Humanities desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

punjabi songs lyric translation

Is there a site where you can see the actual English Translation of each Punjabi song like for example Roadways di Laari by Sardool sikander?

"C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute."

Or, in English, "It was worse than a crime it was a mistake." Who really said this (about the death of the Duc d'Enghien)? (Or perhaps the question should be who said it first?) I have seen this most frequently credited to Talleyrand, but other credible candidates include: Joseph Fouche and Antoine Boulay. Relevant discussions are here and here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great question to ask over at the Wikiquote Reference Desk. The Jade Knight 09:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've asked it over there now. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has Boulay de la Meurthe saying it, and cites "C.-A. Sainte-Beuve Nouveaux Lundis (1870) vol. 12, p. 52" DuncanHill 12:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bartlett's sources the quote to Fouche and sources his memoirs. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that 'crime' in French translates as 'murder'. "It was worse than a murder, it was a mistake" sounds even more cynical, doesn't it? Rhinoracer 09:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot to kill Mussolini

I acme across a newspaper article recently which made reference to a plot, conceived in London in the early 1930s to assassinate Mussolini. Does anyone know anything about this? Captainhardy 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do! The details of this were kept secret for over sixty years, only finally released by the British Home Office fairly recently.

When Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister the British intelligence services began to monitor one Emidio Recchioni, a businessman living in the Soho region of London, who was suspected of providing money and weapons to a group of potential assassins based in Rome. Recchioni was a political activist with a wide circle of friends, which allegedly included the Prime Minister himself. Born in Ravenna in 1864, he came to England in 1899 after he was implicated in a plot against Francesco Crispi, a former Italian Prime Minister. He subsequently bought a delicatessan on the Old Crompton Road, named King Bomba, frequented by a variety of prominent writers and intellectuals, including George Orwell, Emma Goldman, Sylvia Pankhurst, as well as a number of Italian anti-Fascist exiles. The rumours that Recchioni was planning the death of Mussolini began in 1929, and were passed by Ovra, the Italian secret police, to Colonel Carter of the British Special Branch.

On a trip to Brussels in 1931 Recchioni was followed by a Special Branch agent. While in the city he met Angelo Sbardellotto, an Italian anarchist, who is reported to have offered to go to Rome and kill Mussolini if he could get money and weapons. Recchioni is alleged to have offered to provide both. Sbardellotto was later arrested in Italy, after several abortive assassination attempts, and found to be carrying two bombs and a revolver. A copy of his confession, detailing meetings in Brussels and Paris, was forwarded to Special Branch. It was also accompanied by a request for Recchioni's extradition.

While the Home Office was considering this, the matter was complicated still further when the Daily Telegraph named Recchioni as one of those involved in the assassination plots, quoting Italian 'sources'. He promptly began legal proceedings against the newspaper. The Telegraph appealed to Carter for information, but was told that there was none to give. It would seem that the whole matter was just too politically sensitive, with the potential to embarrass the government. Reccchioni won his case, and was awarded £1117 in damages, a decent amount for the day. No further action was ever taken against him and he died in Paris in 1933. Why did the authorities decline to assist the Telegraph when there clearly was evidence implicating Recchioni? It's impossible to say: the inner workings of both government and intelligence services were as mysterious then as they are now. It may simply be that he did indeed have 'friends in high places.' Clio the Muse 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article based on the above at Emidio Recchioni. Thanks! Sandstein 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Any more for the Skylark?"

What is the origin of this phrase? - CarbonLifeForm 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is from a pleasure boat called the Skylark which ran day-trips from Brighton along the south coast of England. Brighton was a popular destination for holiday-makers from London, so the boatman's cry of "Any more for the Skylark" before casting off would have been heard by many people. DuncanHill 12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I now find we have a bus named after the boat's Captain - see [1] to learn more. DuncanHill 12:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How (and where) is it used today? --Ibn Battuta 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it used in Britain in situations such as herding a group of people aboard a coach or minibus - it is said in a jocular manner, especially when there seem to be far more people than could reasonably be expected to fit into the bus. DuncanHill 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the phrase "Always room for one more", referring to a Twilight Zone episode where there was room for one more on the doomed airline flight (or in the morgue, during the earlier nightmares of the would-be passenger). StuRat 07:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat_of_Arms_of_Irkutsk.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Coat_of_Arms_of_Irkutsk.png

what the heck is it depicting?? is there a story behind this?

