Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 12

= March 12 =

Born into the Purple
Were all children born to Byzantine Emperors' during their reign styled Porphyrogenitos or Porphyrogenita? Why are Byzantine imperial titles considered honorifcs? No other European titles are called honorific. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article you linked has this in the opening paragraph: "However, not every imperial prince or princess was accorded this honorific distinction." Does that answer your question? --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think the not every imperial prince or princess is refering to the Emperor's children born prior to his coronation. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think technically they had to be born in a particular purple-painted room in the palace (hence, porphyrogenitos, born in the purple, literally), although the term and the concept were later generalized to any child born to a reigning emperor. The concept was also borrowed by other states, like Jerusalem. I don't think it was a special style they were entitled to, it was just a description; medieval titles were not as formalized as they are now, and while the Byzantine emperor could have a great number of descriptive titles they were not "official" in the sense you seem to be thinking of. There is of course one emperor who is commonly called porphyrogenitos. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And then there was the infamous Purple Rubyred . . . // BL \\ (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Last person burned at the stake
Who was the last person burned alive at the stake in Europe? And who was the last in Britain? Catherine Murphy was sentenced to it (1789), but in reality, she does not seem to have ben burned alive, so who was it? --85.226.44.201 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP says it was Catherine Murphy in 1798 / London for "coining", ie counterfeiting money. Oops, it seems she had been hanged prior to the execution by burning.  Googling indicates one Phoebe Harrius in 1786, who was burned for the same crime.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However, according to Execution by burning, it is still going on in other parts of the world. Astronaut (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, people are still burned, but not by law. Several women in Britain were sentenced to be burned in England until 1789, but it seems that in reality, most of them was strangled first. So who was literally burned last? Janet Horne was burned alive in 1727.--85.226.44.201 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

