laws click in. (For example, federal civil rights charges when the local judiciary is letting the good old boys get away with something.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what if the corruption is at the top level ? I'd also expect judges to mostly be smart enough not to do anything obvious enough to get them in trouble. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer StuRat's question from a UK perspective: (a) By having appointments performed by a committee (the Judicial Appointments Commission at present) - an individual member of the committee and an individual judge may be corrupt, but if the entire committee is corrupt, the system has failed altogether; (b) by maintaining separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary; (c) by cutting off the heads of persons who attempt to blur this distinction. I would also make the point that, OR though it may be, in my experience, persons elected by popular vote _have_ been known to be incompetent and corrupt... Tevildo (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that particular form of corruption, doing whatever it takes to please those who appointed you, is less of a problem when it's the public you are trying to please. It's also less likely that the majority of the voters will put something unimportant to the public, like how much a candidate contributed to various politicians, above competence, when deciding who to pick. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point if judges are appointed by politicians (or kings), of course. Which is why we don't do it that way over here. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, to clarify, judges are appointed by committee, and coroners by the Queen ? If so, how do you keep politicians off the committee and from making the list for the Queen to approve ? StuRat (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of the committee (largely, but not exclusively, other judges) and qualifications for coronorial office (being a lawyer with proven experience in the field) are defined by statute, so we're back to separation of powers - this time, between the legislature (which can do more or less what it wants to) and the executive. The legislature is the primary democratically-accountable body which the public can (theoretically) hold to account for making the wrong decision. Tevildo (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen appoints people to an enormous number of positions, but she doesn't actually decide who to appoint. She always acts on the advice of her ministers. That advice may come from the Prime Minister, the relevant cabinet minister, or a committee (or maybe a committee advises the PM and then the PM advises the Queen). The British Monarch is an almost entirely ceremonial position these days. --Tango (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put a sharper point on arguments raised so far, the coroner's duties include determining the cause of deaths in police custody. I think it is potentially a very important check on police/administrative power, if things get very bad. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps a bit late in the day to respond to this OP, but given that many of the foregoing responses focus on the English aspect of appointing Coroners, can I just point out that in Scotland, which is also a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK for short), we do not have Coroners. Instead, we have Procurators Fiscal (PF), who approximately resemble District Attorneys in the USA. PF's are appointed by the Crown (not The Queen) and are responsible for the investigation and prosecution of suspected crime; and also the investigation of unexpected deaths. In the lower courts, they are responsible for conducting the process of Fatal Accident Inquiries (chaired and presided over by a non-elected Sheriff (a legally qualified and Crown appointed Judge)); or in cases of suspicious Murder or Manslaughter the PF would investigate the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, and would then appoint Crown-appointed Counsel (senior lawyers of Queen's counsel (QC) ranking) to prosecute the crime in the High Court of Justiciary. Thus, the undesirability of political involvement is removed. Unless of course, you wish to consider the political interference of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) Justice Minister Kenny McAskill in the "humanitarian" early release of the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbassett Ali Al Megrahi who was convicted of the murder of 290 innocent people both on Pan Am 103 (279 souls) over Lockerbie in Scotland and in the village of Lockerbie itself (11 souls), on the basis that he was dying of Pancreatic Cancer and only had 3 months left to live....nearly 3 years ago....since when he continues to live and breathe?????????????????????????.92.236.250.88 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent example of what happens when political interference is allowed. Heck, even if he really was terminally ill, is it so unreasonable to expect a mass murderer to die in prison ? StuRat (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the most serious political interference was much earlier, when he was convicted on the basis of no real evidence. Of course, the release was political too, because there had been enough recantations, confessions of evidence fabrication by then that the best way to prevent the original miscarriage of justice and political interference from being corrected and exposed by normal judicial process was the "humanitarian" release.John Z (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I'm not sure the three-month figure is really very important. There has been criticism of the way the Scottish Government arrived at this estimate, but (at least according to our article) there are no hard limits on life expectancy for a compassionate release (and I'm sure we have all heard stories of people who were told they had months to live, and went on to live for decades - doctors aren't infallible). After reading the article about him, I'm now even more paranoid about the impartiality of our media - I knew there were doubts about the strength of his conviction, but that article makes it sound as though there is a strong consensus that he is completely innocent - why do we never hear about this? Anyway, trying to head back towards the actual topic - political involvement in pardons and commutation of sentences is quite common. I don't think this is as much of a concern as political bias in the appointment of coroners or judges as the process is accountable - we know what the original sentence was, and who has made the decision to commute it. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So he's dead now, about 2 years and 9 months after his release or 2 years and 6 months after when it was suggested he would die. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directly in response to the foregoing respondent (103.)concensus means quite literally that EVERYBODY is AGREED..........which is not the case in this case.....and being paranoid about the IMPARTIALITY of the media suggests that you are HAPPY they operate in an IMPARTIAL manner i.e. non-judgemental? 92.236.250.88 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought a con census was when they collected demographic info on prisoners. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]