--Sonjaaa 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling irkutsk arms and panther brings up several useful looking websites, including this one for example.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old symbol of Dauria: a Siberian tiger with a sable in his mouth. When the emblem was devised in 1690, the animal was described as a tiger ("babr", a bookish word of Persian derivation) with a sable in his mouth. The relevant article in Russian Wikipedia claims that the image was used by the Yakutsk customs office as early as 1642. It has its origin in a seal of the Siberia Khanate repesenting a sable and showcasing the fact that Siberia (or rather Yugra) was the main source of sable fur throughout the Middle Ages. Actually, the English word "sable" is derived from the Russian "sobol". By the mid-19th century, the word "babr" had fallen out of common usage, but it was still recorded in the Armorial of the Russian Empire. Furthermore, the tigers became entinct in this part of Siberia. In the 1870s, a high-placed French heraldist with a limited command of Russian assumed that "babr" was a misspelling of "bobr", the Russian word for "beaver", and changed the wording accordingly. This engendered a long dispute between the local authorities, who were so confused by the revised description that they started to depict the "babr" as a fabulous animal, half-tiger and half-beaver. The Soviets abolished the ridiculous image altogether, but it was restored following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. You will find further details on [2], if you are able to read Russian of course. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management Theory

What is Management Theory? Is it a particular field of management, what does it comprise, does it imply a specific approach, ...? Thanks, Ibn Battuta 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single theory of management, but the various theories of management are the province of management science. Our stubby article on that topic lists a number of (linked) subfields, several of which have a theoretical component. Marco polo 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian internment during WWII

I was reading about japanese interment in the United States during World War 2 earlier, but I couldn't find anything about the treatment of civilians of enemy descent in other allied countries, particularly Canada and the UK. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Jasonisme 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the article Japanese American internment, we have Japanese Canadian internment. Marco polo 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also German American internment and Italian American internment. As for Britain, we don't have much except a mention of enemy alien internment on the Isle of Man in this list. Marco polo 15:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese internment did occur in Canada. The University of Washington libraries has a list of sources here.[3]. Italians and Germans in the US were not treated in the same way as Japanese-Americans during WWII, but did undergo a certain amount of suspicion. The disparity was because of racism and partially because there was this phenomenon on the West Coast where there was real paranoia of Japanese Americans aiding an invasion, which I guess was also primarily motivated by racism although one could argue that since the Germans and Italians had not invaded US territory, unlike the Japanese, and were strategically less capable of hitting the US directly there was less reason to fear German-Americans. German-Americans were also much better integrated in American society than the Japanese. There were more of them, they had been around longer, etc.

I do have a story about German-Americans in the US during the time period. Growing up, I knew a German-born rabbi who was interned at Dachau during the late 30's. Because this was before the Final Solution, he was released and managed to flee to the US. He taught some local children and in one case was given a large radio in lieu of payment. At some point after that, the FBI showed up to question him and gutted the inside of the radio, fearing he would use it for espionage. That the FBI would worry about a Rabbi spying for Hitler does say a bit about American attitudes during the time period. I would suspect, although I really don't know, that German and Italian immigrants underwent a lot more scrutiny than native-born German or Italian-Americans, whereas the US interned Issei Japanese Americans (immigrants) along with Nisei, who were born in the US.

For the UK, see Defence Regulation 18B. I can't imagine there were that many people of Japanese descent in the UK at that time but there was internment of foreign nationals.

I'm not doing this subject much justice, but you really should have no trouble finding excellent academic sources. There has been a huge amount written on this topic. GabrielF 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German American Bund says most of its leaders were placed in internment camps, but the references would have to be read to find out more detail, I guess. Corvus cornix 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the British dimension you could do no better than refer to Collar the Lot! How Britain Interned and Expelled its Wartime Refugees by Peter and Leni Gillman. Collar the Lot! was Churchill's response when asked about the treatment of people of German and Italian origin living in Britain. Those 'collared' included many refugees from the Nazis, including Jews, as well as Italian shopkeepers and the like, many of whom had been living in England for decades. In 1940 the decision was taken to send many of those detained to internment camps in Canada and Australia. In July 1940 the Arandora Star, one of a number of ships dedicated to the purpose, sailed with over 2000 detainees on board, mostly Italian. On its passage into the Atlantic the ship was spotted by U-47 commanded by Gunther Prien, the ace responsible for the sinking of the Royal Oak in Scapa Flow. The Arandora Star was duly sunk, with a loss of almost seven hundred lives. Clio the Muse 01:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value of the dollar

Where can I find out how much $X in 19YZ (say $1500 in 1949) would be worth in today's money? --noosph e re 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$13,106.03 213.201.189.242 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming the original poster's "$" sign meant US dollars. We know it's not Mexican pesos because of the title, but there are other possibilities. --Anon, Friday the 13th, 22:05 (UTC).