US president with a criminal record
I and I can guess many have read the trivia that GWB is the first president to take office with a criminal record. But wouldn't the what I only can guess is technical treason by George Washington (and presumably some others after him) against Britain count? chandler · 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what criminal record has GWB got? And how many presidents got - or nearly got - a criminal record while a president? 89.243.40.164 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was he ever actually convicted in a court? Had the revolutionaries lost, he probably would have been, but they didn't. Generally you only get charged with crimes if you lose a war. --Tango (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have guessed Britain "convicted" every person in the revolutionary army right on the spot, even if they werent able to go through with it so to speak. chandler · 14:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the question asked about a criminal record not commision of a crime which are two different concepts. Generally, people only create files and keep records of crimes you are either charged with or convicted of.  Dubya definately has a conviction on record (a 1976 DUI charge that he pled guilty to).  Not sure of any others, but claiming that someone committed an action which may or may not have been considered by others to be a crime (like Washington's "treason") is NOT the same as saying that someone had a criminal record.  Several other presidents have admitted to actions which were may have been crimes at the time they committed them (Clinton and Obama both admitted to using illicit drugs, for example), however since neither was ever tried and convicted of such, neither has a criminal record. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Convicted" means found guilty by a judge/jury/magistrate. Unless charges were brought against him and there was a trial in which he was found guilty, then there was no conviction. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the justice systems of yesteryear such procedures as "holding a trail" were perhaps overlooked if they really wanted? ;-) chandler · 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be tried in absentia, but there would most likely be a trial. We're not talking that long ago - the UK's legal system was pretty well established. I can't see why they would have tried Washington in absentia - I don't see any point to it. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To be accurate, "criminal record" should be clarified as "adult criminal record in the United States". We do not know about juvenile records or foreign records. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, we won the war, so we got to decide who was innocent. Wrad (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not who's innocent in Britain. chandler · 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We weren't in Britain anymore when we won. We were our own country. We couldn't have cared less about Britain. Wrad (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrad, do you mean to say that you were actually a combatant in the American War of Independence? If so, it seems you ought to be at the top of this list. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You meet all sorts of people on Wikipedia, don't you? Why they heck would America care who was innocent in Britain back then? "Oh, guys. Britain called. They said we should all be hanged as traitors, so let's get with it. Hancock, you first..." Wrad (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw a cartoon many years ago, while the USSR was still the enemyt of the U.S. in the Cold War. Soviet general, in uniforms heavy with medals, were sittion around a table in the Kremlin, when one announced that they had all been subpoenad by the U.S. House Unamerican Activities Committee (known in the '50s and '60's for finding commies hiding under every bed). A similar issue was an East German spy chief (Markus Wolf) who, after reunification of East and West Germany, was tried for espionage against West Germany . Hardly seems fair, like charging a soldier with terrorism for shooting back when the fort he is in in a war zone is being blasted to bits and all his fellow fighters killed. "Victor's justice" is no justice. Edison (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that you should stop using the word "we" to refer to what other people did centuries ago. It wasn't you, it was they. Malcolm XIV (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an American. So were they. We have done a lot of things as Americans and we'll use whatever pronouns we want to. Wrad (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling one's ancestors "we" is less harmful imho than calling one's present rulers "we", at which no one but me seems to bat an eye. —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can cite a source as to Washington being tried in absentia in Great Britian, please do so. Otherwise, please refrain from arguing in circles. Livewireo (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Chandler, you seem to have a slight misunderstanding about the system of British justice in the 1700s. Take a look at common law and related articles. The British justice system - and the American justice system that developed from it - was fairly well developed by that time. It may have been a bit corrupt and a bit absurd at times, but the criminal procedures we use today, such as the necessity of prosecution, trial, conviction and sentencing, were well established.
 * This is not to say that a politically minded British judge and jury would not have convicted George Washington in absentia if the issue came up to them. However, it never did. "I would have eaten the donut if it was on my plate" is different to "I did eat the donut". As a matter of historical fact, Washington was never prosecuted, tried, convicted or sentenced. We have articles are all of those terms, too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you are really intrested in common law legal institutions in the early days, take a look at Coke's Institutes (the book, not the Wikipedia article) and commentaries available at your local academic library. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was closer than Washington. He was actually held as a prisoner by the British (government). But I'm not sure exactly what his legal status was. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, Andrew Jackson was a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war are not criminals: they are simply combatants who have been captured by the other side and are taken "out of the game" for the rest of the war. They are protected by customary and treaty-based international law from harm by their captors. In fact, combatants are immune from prosecution for ordinary conduct during the war, e.g. prosecution for "murder" just because they shot someone on the battlefield. A prisoner of war only turns into a criminal if they are then prosecuted for war crimes - which are violations of the laws of war beyond just participating in a war. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, consequently sort of redundant) The Continental Congress was officially (I believe) declared an illegal assembly, and everyone who was involved 'could' have been tried for treason, even if the situation hadn't thenceforth escalated into open rebellion. But even if individual presidents-to-be had been tried in absentia, which we have no evidence of thus far, their convictions would presumably have been thrown out when the Treaty of Paris was ratified. Article one states that "his Majesty relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;" it follows that his Majesty would retroactively relinquish the right to label foreign subjects traitors for agreeing with the document he had just signed. So, much as Clinton could have been tried for smoking pot if he'd been caught, Washington could have been tried for treason pre-Treaty, but neither was, so it's a moot point. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving in Maine in September 1976. According to Newsweek, he went to court a month later, pleaded guilty, paid a US$150 fine and lost driving privileges in Maine for two years. As far as I can determine, he was the only U.S. president who had ever been the subject of a police arrest. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does an impeachment constitute an arrest? Obviously as Andrew Johnson's impeachment failed it isn't a criminal conviction but would it be considered as equivalent to an arrest?
 * Similarly what about Richard Nixon - never convicted as far as I'm aware though but for a Presidential Pardon he could've been. AllanHainey (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And if I had a steak for dinner last tuesday, I would have eaten it. Speculating on what might have happened had events turned out different is pointless.  Had Ronald Reagan strangled a man in cold blood, he may have been tried for murder and convicted.  Had Harry Truman robbed banks, he could have gone to jail for that.  But none of those things, nor the ones you described above, actually happened As has been noted by several people, George W. Bush was arrested, indicted, and pled guilty to a crime, so he has a criminal record.  No other president appears to have one, as near as anyone here can find.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more the fact that he was convicted, rather than how he happened to plead. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, many U.S. presidents have done cannabis in the past. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

science is falsifiable, and religion is not
There was a court case (I think at the Supreme Court level, though it may have been a state Supreme Court) where the ruling was something to the idea of the subject, but I cannot recall the name of the case. I also want to think it was in the 1950s, though I could be dead wrong on the dating. A link would be good. :) --Izno (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be thinking of the Scopes Trial. You might also be interested in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's probably the latter, though if there are others thought of, feel free to include them. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "see also" part of the Kitzmiller article is a nice list of creationist/science trials of note. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a website off Google that has a list of Supreme Court cases regarding religion here: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/Livewireo (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but almost all of those have nothing to do with science. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a somewhat related topic, you may be interested in reading Rocks of Ages by noted paleantologist and philosopher Stephen Jay Gould. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

