Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 24

= May 24 =

How many times did Phil Esposito score against Tony Esposito?
I know Phil Esposito scored twice on Tony in Tony's first game (which wasn't very polite) but how many career goals did Phil have on Tony? I've done quite a bit of searching but need help. Hayttom 09:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)


 * Using the game logs at the Hockey Summary Project, Phil scored 24 goals against Tony:
 * Boston (Phil) vs. Montreal (Tony):
 * 1968/69 - December 5, 1968 (2), December 22, 1968 (2)
 * Boston (Phil) vs. Chicago (Tony):
 * 1969/70 - February 4, 1969 (1), February 28, 1969 (1)
 * 1970/71 - December 2, 1970 (2), January 23, 1971 (1)
 * 1971/72 - January 15, 1972 (2), February 20, 1972 (2)
 * 1972/73 - January 27, 1973 (1)
 * 1973/74 - November 28, 1973 (1), January 10, 1974 (1)
 * New York (Phil) vs. Chicago (Tony):
 * 1975/76 - March 27, 1976 (1)
 * 1976/77 - November 17, 1976 (2)
 * 1977/78 - December 14, 1977 (1)
 * 1978/79 - November 15, 1978 (1), March 21, 1979 (1)
 * 1979/80 - December 12, 1979 (1)
 * 1980/81 - November 5, 1980 (1)
 * He didn't score against Tony in the 1974/75 season. And he scored 2 goals in 6 different games. There were a few games where Phil scored but Tony wasn't in net (and one game where Phil scored in the first period, but Tony only played the second and third periods). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What a fast and comprehensive response! And thanks for the Hockey Summary Project link. Hayttom 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

US service commitments in the 1960s
The articles Conscription in the United States and Selective Service System seem to indicate that in the 1960s, draftees or volunteers were required to serve 2 years in the Army, plus 4 years in the Reserves. But the articles aren't clear on whether these same service committments applied to the Navy and Air Force. I seem to remember that guys who went into the Navy or Air Force had an active duty committment of longer than 2 years - anyone know for sure? Textorus (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Friday holidays
Laws like the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in the USA and the Happy Mondays (?) Act in Japan have been passed to ensure that holidays produce long weekends instead of falling in the middle of the week. Are there any holidays (regardless of country) that have been scheduled for Fridays for the same reason? I'm also curious why weekend-lengthening holidays in the USA all get placed on Mondays and not Fridays. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B8ED:9546:3FA1:93E4 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't include Good Friday, since it wouldn't make sense to celebrate it on any day except Friday; I'm also not interested in other holidays that are set for Mondays or Fridays because of a relationship with religious observances on Saturdays or Sundays. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B8ED:9546:3FA1:93E4 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe American Thanksgiving is always on a Thursday and the Friday is always a holiday as well. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Federal holidays in the United States, the Friday after Thanksgiving is not an Official Holiday; federal employees do not get it off. As a practical matter, nearly every private business, as well as most state governments, schools, etc. give people the day off anyways if only because no one would show up anyways.  But it is not an official holiday.  There are a few holidays pegged to specific dates (Independence Day, Christmas, New Years, etc.), those that aren't are pegged to a specific Monday, except Thanksgiving which is always a specific Thursday.  -- Jayron  32  22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another Friday public holiday: Store Bededag. Although it may be on a Friday to echo Good Friday, not for the reason you give. It does date back to 1686. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Friday after Ascension Thursday (and Ascension Thurs itself) are Public holidays in the European Union.
