Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 2

= April 2 =

Can money buy better lawyers and an advantage in lawsuits in US?
An example just crossed my mind--Why would O. J. Simpson spend 3-6 million dollars in his murder case? I think it is not to show that he is rich, but because money and good lawyers can make some difference. More generally, are there any statistics about relationship between money spent on lawyers/experts and the outcome of lawsuits?--Ljt1987 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Expensive lawyers make you more likely to win.  For one thing, they can afford to pay more "expert witnesses" (which can become an "expert" just by paying a diploma mill) to see it their way. StuRat (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Does the American political class worry about what this has to say about their democracy? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The effect of the extra expert witnesses is real, but much less grotesque than the effect of bail. In the U.S. the poor frequently serve their entire jail sentence first, then have to officially say they did the crime in order to be released on "time served".  The class war is very real and very lethal, but only one side does the fighting; the other does the dying. Wnt (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * From a rather less jaded perspective: paying more for your lawyers does not necessarily just get you better and/or more experienced lawyers. Since lawyers often charge by the hour, paying more will get more of your lawyers' time devoted to your case (and often a larger team working on it). This means more time to consider the evidence and go through it with you, discuss and develop strategy, seek out witnesses (not just experts, but potential witnesses of fact), research obscure points of law that might be used in your favour, prepare arguments on the legal issues, and many more things. All of those are more likely to bring you success, which is why people with the money available are often willing to pay for them. Proteus (Talk) 12:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For federal court decisions the politics of the judges can make a bigger difference even than the money, see, it is a better determinant of the decision than any legal point. At the other end of the scale the education level probably has more to do with whether a murderer is executed than actual money. But in between money on lawyers is probably the main determinant, it sways the scales of blind justice more than anything else. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For more on this topic, this PDF report entitled "Documenting the Justice Gap In America" from the Legal Services Corporation is rather detailed, and may point you to more resources or avenues of investigation (dated 2009).  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  16:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it does show a major problem. But somehow taxing the populace more and giving the money to more lawyers so they can represent people who are currently unrepresented... somehow I get the feeling it is missing something basic. Now if the law could be made cheaper so that the current money did the job or even was too much and could do a better job, now that would sound good to me. Or perhaps a lot more cases could be handled quickly and easily without any lawyers at all. It doesn't have an obvious solution. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see this as a fundamental problem of the adversarial system, where each side engages teams of lawyers and experts to lie on behalf of their side. This means whichever side pays the most, gets the most lies in their favor.  It might help if the expert witnesses were all paid by the court, instead of one side or the other, and were paid no matter which side their testimony supported.  Each publicly appointed attorney could also be paid based on performance, hopefully making them more willing to spend the time it takes to get their client a favorable outcome. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a strikingly cynical and, I'll posit, childish view of the common law legal system. Do you think it's done particularly better elsewhere, under other systems? Italy perhaps? The systems have their problems, but "gets the most lies" I doubt you really believe. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's done better anywhere else, but that should not be used as a justification for not trying to improve our own system. The lack of understanding of basic science and math by many judges and juries in the US also leaves them open to manipulation, by anyone claiming to be an expert.  For example, if a jury was told "his fingerprint matches the crime scene fingerprint, in the victim's blood, with only a 1 in a million chance of a mismatch", the jury will be convinced the guy is guilty.  They aren't told that those odds are of somebody else having the same fingerprint, versus the much higher odds of a lab error.  And they aren't told that the suspect was found by running his prints through a fingerprint database, containing 100 million prints, with around 100 matches found, with him just be the closest match without an alibi.  So, if the defense attorney doesn't point these things out, the suspect is unlikely to go free. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The great Glenn Greenwald's Liberty and Justice for Some How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful should interest the OP. Italy - reminds me of Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion. For in today's USA, the wealthy, the elite, the powerful, the banksters seem as immune nowadays to prosecution and conviction, now matter how they try, as the title character of that movie.John Z (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Immune" might be a bit too strong, as some rich people do get imprisoned, like after Bernie Madoff with all that money. StuRat (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1960s baseball scores
Has Major League Baseball publish full lists of scores for season, either now or in the past? I have a piece of Washington Post, apparently from 1968, but the only remaining piece of headline says that the Senators lost 6–1. I thought if I could look up their scores, I could get a good guess of what day this issue of the paper came from. 2001:18E8:2:1020:9593:5D4B:A048:6F20 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Baseball Reference, which is one of the seven or eight coolest things the Internet has ever produced, the '68 Senators (now the Texas Rangers) lost 6-1 five times: April 24 to the Angels, May 3 to the Orioles, May 20 to the Yankees, June 25 to the Indians, and September 11 to the Orioles. Only the first of those losses, to California, came on the road.  Good luck pinning it down further!   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or go straight to their source, Retrosheet, which is figger filbert heaven. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to check the story against actual newspapers (e.g. via a public library that has microfilmed copies or ProQuest access), remember that the newspaper probably printed the report the day after the game. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone! I do have access to microfilms, and now I'll just have to look at five to ten sports sections at most, instead of checking every sports section from 162+ days of newspapers.  2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please report back and let us know which one it is. :) I'm reminded at this point of an old story about a foreigner, ignorant of baseball, and criticizing America as being lawless. He pointed to a headline (about a very lopsided ball game's final score): "Indians murder Senators". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to wait, because I'll have to wait :-( The library people tell me that I won't be able to use the microfilm until Monday or later. It was a funny headline, though.  The name of the other team is missing, but the rest of the headline says "Pound Punchless Senators 6–1."  It's not the same as this article, which got the score wrong, and the field is all icy and fenced too.  2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the incident in question happened in early 1957 or late 1956, if it happened at all. It pops up in lots of newspaper articles from early 1957, like this one.  Look for "Hun garian Minister of Finance" in the OCR text at the bottom.  2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a game from 1956 in which the Indians beat the Senators 15-0. And here's one from 1957 in which the Indians won 14-2. Although the headline could be difficult to track down, as with the alleged headline when Dizzy Dean was beaned by a thrown ball in the 1934 World Series: "X-ray of Dean's head shows nothing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Baseball Bugs, the headline reads "Indians Pound Punchless Nats, 6-1: Siebert Permits No Hits Until 7th" The date is June 26, 1968.  I was slightly wrong up above about the headline; I must not have been paying attention, because my piece of headline says "Nats" also.  It took me fifteen minutes to find this, not hours and hours.  Thanks to everyone!  2001:18E8:2:1020:8DF2:76DF:F9B:4AEC (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Qualifications for Salvation Army goods and services?
The Salvation Army is known for its donations, but how do needy people know if they qualify for the donations? This source seems to provide some info, but I am wondering if the Salvation Army puts an upper limit on the salary amount. Obviously, a person who makes a six-figure salary and lives comfortably in a suburban neighborhood probably does need such things... unless, of course, that person is a real cheapskate. Does the Salvation Army even consider the possibility of fraudulent needy people, or do they provide goods and servies to literally everyone? 140.254.227.75 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I attended the Sally Ann for many years and also volunteered my time in the Family Services Department and Thrift Stores. Some Thrift Stores are not actually run by the Salvation Army (someone once explained to me how this was possible but it was very confusing). In my experience, the Salvation Army (proper) does not discriminate in any way if someone wants to buy things from the Thrift Store. As for determining how "needy" a person is (or is not), is, I would say, outside the purview of the Thrift Store (proper). So, if a person really could not afford something, we in the Family Services Department would assess their need and make a judgment call. If we determined that the person was legit then we would write a voucher for specific items and the Thrift Store would provide them. Of course, it is not a perfect system so people who may not be "needy" will occasionally slip through. 99.250.118.116 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wicca ethics
Can Wicca practitioners perform a healing spell on people without their consent? Why does ethics have to revolve around consent? What if a person wants to die, and person's family members don't want the person to die, so they ask a Wicca to perform a healing spell to make the person live? In Wicca, would a non-consensual spell be "harmful" when it does do good on behalf of the person? 140.254.227.96 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft is bogus, so it comes down not to "ethics" but to "politeness". If someone says, "Don't do a healing spell on me", to do so anyway would be rude and inconsiderate. It's comparable to an atheist asking someone "Don't 'pray for me'," and the believer going ahead and saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm praying for you anyway." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claims are unsourced. I am looking for a critical analysis on Wicca ethics. 140.254.227.73 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide a source that wiccan stuff is bogus, along with such stuff as horoscopes and reading tea leaves, for example - although I'm sure there are countless demonstrations of that point. But the burden of proof is on the wiccans. In the bigger picture, promoting wiccanism automatically qualifies as being "unethical". Within the confines of wiccanism itself, the first source I found (see below) indicates they believe in the same ethics you do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, Wicca has no ethical philosophy. 140.254.227.75 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * People may operate by different ethical codes. Some people may operate under secular humanism; some people may operate under Christian ethics; some people may operate under Buddhist ethics. The ethics are usually intertwined with moral philosophy, and it is the philosophy that provides the worldview. The ethics makes the philosophy practical. 140.254.227.75 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) I know this is not the science desk, but I do have to point out since the 'spell' is not going to have any effects, the question is fairly pointless.... Anyhow, this is a request for opinion, so unsuitable for any desk. Fgf10 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The main point is to find if anyone has done a critical look at Wicca ethics. Wicca seems very interesting, yet I'm concerned about its ethics. That is, how Wicca people should treat other people. In many religions, such as Buddhism, ethics is one of the key components. 140.254.227.73 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I must add that I already read the Wikipedia entry, but it seems to be so terse. :P 140.254.227.73 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read our article on Wicca, I don't see how you can claim "Wicca has no ethical philosophy". Our article mentions "an unattributed statement known as the Wiccan Rede is the traditional basis of Wiccan morality". There is also a whole section on morality including sources and relevant wikilinks. The most obvious relevant wikilink is of course to the main article Wiccan morality as well as the LEDE wikilinked Wiccan Rede (these are different articles which unsurprisingly also wikilink to each other). And our article has had these wikilinks and the LEDE text for at least a fortnight [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicca&oldid=599662902].