St John the baptist
Did st john the baptist have siblings?--LordGorval (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to biblical references. John the Baptist was the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth, an older, childless couple. John's conception is presented as a miraculous event and to an extent foreshadows that of Jesus Christ, born to Elizabeth's cousin Mary. - EronTalk 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (For what it's worth, the Blessed Virgin aside, God seems to have preferred granting pregnancies to older childless ladies: see also Hannah, Sarah.) - EronTalk 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, those ladies did need a little extra help to get the biological clocks ticking again. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where the Great Pyramids built on grassy fields?
Looking at the Great Pyramids on Google Earth, I can see vegetation in the area between them and the Nile. But of course, the pyramids are surrounded by sandy desert. But was that always the case? When they were being built, was that desert filled with green grasses and papyrus? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Sahara article, it has been about as dry and arid as it is today since around 3400 BC, nearly 800 years before the Great Pyramids began construction. The Nile River itself is extremely fertile directly around it, which is why civilization has been able to thrive in such a harsh climate Livewireo (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe the pyramids have always been surrounded by desert. however, in the 4500 years since the pyramids were built, the path of the river Nile has moved several times. It is only in recent times (less than 200 years?) that the Nile has been constrained between embankments passing through the Cairo urban area.  The pyramids were deliberately built on a dry bedrock plateau well above the river and its annual flooding.  During their construction, very heavy stones were transported from other parts of Egypt by river and then dragged up a road from the river.  When the pharoh died, they were also taken by river to a morturary temple built on the river bank, and then up a causeway to their pyramid.  If you look at this diagram you can see the morturary temples and causeways, and deduce how close the river bank was at the time.  Astronaut (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is doubtful that the Giza site was grassy. As evidence, Thutmose IV (18th Dynasty), when still a prince, supervised the removal of sand that had half buried the Great Sphinx. (The stele he erected recording the event was discovered in modern times when the re-encroaching sand was again cleared away.) B00P (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the Pyramids, but the Sphinx was likely built before Egypt was a desert, as there is some evidence of water erosion, and also the Lion symbol suggests it was built in the Age of Leo, when the Zero Point of Aries, which is actually in Pices due to precession, was back in Leo. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why China, Russia, India and Brazil Don't Admit Refugees?
Why China, Russia, India and Brazil don't admit international refugees into their countries? Why U.S, Canada, U.K., France, Australia, and New Zealand admit a lot of international refugees? Sonic99 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are never simple answers to questions like this. The reasons why countries do something are often complex, just like the reasons why people do things. Some possible factors might include (speaking for Canada here): 1) a feeling that those forced out of their own country deserve a place to live 2) a belief in the value of, and a history of, immigration in general 3) acknowledgment that we are a wealthy country and deserve to share our good fortune in some way. There are of course those who would say that the number of refugees accepted by these countries is tiny compared with the size of the problem, and others might say that these countries have sometimes contributed to the problems that the refugees are running from. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The BRIC countries are economically a lot less advanced than the other countries (all OECD countries) that you mentioned. Fundamnetally, the issue is one of economics. For these governments, it is difficiult to accept a large number of refugees, who will place further demand on infrastructure, social services and welfare, when their own nationals often live in terrible conditions themselves. It is both economically impractical, and also politically difficult to justify. In addition to economic issues, there are also social, environmental and political issues.
 * The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all predominantly migrant countries with a history of accepting migrants from diverse backgrounds and of multiculturalism. The UK and France, while not "melting pots" to begin with, also took in large numbers of migrants - and continue to do so - due to conscientious and political reasons when their large overseas empires were dissolved. Neither of these two scenarios are applicable to the BRIC countries.
 * While they do not accept large numbers of refugees, all four of these countries often faces refugee issues. In India, for example, there is a significant population of Tibetan refugees from China. In China, there are also significant numbers of refugees from North Korea and also from Vietnam. While the North Korean refugees, and the hardline stance taken by the Chinese government towards them, are highly publicised, the Vietnamese refugees are less so. Most of these are Vietnamese citizens or residents who are classified as ethnic Chinese by the Vietnamese government, though often not being able to even speak Chinese, and who escaped persecution in Vietnam in the late 1970s. In total, China accepted 224,000 Vietnamese refugees, with funding assistance from the UNHCR. The UNHCR has over the last 20 years reportedly provided around US$85m in funding for Vietnamese refugees in China, and the Chinese government has provided US$758m over the same time period. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is loaded, the assumption being that China, Russia, India and Brazil don't admit refugees to begin with. As PalaceGuard008 points out, China and India take quite a few (add to those examples a couple of million from Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma. Per the apalling City of Joy, half the population of the city of Calcutta are refugees; that's 7 million+ right there). Russia gets its share from Baltic and Central Asian states, but also has a bunch from the far east (e.g. Mongolia). Brazil is -- almost by definition (if not the epitome of it) -- an immigration-friendly country.
 * So, when exactly did you stop beating your wife? -- Fullstop (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, oops. Forgot about Brazil, almost the ultimate "melting pot". =P --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that "refugee" is not equivalent to "immigrant", and muddying the waters between the two leads to slopy political discourse (and hateful Daily Mail headlines). Also, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, or even of what's going on currently. We all know that Brazil has been created by a historic melting pot process; I for one have no idea of their policy re refugees now.  Apples and oranges, folks! And for perspective, for some years the country with the largest number of refugees was Pakistan, because Afghanistan was under attack, and millions fled across the border.  BrainyBabe (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that, but a history of accepting immigrants probably makes a country well-disposed to accepting refugees. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the converse is not always true. Scandinavian countries, while having a history of relatively little (economic) immigration, have done a pretty good job with taking in (political) refugees. So it all depends. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A refugee is someone who seeks refuge. Period. This is regardless of the reasons for seeking refuge. And, it always also has an economic dimension. After all, economic survival is a prerequisite to physical survival.
 * While there is a distinction between a refugee and an emigrant/immigrant, the distinction has nothing per se to do with finances. The defining characteristic of an immigrant is one who arrives in a country to stay. An immigrant can just as well also be a refugee who stays because the reasons to seek refuge will exist forever (as opposed to seeking/receiving refuge only as long as the reasons to seek/receive refuge exist).
 * As is the case for most countries (all those that don't feel the need to keep people out), there is no practical distinction between refugees in Brazil and immigrants in Brazil. The need to live there, whether temporarily or permanently, was/is driven by the need to survive. In squalor perhaps, but alive. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that most immigrants intend to stay, at least for some years and often for life, in their country of destination, and that refugees, on the other hand, wish to go home when the situation is safe to do so. (I say most immigrants  -- there are whole categories of exceptions. One is as those Hongkongers who, in the 1980s and 1990s, lined up somewhere else safe to go, usually by the landed immigrant and citizenship route, in case the 1997 handover proved too traumatic; about 30% of those "astronaut families" have returned.)