 * Quds Day is a Friday and a public holiday in Iran. Of course, in Iran Friday is not the last day of the workweek but the last day of the weekend, which is Thursday+Friday. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No fixed Friday public holidays in Australia (apart from Good Friday). In fact, between around 15 and 20 years ago there was a move to shrink the number of long weekends in the interests of productivity. One thing that happened was that the Australia Day holiday was moved from the Monday nearest the actual date, to the actual date. I think it was also meant to make us more patriotic. The problem now, of course, is that if the public holiday happens on a Tuesday or Thursday, and extraordinary number of people fall sick on the respective Monday or Friday, creating a long, long weekend for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In my last place of employ, they got around that by requiring a medical certificate for the intervening day. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That "Friday after Ascension Thursday" is a holiday for the employees of the institutions of the European Union, not a holiday throughout the EU - it is certainly not a holiday in the UK, (and Ascension Thursday is generally only a holiday in Catholic countries), where the only regular Friday holiday is Good Friday. I presume that will be a feature of their contracts of employment - when I was a clerk/manager of the former British Rail, my contract specified the Tuesdays after Easter and the Spring and Summer bank holidays as additional holidays; after privatisation this feature was scrapped and the three days were added to the annual leave entitlement to be taken when agreed. In fact, the only non-Monday holidays in the UK are Good Friday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day (and Jan 2nd in Scotland), and those holidays are moved to Monday (and if necessary, Tuesday) if they fall on a Saturday or Sunday; also St Patricks' Day and July 12th are on the actual day in Northern Ireland. Oh, and the Liberation Day half-holiday on May 9th in the Channel Islands. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Double jeopardy
Does the double jeopardy rule imply that you can brag about getting away with a crime if you are acquitted? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The rule is that you can't be tried twice for the same crime with the same evidence. If your hearers go to the police and tell them you confessed, that is new evidence and off you'll go back to court. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the article double jeopardy, this depends on the jurisdiction. In Australia, the situation is different, see the case linked in the section on Australia. If you are interested in just the US, that looks complex, but presumably you could be tried for perjury. IBE (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., is a simple no, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime by the same court. You might by tried for a different crime (perjury, federal civil rights violations). In the case of the murder of Emmett_Till, the murderers admitted the crime in a national magazine article after they were acquitted. Rmhermen (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing about double jeopardy is simple, but other than that your answer is right. Complications include that you generally can't be tried for a different crime on the same facts by the same jurisdiction.  The reason the feds can sometimes come after you on the same facts is that they're a different jurisdiction.
 * Also no one has mentioned the possibility that the victim, or relatives of the victim, might sue you if you "brag" about it. Double jeopardy doesn't protect you from a civil suit.  --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of thing skirts the spirit of double jeopardy, but it's technically being charged with a different crime. Like you can't retry someone for murder, but you can try them for perjury (if they testified), and also sue them for wrongful death (as was done with OJ). The purpose of the rule is to prevent the state from trying you again and again until they get the result they want - as with the Knox case in Italy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrongful death is not a crime. It's a tort.  So no, it's not "technically being charged with a different crime", because it's not a crime.  As I understand it, the State of California can never charge OJ again with a crime on the facts of that night, even if it's a different crime from the ones charged in the trial. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True. But he did testify (sort of) during the trial. So there's still the theoretical possibility that he could be charged with perjury. But I would think that kind of thing is seldom done, and it doesn't fit the OP's premise anyway. He wrote a book called If I Did It, which was supposedly almost a confession - but probably not admissable as evidence of anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Fifth Amendment precludes any prosecution for perjury against criminal trial defendants. Otherwise, anyone convicted of murder (or anything else) could automatically be prosecuted for perjury if convicted, since their "not guilty" plea would have been entered under oath. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe the plea is made under oath. In any case a "not guilty" plea is not the same as saying you factually didn't do it.  If you testify and swear under oath that you factually didn't do it, then later admit you did, then I think a perjury prosecution would be possible, but I'm not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a suspicion that second bit was wrong when I typed it. :) I do find it odd, though, that no one who has given false testimony in their own defense has ever, to my knowledge, been prosecuted for perjury after being found guilty. To pick a contemporary example, take someone like Jodi Arias, who has obviously perjured herself at nearly every opportunity; not even she or her lawyers have disputed that. And there are surely countless other examples where people on trial have testified just about everything other than "I was at the scene of the crime when it happened and I did it," only to later have that established as nonfactual. I don't know whether or not a later admission of guilt would make a difference, but I've always assumed that there is some kind of immunity for falsely testifying in your own defense. