Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 28

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.

February 28

Sentencing an adult for a crime committed back when (s)he was a juvenile

Two years ago in the place I live (Victoria, Australia) a high-profile athlete, who was 23, was charged with committing a rape back in 2007 (when he would have been 17). The charge was a "regular" rape charge, not a "statutory" one. Age of consent was not an issue, as his alleged victim was less than 2 years younger than him. He was ultimately acquitted. (I am not mentioning his name, lest someone cry BLP, even though our article on him mentions the matter).

During the trial, the prosecutor expressly (and rightly, IMHO) told the jury things to imagine things as they would have looked in the eyes of a 17 year old, not as they would look to the 23 year old now sitting in the dock, were he to face a similar situation today. As he was acquitted, obviously, there was no sentencing.

My question is, how would a judge go about sentencing someone who now clearly an adult, for a crime committed when he was clearly still a juvenile? (17 year olds are definitely deemed juveniles in this jurisdiction). I don't recall such a case ever arising before. (Someone just past the point of adulthood could still be dealt with under juvenile rules here - and this does happen, where the defendant has passed his 18th birthday by the time his court date arises - but a 23 year old would clearly be too old to be sent to a youth justice centre). Can someone point me to either any case law or statutory law, in any jurisdiction, not just my own? I find this an intriguing issue, as I've never seen it play out in practice.

(And I do NOT consider this "legal advice", as I can't see it changing any reader's behaviour, either in court or outside it, as a result of any answers proffered!) Eliyohub (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In the US, often a prosecutor convinces the judge to try the defendant as an adult, even if he was a juvenile at the time of the crime (see paragraph 2 of Juvenile court). Then he would be sentenced as an adult, regardless of his age at the time of the trial. Loraof (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

He would be sentenced in the "adult jurisdiction" (as happened here, the trial was in adult court), and any prison sentence would be served in an adult prison, but would the Judge take his age (and related immaturity) at the time of offending (and the general legal acceptance that juveniles generally bear less moral culpability for their behaviour) into consideration when deciding on a sentence? Eliyohub (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't help you with Australia. But look up the story of Michael Skakel. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

An obvious case in England and Wales will be Murder of Stephen Lawrence#2011–2012 trial. That article mentions it was before Criminal Justice Act 2003 but AFAICT, while that may have affected bases sentences, it doesn't affect the fact those committing murders before they were 18 are treated different, see e.g. Murder in English law#Criminal Justice Act 2003. The article doesn't actually say but I think it's clear the defendants would have been sent to adult prisons straight away since Her Majesty's Young Offender Institutions only cater to people until they are 22. Note that I'm fairly sure (and the earlier article also strongly implies) that some people will eventually be sent to adult prisons even if their offences were committed and tried while juveniles, e.g. those sentenced (as with Lawrence's killers) to At Her Majesty's pleasure#Incarceration. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The case of the Carlton Franklin is relevant. As a 15-year-old, he murdered Lena Triano, but he was not tried until almost 40 years later at the age of 52. [1][2] Under the laws of the state of New Jersey, his case was not eligible to be moved to an adult court because the crime was committed before the age of 16. Hence he was tried in a juvenile court and sentenced under the statutes that applied for delinquent juveniles at the time of his trial. He ultimately received a 10-year prison sentence, which the judge determined was the maximum allowed for a juvenile convicted of rape and murder. Because of the greater leniency offered to juveniles, someone sentenced to 10 years would often only serve 3 or 4 with good behavior. I couldn't find anything to indicate where he was incarcerated, so I would assume he was sent to an adult prison. Dragons flight (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the maximum sentence for an offence is the maximum at the time the offence was committed, not when sentence is passed. 81.151.101.90 (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that was explicitly part of the case. Between when the offense occurred and when the trial occurred, the legislature reduced the maximum sentence for such crimes. The judge was very explicit in holding that the reduced maximum, which was current at the time of the trial, was what applied. The prosecutor challenged this on appeal, and the appeals court agreed that the maximum sentence in this case was limited by the law as it existed at the time of the trial. Obviously other jurisdictions may handle this issue differently, and perhaps the outcome could have been different if the possible sentence had been increased rather than decreased, but I don't know. However, in this case the critical point was the possible sentence at the time of the trial. Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Are you referring to the issue of ex post facto laws retroactively increasing maximum sentences as something generally rejected in most jurisdictions with concern over human rights? If so, presuming your statement is intended to apply widely it isn't completely true. As our article mentions, there have been certain cases even in places generally accepted as having decent regards for human rights where some specific ex post facto laws with increased or new sentences were allowed, especially in jurisdictions without strong constitutional protections. Also your comment seems to imply the maximum at the time of offence will always be considered, but in reality in some or many jurisdictions, it's possible for a law to reduce maximum sentences, simply not increase sentences. Actually in some places, Canada is one mentioned in our article with Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms#Right to lesser punishment, where the lesser sentence is nearly always required. (There may also be provisions for people already sentenced to reduce their sentences. Since you mentioned maximum sentences, I guess you already appreciate that there is dispute over whether increases in minimum sentences, where the minimum sentence is below the maximum at time of offence, is allowed, e.g. [3] [4].) Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