 * Unfortunately the situation is not as clear-cut with regard to definitions, Fullstop/Period, and as the responses above have not been as rich in internal links and external sources as RefDesk answers sometimes are, I will add what I can here. You say that a "refugee is someone who seeks refuge [...] regardless of the reasons for seeking refuge." Not quite. According to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (amended 1967), a refugee is:
 * "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
 * In practice, in destination countries such as Britain, the process of being officially recognised as a refugee is a lengthy and arduous one, and a legal limbo intervenes between the individual claiming the right of asylum and the state granting permanent leave to remain, during which time the individual is referred to as an asylum seeker. Their rights may very well be curtailed during this time: they may not be allowed to work, they may be required to live in a certain place, and so on.


 * Organisations such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have expanded their remit to other "persons of concern" such as internally displaced persons (e.g. those in Darfur and South Sudan, both officially parts of Sudan). NGOs such as the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants lobby on behalf of people in these situations, and concern themselves with issues such as forced migration and the fate of the displaced person.


 * Until the twentieth century, mass population movements, after war or natural disaster, were not necessarily treated bureaucratically, and anyway borders were less fixed. The idea of the refugee was of an individual in political exile: Descartes went to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France.  You contend that "the reasons for seeking refuge [...] always also has an economic dimension"; I would dispute that, as our list of refugees includes those who could have chosen to live according to the laws and customs of their country of origin, but who felt that something more important was at stake: Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled a forced marriage, the parents of Naomi Klein fled conscription, Mehran Karimi Nasseri refused to live under the supervision of a Belgian social worker.