Good point, but I meant US dollars, and 213.201.189.242 answered my question adequately. Thank you. --noosph e re 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that any such comparison loses meaning the farther back you go, as they bought completely different things hundreds of years ago than we do today. How can you compare the purchasing power of people who bought horses and buggies with those who buy cars ? StuRat 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point as well. Anyone could buy a computer for a relative pittance today. In 1949 virtually no one could buy a computer at any price, and those "computers" that existed were glorified calculators. So your point is well taken. Furthermore, to make a comparison of the value of money more meaningful I'd probably have to look at some cost of living indicators at the time and in the place I'm interested in as well. -- noosph e re

Matthias Corvinus

Your page on this important king is quite poor. Is there any more information? Judithspencer 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that there is a lot of information readily available if you just type the name into Google. The three sites here [4], [5], and [6] all have extensive text about the man. How accurate it is, I am not capable of judging. Bielle 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read German, Judith, because there is a lot of good material in that language on Corvinus? Not that much in English, though. If there is something more specific you would like to know please ask and I will try to help. Clio the Muse 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German propaganda posters

I'm looking for some information on German propaganda posters in wartime Russia. Who can help? Fred said right 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which war? --Carnildo 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that we are talking about the Great Patriotic War there are some quite interesting examples of German propaganda, designed to win over Russian opinion. It should be noted, though, this was supplementary to the main purpose-a war of conquest and extermination-and the whole the propaganda campaign was thus patchy and inconsistent. Alfred Rosenberg was one of the few in the Nazi hierarchy who advocated a policy designed to encourage anti-Communist opinion. Amongst other things, in his capacity as the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, he issued a series of posters announcing the end of the kolkhoz, the Soviet collective farms. He also issued an Agrarian Law in February 1942, anulling all Soviet legislation on farming, restoring family farms for those willing to collaborate with the occupiers. But decollectivisation conflicted with the wider demands of wartime food production, and Herman Goring demanded that the kolkhoz be retained, save for a change of name. Hitler himself denounced the redistribution of land as 'stupid.'

There were also numerous Wehrmacht posters asking for assistance in the Bandenkrieg, the war against the partisans, though, once again, German policy-savage and stupid-had the effect of adding to their problems. Posters for 'volunteer' labour, with inscriptions like 'Come work with us to shorten the war', hid the appalling realities faced by Russian workers in Germany. Many people joined the partisans rather than risk being sent to an unknown fate in the west.

Posters also appeared latterly seeking recruits for the Russian Liberation Army of Andrei Vlasov, a former Soviet commander taken prisoner in 1942, including one with a Russian and German soldier side-by-side, promising to march to 'victory and peace', before returning to their homes to live 'free and happy ever after.' The irony in this fairy tale must have been very hard for ordinary Russians to bear. Another of Rosenberg's initiatives, the 'free Caucasus' campaign, was rather more successful, attracting various nationalities into the so-called Ostlegionen, though in the end this made little difference. Clio the Muse 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some of this text to Alfred_Rosenberg#Wartime_activities. Thanks, Clio! Sandstein 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meadville, MS in American Civil War

I would like to know how Meadville, MS was affected by the Civil War. Were there any battles fought there, or was there any damage done to the town by Yankee soldiers? What was its condition when the war ended? I need this information for a book I am writing.

It would probably be best if you contacted the Franklin County Historical Society. Corvus cornix 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no battles were fought there, the greatest negative effect on the town from the US Civil War was most likely due to loss of male citizens killed in the Confederate Army. StuRat 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecuting a witness?

Quite often, in lawyer shows/games, during cross-examination, the defence attorney will realise that the seemingly unimpeachable witness was in fact the one who committed the crime in the first place! Typically the defence will then turn the case on its head and start prosecuting the witness midway through a case; this seems somewhat implausible! What would really happen if a lawyer had doubts about a witness like this - would they go so far as to publicly accuse the witness midway through court, or do something a bit less crazy? (don't particularly care about the country; any will do - just want a rough idea) Laïka 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a lawyer truly had doubts about a witness like this, he or she would not have waited until cross-examining the witness in open court in order to examine or test that doubt. This "common" scenario happens in mass-media and genre literature simply because jury trials are ostensibly "dramatic". In reality, in most jurisdictions the trial itself is a very late phase in the process. By then, each side has (or should have) a well-established theory.