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * People are prosecuted for false statements made in their own defense all the time. Not just perjury but also for false statements (which covers many more statements than those made under oath). This is part of what Martha Stewart was convicted for. Similarly, the 5th amendment absolutely does not provide any excuse to lie under oath. And as Travotore implies, pleas are not false statements; forcing the government to prove its case is what the practical effect of innocent until proven guilty means. Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if you phrase it in the form of a question. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'll take Famous Lowlifes for 200, Alex!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales." (2005) Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently they're running short of new criminals, so they're going after old ones. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the availability of DNA evidence in "cold case files", which several times has implicated somebody who had already been found "not guilty" in a previous trial. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Something the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned, of course. But in the Knox case, there's no DNA evidence against Knox at all, as far as I know. And there was DNA evidence against OJ and they still found him not guilty. So this is a seriously slippery slope. The American concept is you get one chance to find them guilty, and if you fail, dat's dat. It's called "the price of freedom". Are the British also going to be testing the DNA for the "guilty" cases? Or are they only going to focus on the ones found "not guilty"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just explaining that an 800 year-old legal principle isn't abolished for a frivolous reason. Freedom is a known concept in the UK too, but getting away with murder is not a corollary of it. As for your last query, the police only investigate unsolved crimes. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It just seems unfair, one-sided, abusive - skewed towards the state. If convicted criminals are jailed wrongly and DNA evidence would exonerate them, those crimes are also "unsolved" - even though someone thinks otherwise. It is precisely that kind of abuse which is why we Americans established and adhere to the no-double-jeopardy principle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Don't they have appeals in the US and quash convictions which are found to be unsound? It's a separate issue to double jeopardy - our article Miscarriage of justice has the details. Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, Americans are quite willing to skirt the no-double-jeopardy principle when it suits them: Double Jeopardy Clause. The "oopsie, we missed some evidence the first time around" excuse is one of the situations under which the federal government will contemplate retrying an individual already acquitted by a state government.  While it's not a technical instance of double jeopardy, it certainly is a loophole with the same functional effect.  And to be clear, the US didn't "establish" the no-double-jeopardy principle; it had been part of English common law for centuries.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot of crossover between state laws and federal. Sometimes a guy will be tried for violating someone's federal civil rights, even if they were acquitted of violating a state law. And apparently the founding fathers thought to write the double-jeopardy rule into the Constitution, to make it harder for politicians to rescind it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Of further interest to the topic at hand: The notion of a prohibition against double Jeopardy, as noted above, is to prevent the state from repeatedly trying a person until it gets the result it wants, or even more insidious, of using the threat of perpetual trial as a means of punishing the person in question. As such, it represents a specific type of what is known as vexatious litigation, which is to say the purpose of the litigation is not to find the truth, but rather to itself harass.  Vexatious litigation by the state is particularly troublesome given that the State has essentially limitless resources to try a person forever, while that person does not have limitless resources to defend themselves.  The act of being perpetually on trial severely limits a person from holding down a job, leading a normal life, etc. etc.  So, in some legal codes, where it has been so enshrined, the prohibition against double jeopardy is to prevent this sort of thing from happening.  Which is not to say that it is the only way to do that, or that countries that don't have such prohibitions don't instead have other mechanisms in place to deal with the issue.  It is but one way, not the only way, to solve the problem of vexatious litigation by the state against its residents.  -- Jayron  32  02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion, back in the days of Emmitt Till it may have been a much simpler time but I find the question odd because given the media, court, police, media-cycle/circus, marry go round of attorneys today on any trial that may have implications for this one would be too exhausted to even dream of confessing of getting away with it. I understand not every trial is covered like Casey Anthony or Ted Bundy but even the less hyped ones are much more complicated and toll taking then justice back in the small-town 50's.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think appearing on a quiz show twice is a crime.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  13:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To quote Avery Tolleson: a crime is "whatever the IRS says it is", just don't take "Tea Party Patriots" for $500  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   20:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you brought it up, the question that begs to be answered is why blatantly political organizations like the Teabaggers are even considered for tax exempt status, let alone granted it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Evelyn Beatrice Hall?  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  20:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Heath v. Alabama may be of interest to the OP. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)