Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 13

= July 13 =

Roman Polanski's extradition
Or lack of it. I was under the impression that Extradition between states like Switzerland and the United States was pretty much a given in most cases. However, the Swiss have declined to extradite Polanski. Was there some sort of extenuating or unusual circumstance in this case, or is extradition a lot less automatic than I thought? I can certainly understand Swiss authorities not putting much effort into catching the guy, but once they had him, I don't understand why they wouldn't ship him back. There are some general exceptions listed in the "extradition" article, but none of them seem to immediately apply in this case (it's not like Polanski's a political opponent, or anything). I realize it's a bit early to get a lot of specific insight into this particular instance, but if anyone knows about extradition in general between the U.S. and the Swiss (or other nations), I'd be interested to hear it. Buddy431 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently in circumstances where someone drugs and rapes a child, and then does a deal to avoid going to jail, and then jumps bail and flees the country, this particular Swiss judge wasn’t completely convinced the original jail avoidance deal would be honored. And, that was determined to be the most important aspect of the case. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Extradition requests aren't automatically accepted. I don't know the Swiss situation very well, but in Australia they are refused if the crime isn't recognised here, if the accused is likely to face extreme forms of punishment which we don't recognise (such as a death penalty), or if there are technical problems with the request (for example, recently someone was not extradited on appeal as he was not technically charged with a crime, but was being requested for questioning). In this case I gather it is the third option: the defence argued that Polanski had already served his time, and therefore the extradition request was invalid - why extradite someone who has already served his time? The US was unwilling to provide the documents that the Swiss requested, I gather on confidentiality grounds, so with nothing to counter the defence's claims the Swiss found for Polanski. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to The New York Times, Polanski's lawyers argued that sealed, confidential testimony given by the prosecutor in the original case would prove that the case's original judge had planned to sentence Polanski to no more than 90 days' psychological examination. California officials refused to hand over this testimony, and the Swiss said they wouldn't extradite Polanski without getting it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that extradition between different nations is a matter of treaty (an agreement between sovereign states), and like any treaty is subject to legal/diplomatic processes within each state. For instance (if I remember correctly) Canada has full extradition agreements with the United States, but the internal Canadian legal system has determined that it will not honor extradition requests where capital punishment is the likely outcome.  There's not much that one nation can do about it except (a) file legal actions in the other nation to demand that extradition be honored, or (b) take diplomatic or military action against the other nation.  Since I doubt that the US is going to diplomatically censor Switzerland over Polanski, and I really, really doubt they are going to send in a military team to extract him, it will just have to get worked out in Swiss courts.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The L.A. officials were engaged in some serious "C.Y.A." by refusing to cooperate, so the Swiss judge said, "See ya!" The L.A. people made the choice for them. If they wanted Polanski badly enough, they would have cooperated. Apparently they didn't. So dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't always work that way. Einhorn did pretty much the same thing by skipping bail and hiding in Europe and then using expensive lawyers to fight extradition.  The U.S. refused to cut ridiculous deals.  The only "deal" made was an agreement to let him give a defense testimony and be resentenced.  Even when being extradited, he continued to argue that his rights were being abused, but he ended up in prison for life anyway. --  k a i n a w &trade; 11:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure which Einhorn you're referring to, but if his was essentially a capital crime, that could have some bearing on the matter. The fact is, in the Polanski case there appears to have been some malfeasance going on in with the L.A. courts, and their lack of cooperation now serves to confirm that suspicion, whether it's true or not. They had to decide how badly they wanted Polanski. And apparently covering themselves was more important to them than getting Polanski. They made their choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's only one Einhorn that I know of who famously skipped bail and fought extradition back to the United States. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously a very dangerous character. I suspect no country in Europe was all that anxious to have him residing there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was less of a case of them wanting him there than it was a case of not necessarily wanting to send him to the US. The Einhorn case was very odd in many ways, legally, because they convicted him in absentia years earlier. Even in the US, being convicted based on evidence you do not have the opportunity to confront is considered Constitutionally shady. (But, of course, skipping bail is also considered pretty shady. But two wrongs don't make a right and so on.) Anyway in the end, France did decide to ship him to the US, but it took awhile to work its way through the system, the appeals, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, skipping bail is not just "pretty shady" but is an actual crime. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but an entirely separate one from that which he was convicted. Anyway, I'm certainly not defending Einhorn, just pointing out what made the case complicated from an extradition point of view. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one guy that they maybe should have let stay in France. Kind of like a favor for all the help they've given us in the War on Terror. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The alleged French lack of cooperation is highly exaggerated. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Chief Rabbi's hat