 * You state that "most countries [...] don't feel the need to keep people out". As I said, I know nothing of the current law and practice in Brazil, but it is my understanding that most countries do feel the need to keep at least some people out; that is one of the main points of border controls, to control what sort and how many people are allowed to enter the country, temporarily and permanently.


 * I could go on, but I'll stop now, drawing readers' attention to the fact that our article Refugee barely mentions the term "immigration", except within the names of organisations, in the special case of Israel, and with reference to Illegal immigration, whereas our article Immigration, much more sloppily written IMO, mentions "refugees" eight times. For a reasonable list of push and pull factors, see Emigration. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copla!

 * Sorry to disappoint anyone whom the title misled into thinking this was a Klingon or Team America question

A (small) number of Wikipedia articles about Spanish music mention "copla", which seems to be a style of singing or of song. The spanish wikipedia has articles es:Copla and es:Copla andaluza (athough the former might just mean "couplet"). Should we (or do we, under another name) have an article about Copla. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some mention of it in the article on flamenco. Of course, the Spanish WP has an entry on it, which could be translated.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The es.wikipedia article seems to say it's neither a style of singing nor of song (well, not quite), but a style of writing poetry which is intended for use as lyrics to popular folk songs. It originated in Spain, where it's still very common, but it's also now widespread in Latin America. The copla generally deals with romantic themes, and may take its topic from a song, local event, or barroom romance. Some of the great Spanish poets (Manuel Machado, Antonio Machado, Luis de Góngora, Rafael Alberti, Íñigo López de Mendoza, marqués de Santillana, Federico García Lorca) have apparently dabbled in coplas, and it was a poetic form they approached with great respect. I don't dare try to figure out what the form consists of, though, since my Spanish is already stretched to the breaking point. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff
Hi, sorry my English :D. I want to know when the trial against Madoff ends. I mean when he receive his years of imprisonment/sentence: I am sure this info is on the article Madoff investment scandal but it is not available in Spanish. Can you answer me?. Thanks for all, specially for your patience. :D --190.49.107.200 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As he pleaded guilty today, the guilt-part of the trial is over. What remains is sentencing, which isn't scheduled to take place until June (but he may strike a bargain with investigators before then). Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're thinking "what a long delay", I rather suspect that's deliberately to give him time to help the investigators (and to put some pressure on him to do so). Apparently they've recovered only around 2% of the fund's money so far. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When Bernard Madoff pled guilty today, the judge announced that sentencing is set for June 16 at 1:30 p.m. The judge also addressed the length of time between plea and sentencing:  "Some of the victims may wonder why do we need so much time.  Well, the probation department has to prepare a presentence report.  By law, the defendant is entitled to 35 days to review the presentence report before sentencing.  We also have to give the parties an opportunity to submit written materials."
 * The charges against Madoff theoretically could produce maximum sentences of 150 years, if each charge received the maximum sentence and the sentences were served consecutively, rather than concurrently. The government has indicated that it does intend to seek the maximum, 150-year sentence.
 * Government and private civil actions against Madoff will continue after the sentencing date. John M Baker (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never quite understood why sentences aren't proportional. That is, if a person steal $1000 each from a million people, shouldn't their sentence be a million times longer than someone who only steals that much from one person ?  It clearly isn't though, as Bernie Madoff with all that money but will probably end up serving something less than life in prison.   StuRat (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some sentences are proportional—if you crash a plane you can a different murder charge for each and every person—but I don't think white collar crimes are considered that way. --140.247.250.160 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As they pointed out on NPR today - while his investors claim to have lost somewhat over $60B - they only originally deposited something like $12B (still a lot of money...but a lot less than $60B). Some of THAT had been paid out of the fund to people who withdrew from it before it all fell apart - so the amount that is actually fraudulant had to have been spent or squirreled away by Madoff has to be much smaller than that.  The $60B number comes about because that's what he TOLD people their money had grown to.  So the problem is that people are naively assuming that there is something like $50B sitting in a swiss bank account somewhere - when in fact, since he did not invest a single penny of their money, there never was anything like that amount there in the first place.   However, there was a claim that Madoff's wife had pulled $15 million out of the company shortly before it all folded...but since that's less than a tenth of a percent of the ORIGINAL money people put in - and an even more microscopic fraction of what they THINK they are owed.   