Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 31

= March 31 =

Claustrophobia
Claustrophobia is a genuine medical condition (or disorder). Does anyone know what they (the authorities) do if they have a genuinely claustrophobic prisoner who (normally) would be required to stay in a tight and enclosed space of a small prison cell for virtually the entire day for years on end? I can't imagine that a truly claustrophobic person could tolerate those conditions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some prisons have more of a dormitory setup, with large rooms packed with beds. So, they might transfer them to such a place.  Alternatively, if the infirmary has bigger rooms, they could keep the prisoner there, at least until a transfer to a prison with bigger rooms could be arranged. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was excluding dormitory-style rooms from consideration, as I was really thinking about the very dangerous type of criminals (whom the prison will want to keep locked up as tightly as possible).  Also, I am not sure that a room being "bigger" really addresses the concerns of claustrophobia?  A true claustrophobic would have problems in the enclosed space, regardless of it being a little bigger.   I think.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a cleithrophobic. Just learned that word myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Never heard that word until just now!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the WHO International Classification of Diseases claustrophobia is listed as one of several "D40.2 Specific (isolated) phobias" and though it is not someone's genuine medical condition just because the someone says so, it can be entered as a mitigating plea at a criminal trial. Wikipedia will not give anyone legal advice on doing that and whether any given legal sentencing authority will consider the plea is unwise to predict. Such pleas have to be supported by qualified medical witnesses able to convince a court or parole board that the detainee is subject to clinical Panic disorder, possibly assessed on the Panic Disorder Severity Scale. In the USA a defender may petition for a case to be tried in a Mental health court especially if the defendant has no history of violent crimes, and has an Axis I diagnosis as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Note that the DSM-5 is a manual recognized in many countries for assessment and diagnosis of mental disorders but it does not include guidelines for treatment of any disorder, so a judge cannot cite the DSM as basis for his ruling. In the UK responsibility for mental health of prisoners is formalised in the Mental Health Acts of 1983 and 2007. These deal with conditions for discharging a patient to hospital, possible forced medication and access to independent mental health advocates. In the USA a constitutional defence could build on the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution that states that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". Recently (2007) celebutante Paris Hilton was allowed to finish her jail sentence in home confinement for not obviously physical "medical" reasons which may have comprised claustrophobia and/or crying a lot for not providing "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They would have a tough time proving that standard incarceration is either cruel or unusual, let alone both. Also, maybe the claustrophobic could have thought of that problem before they committed the crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, The Very Rev Pastor Bugs DD. No sermonising here, please.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the sermonizing by the IP. Feel free to close both comments down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except you are supposed to provide a referenced (or at least well-justified) answer, and have not explained why claustrophobia would not make incarceration cruel. I'm not saying that a standard jail cell would be cruel to a claustrophobic person, but your declaration that it is not doesn't count as evidence either way. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cruel AND unusual. Not "or". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect reading BB. The 8th Amendment must be read as "cruel punishments [shall not be] inflicted AND unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted. The AND in "cruel and unusual reflects the view that cruelty shall be held unusual by this Amendment, as it had been in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Anachronistically applying Augustus De Morgan's (1806-1871) propositional law which came about 200 years later saying: "not (A and B)" is the same as "(not A) or (not B)" might mislead BB into thinking that a punishment that is cruel and usual is immune to constitutional challenge, or that the founders thought to forestall any humane unusual punishment. In Furman v. Georgia,, Justice Brennan wrote about four, not two, principles by which we may determine whether a punishment is 'cruel and unusual'. The test will be a cumulative and not a Boolean one. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that Baseball Bugs has the correct reading and that the IP address User 84.209 has the incorrect reading. In the Wikipedia article for the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it states:  The {Supreme] Court acknowledged that a punishment could be cruel but not unusual, and therefore not prohibited by the Constitution.    This refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Harmelin v. Michigan (1991).  This very issue is analyzed in the following article: Does the Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Prohibit Only Punishments that Are Both Cruel and Unusual?.  This source concludes that a punishment must be both cruel and unusual in order to violate the Eighth Amendment.  One prong alone is insufficient.  In other words, if the punishment is cruel, that's fine; if the punishment is unusual, that's fine; the punishment simply cannot simultaneously be both, however.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read Cruel and unusual punishment. I'd like to see a constitutional argument for why someone claiming to suffer from claustrophobia should somehow have things easier than a "normal" person who committed the same crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye. Prison is usually cruel. Pretty much the point. If it wasn't, we could all argue our carcerphobia would be aggravated. Or our cleithrophobia, if you want to use "real" words. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