Does anyone know what a hat like this is called? I've only ever seen it worn by Orthodox rabbis on special occasions... Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From Hasidic Judaism: "Various forms of felt open-crown (a type of hat with a rounded top) are worn by many Hasidim. Affiliation can sometimes be identified by whether there is a pinch in the middle of the top or not, as well as the type of brim. This is called a shtofener hat in Yiddish. Ger and Slonimer Hasidim wear a round hat, while Stolin and Emunas Yisrael wear a pinched hat." There is no photo, and web searches for shtofener return variants of the article text. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this refers to the broad-brimmed hat worn by Hasidim. The headgear in the picture would be better described as a cap (a hat usually has a brim all the way round). Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's like no other hat I've ever seen -- I'd say it's not related to anything any Hasid would wear, but rather, perhaps, something more related to R' Sacks being the chief religious leader, regardless of religion. It looks like something his official office would have him put on -- in other words, perhaps a focus on CHIEF and not RABBI would be more appropriate.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rabbis of certain Synagogues in England wear a similar style of hat on Sabbaths and Festivals during the Synagogue services, although the colour of these hats is black rather than blue. Simonschaim (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that a hazzan (chazan, chazzan) will sometimes wear "large, puffy hat that vaguely resembles a chef's hat." I also found this item (from an online discussion) which refers to "hazanishe yarmulke," "tzilinders" worn by a synagogue president, and a "Litvishe yarmulke" worn by a rabbi. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not heard a term specifically for JS's hat, but his hat and robes are usually referred to as a group as his "canonicals". Note the redlink. Note the lack of RS. In times gone by, most rabbis and chazzanim in the United Synagogue (the body which Sacks heads) would wear canonicals, but it's now the exception, rather than the rule. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparenty these are trappings associated with a chief rabbinate established in a particular country, so there's no necessary association with the stylings of Chassidim characteristic of various rabbinic courts and important in maintaining their distinctive traditions. The hat style is a toque, and the particulars of ceremonial garb might best be pursued at the website of the British Chief Rabbinate. It's possible the fabric (fibers) and hue have significance drawn from the liturgy or similar ritual sources. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Equality in Britain under Labour
One of the objectives of social democratic parties is to create a more equal society. What evidence is there that Britain became a more equal society under the Labour government of 1997-2010? I'm thinking particularly of the distribution of wealth, but other observations are welcome as well. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz talk 08:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This report may have all the information you need. Changes over time are set out from p.277 onwards.  A summary on p.294 states: "Taken as a whole, inequality (as measured by the 90:10 ratio) declined slightly between the two three year periods 1995-1997 and 2006-2008, so far as hourly and weekly earnings and individual incomes were concerned. However inequality in equivalent incomes was the same at the end of the period as at the start. These fairly small changes disguise much more complex (and often offsetting) underlying changes in inequality between and within different population groups."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for that. --Viennese Waltz talk 06:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NAME THE ART PRINT
I have an art print that features four mustangs, led by a palomino, racing through the desert at an angle that's almost toward the viewer, but at an angle that sort of veers to the right, with a rainbow in the background, parts of a mesa on the left side of the frame, a palmetto plant on the left hand corner and trees at the right side. It's dimensions are 53X28 1/8, but it lacks a name or anything that might identify it's artist. Has anyone seen this painting before? Would you know who made this and if it's worth anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.134.73 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you scan etc. it and put it up online for us to see ? -- Jon Ascton    (talk)  09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel sure I've seen this image or similar before. I tried searching and Google's "Find similar images" feature gave some promising results. However, it would be much easier if you took a photo (it's probably too big to scan), posted it online somewhere, and provided a link so we can all see which specific art print you mean.  Astronaut (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to do a search for paintings by Frederic Remington (and check the article); his depictions of the Old West are immensely popular and frequently reprinted. Matt Deres (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Referendum