 * Now if you had also read the obvious and wikilinked Wiccan morality, you would have read
 * "A common belief amongst Wiccans is that no magic, even of a beneficent nature, should be performed on any other person without that person's direct informed consent. This stems from the understanding that it would interfere with that person's free will and thus constitute "harm""


 * which is also sourced. The sources have been there for over a month [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiccan_morality&diff=595680792&oldid=589901042], the text for I think at least 6 months. So I don't see why you asked "Can Wicca practitioners perform a healing spell on people without their consent" (of course not everyone would share this view, but that pretty much goes for any diverse religious belief).
 * While these aren't critical analyses, I question the purpose of reading critical analyses when you understanding of the basics is so weak that you probably won't even understand half of what a decent critical analysis is talking about.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I googled [wiccan spells for terminally ill], which produced many results, the first being this one. It squares with what I would expect: (1) get permission first; and (2) honor the wishes of the one suffering. Whether that's representative or merely anecdotal, I have no way to know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Weird. Is there some sort of ideological or theological basis for basing ethics on only consent? 140.254.227.75 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I found an analysis on Wicca ethics based on a New Age point of view. In summary, the author declares that the Wiccan Rede is unethical and shares a critical view of Wicca. 140.254.227.75 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ideal that's difficult or impossible to live by, but every religion has such ethical dilemmas. Jews an Christians are commanded not to kill. But if someone is trying to kill your family. Do you stand by and do nothing? Or do you shoot the would-be murderer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

what about Christians?
Interesting question... what are the ethics for Christians when faced with a similar situation? If someone was ill, but (for whatever reason) explicitly asked that his Christian friends not pray for his/her recovery ... should a good Christian ignore the request, or should the good Christian respect the wishes of the person and refrain from prayer? Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good Christians should pray for spiritual strength for all involved parties... along with "Thy will be done." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But Christianity is bogus, so it comes down not to "ethics" but to "politeness". Ho hum. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A few billion people could be praying for you about now. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares? That means as much to me as Wicca spells, but it doesn't change the fact that people espouse Wicca as a serious religion (assuming you are unaware of that). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting comparison. So far as I know Wiccans openly seek magic, i.e. the projection of their will onto the world.  Some ideas of Christianity seek a similar effect from prayer, but there's a strange conundrum: why does omniscient God need to be told what you want?  It seems like expecting magic from prayer confuses what its real purpose is. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where to get a source, because "no" and "not" are terrible search terms. Catholics still pray for the "enlightenment" of the Jews, regardless of the objections of many Rabbis, yearly on Good Friday.  In the meantime there's the Birkat ha-Minim of the Orthodox service which may or may not be carried out by various Jewish congregations.  As a technically Jewish Catholic-raised atheist I would find it extremely rude to tell someone not to pray for my salvation.  I still say the Hail Mary when I hear of someone's passing, since just being silent and thinking God is a myth somehow doesn't cut it for me. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth remembering from a Christian POV, all people will be judged by god and for many, the lack of recognition of god or even their understanding of god) is itself a major sin, although not always as heaven denying as it was in the past. So not praying for the salvation or enlightenment can be somewhat anathema to their beliefs as suggested by μηδείς. Whether or not it's necessary to pray for someone to be healed may be somewhat of a different kettle of fish although if someone is without god, perhaps there would be a hope the longer the live the more likely they are to turn from their misguided beliefs onto the "true path". I'm not aware that even monotheist wiccans generally hold similar beliefs. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that most non-Christians would object too strongly to having the recovery of their health be prayed for by a Christian. On the other hand, many people have protested most vehemently against having their deceased relatives be posthumously baptized as Mormons (something which they never were while they were alive)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)