South Africa in 1991
Did racial discrimination still exist in South Africa during 1991 and 1992? --Aśter Fartiyet (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal discrimination will always exist. Do you mean officially sanctioned government discrimination ?  Do you include reverse discrimination ? StuRat (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 established universal non-racial adult suffrage. See the article Apartheid about conditions that lead up to this. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Aśter Fartiyet - In 1991 South Africa was in the early stages of the negotiated transition from apartheid to full democracy - see Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa and linked articles for details. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the hijab or burqa a religious garment or cultural garment?
I know in Islam, it is considered modest to wear a hijab or burqa. I am wondering whether this particular headdress is cultural/tribal or religious. If a Muslim woman were to convert to Christianity in England or America, then would she have to switch the burqa or hijab with a Sunday hat or modest Christian headdress? Or is Christianity part of her new faith but the burqa or hijab is merely the product of her culture? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- Jayron  32  14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. Muhammad only said that "all men and women should dress modestly", not that women need to keep their faces covered, and not all Muslims believe that, either.  So, it's really a bit of culture which got incorporated into some sects of Islam, but nonetheless those women in those sects feel it is a religious obligation to cover their faces, despite Muhammad never having said that.  Then there are other sects that interpret "modesty" as covering their hair, but not their faces, and others that don't believe covering their hair is required, either. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That final sentence perfectly describes most Christian "sects". My mother and grandmothers would never enter a church without head covering. (And of course, gentlemen removed theirs.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A little more detail in The Qur’an and Hijab. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One only has to look at photos from the country with the world's largest population of Muslims, Indonesia, to see that the hijab and burqa are not all that common there. Many women wear a head covering, but that's not all that silly in such a climate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not to say that the wearing of the headscarf is not promoted as an obligation for a Muslim woman (and considered a symbol of piety). You should see my Facebook wall sometimes... Indonesia's become increasingly pro-headscarf since 2000, although under Suharto (in the mid-80s, especially) they were almost unheard of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words... cultural, but promoted as a religious requirement in many instances. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Maselow's hierarchy
I think I recently read that Maselow actually never put his needs hierarchy into a 'pyramid', although that is how most people now know it. I can't find the reference for that, if its true. If anyone could point me to a credible source that refutes Maselow's pyramid (not his underlying hierarchy framework), it would help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.222 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, he didn't use a pyramid. The hierarchy is simply a list, and the pyramid is a good way to illustrate it. And it's in reverse order. The "base" (literally) needs come first (i.e. survival), and the top of the pyramid, the "pinnacle", would actually be the last item on the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why a two-dimensional triangle is labeled as a pyramid in that article. — Kpalion(talk) 15:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The two-dimensionality is a schematic representation, but the notion of the pyramid being a structure (unlike a two-dimensional triangle) is crucial here. As with ecological pyramids: If you remove the point or top-most layer (self-actualization for Maslow, apex predators for the ecological pyramid), the structure is not affected that severely and still stands, but if you remove its base (physiological needs / plants and bacteria), the structure collapses. Of course it's not that simple, but that's the idea reflected in the choice of the solid pyramid instead of the wispy triangle. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. — Kpalion(talk) 15:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Food pyramid, which is often a wimpy triangle instead of a solid pyramid. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Retro sex offenders
any pro bono lawyers in st.Louis city or Missouri that handle retro sex offender registration?

anyone that helps people do pro se work on cases?

any support groups for retro sex offenders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeanthony43 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What's a "retro" sex offender ? StuRat (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a guess but maybe those who offended, got caught, have gone through the courts, and their prison time and now are seeking counseling legal or otherwise? Though we may never know since Medeis will be deleting this thread momentarily.  Dismas |(talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From a quick search, I think the OP is referring to retroactive application of sex offender registration requirements. In other words, where the requirement for registration only came after they had committed their crime, perhaps even after they had served their sentence, been released and were no longer bound by any legal requirements arising from their offending before such laws were introduced. See Sex offender registration for some information on the controversy and ex post facto law for the legal principle it's generally suggested such laws may violate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As for a direct answer, we can't provide opinions or recommendations other than to say "consult a lawyer". This is one of those cases where your local Yellow Pages and some of your own homework will benefit you.  Only you know exactly what you're looking for in a lawyer.  Other places to check might be with local law schools and colleges with law programs.  Dismas |(talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your local bar association can provide help finding a lawyer. Check out The Missouri Bar Association website. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The main provider of pro bono legal services in St. Louis is Legal Services of Eastern Missouri. Missouri pro bono programs generally are discussed here.  Various pro bono and other legal resources in the St. Louis area are listed here.  You should be warned that the demand for pro bono legal services considerably outstrips supply.  John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)