It's very sad...particularly given all of the strenuous attempts several people put in to try to get this scheme shut down as long as 5 years ago - only to be ignored by the Fed's.  There will always be criminals - and it's the job of government to catch them.  As bad as the Bush years seemed to have been on the day he finally left office - the degree of the problems he left us with is still only just beginning to become clear. SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, as much as I'm one of Bush's biggest critics (and was very surprised the day he made it into office) do you mind indicating how the Bush administration had anything to do with this case or its investigation (or lack there-of)? Just a general indication would suffice, I expect someone else though would demand facts and figures Rfwoolf (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what Steve is getting at is that, in Madoff's case, the SEC received a detailed denunciation of Madoff around 2005 explaining why his operation could only be a Ponzi scheme. The text of that paper is available on the web. This was not acted upon. The speculation is that there was political direction given to the SEC to go easy in investigating Wall Street during booming times. If the denunciation had come from a defrauded investor, the SEC would probably have been legally bound to act, but in this case it was simply a very well-researched paper from an interested Wall Street observer, and the SEC never took action. --Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. More than that actually: Multiple people warned the SEC on multiple occasions.  The directive to reduce regulations on investment banks (such as Madoff) was brought in under political pressure by William H. Donaldson - a Bush appointee - and a fellow member of the deeply worrying "Skull and Bones" organization (of which Bush was a member).  I suspect that Madoff's activity in SIFMA, NASD and other industry 'self-regulatory' groups - plus the marriage of his niece to a prominant SEC compliance officer made it difficult for the SEC to go after him...but that's speculation.  Many people realised this - many reported their concerns to the SEC.  Perhaps the most vigorous was Harry Markopolos.  He is a forensic financial analyst and he had warned the SEC repeatedly - in writing and in person - telling them that Madoff's claimed gains were "mathematically impossible".  He did this as early as 1999 with actual meetings with SEC staff taking place in 2000 and 2001.  He wrote and called the SEC many times over the intervening years pointing out that (in words even I can understand) that this simply must be a ponzi scheme.  His efforts culminating in a detailed 20+ page report and sent it directly to SEC regulators in 2005 and called them personally to make sure they'd read it.  It simply shouldn't be possible to avoid getting caught in a 12 BILLION dollar fraud with that amount of clear proof.  How could anyone imagine that with numbers that big that someone at the SEC wouldn't have looked just a teeny bit deeper?   What would it take to stop that kind of investigation?  SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve: I hope you are making your questions in good faith, however you should know that they are in fact antisemitic, though I realize you might not have known this. I suggest you remove your questions (together with this response of mine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.159.188 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 March 2009
 * How can you be unknowingly anti-semetic? Criticising a Jewish person is not anti-semetic unless you are criticising them for being Jewish, which Steve is clearly not doing. --Tango (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * in this case it would shed light on facts that would incite non-Jews to antisemitic thoughts, that's why. I don't want to spread these thoughts, so I will leave it at that, and since this topic is very old, hope it dies silently. 94.27.192.195 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if any charges can be brought against the SEC and the officers who made those decisions. There has to be some way to punish those orgs that simply choose not to perform the jobs they are mandated to do. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would hope there would be some sort of investigation. We could perhaps forgive them from not looking deeper in the absence of evidence - but they'd had good evidence 10 YEARS before the shit hit the fan.  Someone at the SEC (probably William Donaldson) should be in deep poop over this.  Markopolos claims that he figured out what Madoff was up to with just four hours of work and using only publically available information.  His boss had asked him to figure out how Madoff was doing what he did - and he found it was 'mathematically impossible' for Madoff to be doing that well for his investors.  If one guy can figure it out without knowing in just four hours - how can the SEC claim to have been unable to figure it out after someone told them where to look?  Meaghan Cheung (who was head of the New York city office of the SEC) was a recipient of Markopolis' 20 page report - yet she actually DROPPED an investigation of Madoff in November 2007 - two years after she had clear evidence of a Ponzi scheme in progress.  Madoff actually sat on SEC advisory committees - and for a while was chairman of NASDAQ...he knew all the right people.  There are lots of other stinky dealings - SEC officials with money invested with Madoff who pulled out before the crash hit - despite the huge returns they were getting.  Just follow the references from the articles I linked to above...the conclusion is inescapable. SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)