marketplace companies

What are marketplace companies? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.159.48 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a vague term. Can you give us a context? Did you read this somewhere? Can you show us the exact webpage or location where you read it? If so, we can help you find information based on the context you read it in. --Jayron32 12:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In the US, that term refers to health insurance companies which offer insurance under Obamacare. See Health insurance marketplace. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act, you mean. Obamacare is a pejorative term.--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It was originally, but it's become mainstream, especially once Democrats embraced it as a positive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a nickname, and it's used in the article. StuRat (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickname though it may be, for purposes of reference, you should use the official name to avoid confusion. Any academician who includes the term "Obamacare" in a research paper unironically would be laughed out of peer review.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not so. See Google Scholar, which has plenty of hits, including high-quality sources like the New England Journal of Medicine and several other journals that don't, at first glance, raise a red flag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Official names are often unwieldy. Even you didn't use the official name, which is "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". That name doesn't mention the nation and time period, but "Obamacare" makes that all clear. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Things could be worse. Just imagine if Medicare had been dubbed "LBJcare". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

long brisant jejunum? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Chinese Shinto"

Idries Shah uses this phrase to refer to Chinese folk religion. Was this ever a common practice, or is it just Shah being Shah? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea if true or not, but this essay claims that both Shinto and Daoism use the same Chinese characters. --Jayron32 17:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The essay is exaggerating (for effect, perhaps). "Shinto" is made up of two characters, the second of which (to) is the character "Dao" ("the Way") in Daoism. The other character (Shin) means "spirit" or "gods".

OP - Our article Chinese folk religion suggests that the traditional belief system in China was even in pre-modern times referred to by some as "Shendao", i.e. "Shinto": see under Chinese folk religion#Etymology. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Shendao-Shinto connection is clear, and pretty interesting, but I'm wondering about the use of "Chinese Shinto" in English (or, I suppose, use of the equivalent by non-Anglophone orientalists). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Does outsourcing make the non-well off of the developing world better off or worse?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if they get jobs doing outsourced work, then they must be better off than they were, or they wouldn't take those jobs, would they ? An exception would be if they are compelled to work, say if they are convicts doing forced labor. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a debate topic, not a reference desk question. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Shouldn't there be stats on economic development in nations providing outsourced labor ? StuRat (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Of which you have provided exactly none. --Jayron32 18:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I provided a ref to support my initial reply. My second reply was not to the OP. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• here, here, and here for a few articles on the topic. here is one from a more scholarly journal. --Jayron32 18:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You may check the article Globalization for some ideas and stacks of references. You can also pick a random Third World country and observe the economic development. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Outsourcing oftentimes creates a unique "verbal bridge" between English-speaking Americans and English-as-a-second-language-speaking members of other countries. I see this as a good development. This is often a "broad bridge" due to the numbers of people involved in both the "first world country" and the "third world country". The interface between American companies and American consumers tends to be colored by the citizens of non-American countries based simply on accented English. It is not unusual for Americans to know an ostensibly "American" company exclusively by their interaction with representatives of that company in another country. Thus, figuratively speaking, Apple is an Indian company and Bank of New York Mellon is a Filipino company. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That may be true where the outsourcing company is American. The question was not so restricted. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think a Korean company out-sourcing to Vietnam would have a different impact than an American company?DOR (HK) (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Government departments

Can government departments/ministries be considered companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B994:E100:88F8:47A9:913F:81E (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In America, generally not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In some places, entities can be midway between "government department" and "company". Quango is the standard term for such things in the UK; they're comparable to US entities like Amtrak and the Postal Service, which are government-related but still attract public criticism for wasting tax money when they consistently don't turn a profit. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In America, they can, see for example Amtrak, Fannie Mae, or more generally, Government-sponsored enterprise and State-owned enterprise#United States. So we have government-sponsored agencies in the U.S. which are companies; also see companies like Citgo, which is formerly a private enterprise, but is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government of Venezuela. There have also been companies that have acted as governments (see, for example, East India Company which was basically the British Government of India for a long time). However, under normal situations, the answer would be "no". --Jayron32 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A "company" usually has a specific meaning in law, in English-speaking countries a "company" is a legal entity which is not a natural person but has been vested with legal personality by specific legislation relating to companies. So a natural person or a partnership business would not be a "company". Something that is not a natrual person and that has legal personality, such as the Crown, might still not be a company, if its legal personality does not come from company legislation.