Can federal laws be repealed by referendum? If so, how? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which country's laws are you asking about? Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean in the US, then referendum says "There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States ... A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it." Gandalf61 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Among other things, a referendum under the current Constitution would probably be considered a violation of states' rights. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it wouldn't, because, as Gandalf61 noted with a reference, there's simply no provision for one. The referendum A "federal referendum" might purport to have some binding effect, but it would be unconstitutional on the face of it, and have no effect.  "States' rights" are beside the point.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * well, not entirely. If a state with a legal referendum process passed a law that opposed some federal law, then it would be a states rights issue.  SR issues only raise the question of whether the federal gov or the state has the last word over a particular area of law, and since referendums are legitimate forms of creating law in states where they exist...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have specified "A federal referendum" above instead of "The referendum"; I've struck and amended accordingly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A state referendum to overturn a federal law would be a form of nullification. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The authors of the U.S. constitution in 1787 didn't set up a national referendum process for the same reason that they didn't set up a national presidential election process with direct popular vote -- they thought that vast geographical distances involved and the relatively slow communications available meant that the U.S. couldn't be governed like a city-state (e.g. ancient Athens or republican Rome), but only through indirect representative democracy.  So the electoral college was created in part because they were skeptical that most people in a state would know enough about politicians from other states to be able to have any kind of informed opinion about them, and a national referendum would be subject to similar problems of coordination.  The basic idea of the original 1787 U.S. constitution was actually that the people in each state should focus on electing good men from their own state (to congress, to the electoral college, and to the state legislature to elect senators), and those good men would assemble in various ways to figure out how to deal with national and international issues... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Australia's Constitution, but not any of its other laws, can be and has been amended by a process that includes a referendum. Of 44 proposals over the past 110 years, 8 have been passed.  See Referendums in Australia.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sort of works like that in Canada too, Referendums in Canada (we just don't have them very often). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Qnexa patent
How can Qnexa be patented? It's just a mix of two generic drugs. Even if they could prevent other manufacturers from making the same mix (can they?), wouldn't doctors just prescribe the two generics individually to patients to save them money? Can they really patent the concept of diving these two drugs in combination? I glanced at the patents mentioned in and they seem absolutely unpatentable to me. Ariel. (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * look, I can literally patent YOUR personal bodily organs, Ariel, specifically a portion of your genes if I figure out what they do. Gien that I can patent YOU, what makes you think there is anything requiring work to figure out that you couldn't patent?  I could probably patent navigating by te stars. 92.230.233.146 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that 92 has not been keeping up with the news. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, it's still working its way through the courts. I suspect Myriad will win in the end. SCOTUS has a history of giving extremely wide leeway in such cases and saying, "if you don't want X to be patentable, just pass a law that says it isn't, don't try to do this at the patent office level." And you can patent someone else's cells, if you take them out of their body (Moore v. Regents of the University of California). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to that article, as it has annoyed me more than any other article has annoyed me in the past month at least. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the specifics of drug patents to say anything with any authority, but it would seem to me in general that 1. the patent in question would likely say, "using X and Y drug together to treat Z disease," and 2. if doctors prescribed X and Y together to treat Z disease, they would probably be violating the patent and liable to be sued (and thus their HMO and etc. would not allow them to do this). Anyway glancing at the page, it seems that they are doing that in #1. There's no reason why you could not patent something just because it is composed of novel use of prior art. A television is just a fancy use of an electron gun, a phosphor screen, and a magnet (more or less). That the components were once patented (or not) does not matter; it is the new use that is patentable, and if the final product is itself a composition of matter (as would be mixing two drugs), I suspect that particular composition would be patentable as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Percocet is merely oxycodone and acetaminophen, but it's patented. So are many others.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)