The concept of "corporation" extends to any non-natural person that has legal personality. So the Crown, and certain types of government offices, are corporations sole, which means they have (artificial) legal personality and so are corporations, but are not companies. Likewise, city councils in many English-speaking countries are corporations, but are not companies. So it is possible to transact with a government department (as represented by the minister) or a city council - but not because they are companies. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is why the British Broadcasting Corporation is not a company - it's a public service organisation incorporated by Royal Charter. By 6 Geo 1 c 18 the formation of a joint-stock company otherwise than by Royal Charter was made illegal. 92.19.171.188 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Who was the first black Catholic bishop?

A google search gave me James Augustine Healy; however he's described as the first in the United States. Was there an earlier black bishop elsewhere? Zacwill (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pope Victor I was Berber, so depending on what you mean by black I suspect he is a candidate. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Later, but not a Pope? Does St Augustine of Hippo qualify? Born in Tegaste, Africa (present day Algeria) in 354, was at least a Berber; or brown North African. Bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430 ad. born Nov. 13, 354, Tagaste, Numidia [now Souk Ahras, Algeria]—died Aug. 28, 430, Hippo Regius [now Annaba, Algeria]. Guess I repeated things a bit... Manytexts (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Augustine may or may not have been a Berber: "...people from all over the Empire migrated into the Roman Africa Province" according to Africa (Roman province)#Roman Africans. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And maybe a bit later, the first bishops of Axum in the 4th century (though not the first one, St. Frumentius, who was Greek). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Axum is a good bet, but both Alexandria and Carthage were early major centres of the Christian Church, and the people of the ancient Mediterranean world, while often ethno-bigots, were rarely racist. One might argue when the church became coherent enough to be called catholic, and if that happened only at the First Council of Nicea, which would set a lower bound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Public statues of living black people in the UK

I have read that a new bronze of Floella Benjamin at the University of Exeter is the only sculpture of a living black person on public display in the UK. Is this true? DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If so, is that all that remarkable ? After all, statues are far more common as memorials to dead people, aren't they ? And even when the subject is alive at the time, statues tend to last a lot longer than people do. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As StuRat says, I wonder how many statues there are of living white people in the UK. But as to whether the claim is true, don't know who would keep a catalog of all UK statues of people on public display, and sort out those few where the subject is still living? Anyone have any suggestions for the OP? Eliyohub (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela formerly met the requirements—he attended the unveiling of his own statue in London in 2007—but he died in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.6.254 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A bust of him also stood outside Royal Festival Hall since 1982. Smurrayinchester 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Brixton railway station#Artworks, three statues were erected in 1986 which were "life casts of three people - two black, one white - who regularly travelled from Brixton." It seems likely that they are still alive. It also states that they are "believed to be the first sculptures of black British people in a public place in the UK". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a statue of Thierry Henry outside the Emirates Stadium - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• There are also statues of Dame Kelly Holmes in Pembury and of Ade Adepitan in Woking. Smurrayinchester 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(The Wembley Rugby League Statue includes Martin 'Chariots' Offiah, but isn't exclusively of him) Smurrayinchester 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Depending on what definition of "Black British" you use, there is A Real Birmingham Family, unveiled in 2014. It features a pair of sisters, Roma and Emma Jones, and their sons, Kyan Ishann Jones and Shaye-Jones Amin. They were "chosen to represent what it means to be a family" (i.e. not for any personal achievement per se) and the sisters refer to themselves as mixed race. In addition, you might want to try browsing categories such as Category:Sculptures in the United Kingdom. We don't seem to have a Category:Sculptures of living people. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It has been running on for some years but there is due to be a statue of Brendon Batson, Laurie Cunningham and Cyrille Regis in West Bromwich. JMiall₰ 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your help, all very interesting. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

For future reference: From Pitch to Plinth is a database that seeks to create comprehensive (perhaps even worldwide) coverage of sports statues. I was surprised to see that almost 100 have been unveiled since 2010 in the UK. It may be that some of the statues meet the OP's criteria. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)