In situations where a defense attorney does intend to attack the credibility of the witness on the stand, it will usually consist of non-speculative, unambiguous and well-documented reasons for why that witness should be considered unreliable (e.g., contradiction of prior recorded testimony, ). The lawyers must comply with various rules governing professional conduct and admissibility of evidence. Also, obviously, a criminal defense attorney does not need to prove who is guilty, just to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

(ed conf) In reality (for major cases) lawyers never ask a question to which they don't already know the answer, not least because they've often examined the witness intensively in some pre-trial deposition or such. And witnesses aren't prone to giving unexpected answers or cracking up and making emotive revelations, because they've been intensively examined by their own lawyer (or the prosecutor, if they're a prosecution witness). It's illegal for a lawyer to actually coach a witness ("and then you should say xyz") but they can examine and prepare a witness in such a way that it amounts to the same thing. In cases of homicide where the gross facts are in doubt (which is rare: most disputed cases concern subtler matters of fact such as the exact course of an altercation and who was the aggressor) it's common for a defense lawyer to present the jury with one (or sometimes a number) of alternate explanations, which occasionally do entail the witness being the supposed real Dagenham Dogworrier (cf Hans Reiser#Other theories, where someone is accused of murdering his wife and his defense is preparing to divert attention to someone else). But the prosecutor (and if it's a big deal case very often the witness will have their own lawyer, for just this circumstance) will have thoroughly prepared the witness for this eventuality - they'll have been asked every possible trick question repeatedly, and been barracked and hounded and bullied in preparation far more than the real judge would ever permit. Anyway, the very few witness/murderers who are machivellian enough to frame someone for murder such that the case comes to court are overwhelmingly smart and cool and prepared (if not downright psychopathic) enough to withstand anything the lawyer can chuck at them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you do see often is something one might call Sudden Witness Amnesia Syndrome (SWAS). This occurs where the witness's own lawyer, on hearing what the witness will unavoidably say in court (and comparing that to what the witness has already told the cops), realises that the witness is in too much danger of either encriminating themselves or committing perjury. SWAS manifests itself where witnesses now admit to having had much more to drink than they previously admitted, having been distracted, disoriented, or mixed up about an event they already told the cops they clearly witnessed, or having become confused and forgetful over the months that intervene between the incident and the trial. By simply saying "I can't remember" one can neither incriminate oneself or be had up for perjury. I'm sure everyone can remember some recent testimony in which otherwise competent, sober individuals suddenly couldn't remember all kinds of things you might have expected them to know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all stated above. But will just add that "Hollywood film versions" of courtroom drama certainly do not parallel real-life procedures. As the above discussion has inferred. (JosephASpadaro 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In addition, if a lawyer is cross examining a witness, they can only ask them questions concerning their testimony under direct examination. They can't just go off on fishing expeditions. They can, however, ask the judge to let them call the witness later, during the defense's chance to present witnesses, and then they can ask questions about things which were not covered during the prosecution's questioning. Corvus cornix 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding ticket from hell

How is a speeding ticket equal punishment under the law? This is discrimination against poor people. A $300 fine is a negligable penatly to Warren Buffett, but it is a huge punisment to someone who works minimum wage at Taco Bell. Has this been challenged in court? Imagine if the punishment for murder were a $1 million dollar fine....imagne the outrage!? Why then is this tolerated on lessor crimes!? It's complete bullshit XM 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of starting a great philosophical debate, "equal" means "the same as"; it does not mean "relatively the same" or "having the same relative effect". Whether or not "equal punishment under the law" is just punishment is a different debate. I can't get too upset about this one, though. A speeding ticket is not something you get from behaving like a good, safety-conscious citizen. (I suspect Warren Buffet would try to avoid such things as being a silly waste of money, and he is not know for either silliness or wastefulness.) Now that you know what speeding costs, I am hoping you will do us all a favour, and just slow down. Bielle 20:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want progressive punishments and equivalent penalty, as opposed to equal treatment, then you could argue that a year in jail for a 20 year old is worse than a year in jail for a 60 year old, too. Progressive fee schedules for taxation and licensure makes sense. For criminal findings, not so much. Geogre 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three basic problems: 1) discrimination against "poor people" does not necessarily constitute the kind of suspect classification that you would likely need to demonstrate to the court; 2) "speeding" (and driving in general) does not necessarily constitute a Fundamental right; and 3) a "speeding ticket" is arguably "narrowly tailored" to dissuade specific individuals from speeding, and therefore "poor people" (as a class) are not disproportionately harmed by the traffic laws and ordinances in question. In fact, one could argue that "poor people" actually benefit from penalties for speeding, since indigent pedestrians who cannot afford a motor vehicle are more likely to be harmed by unregulated drivers. (See also, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer). dr.ef.tymac 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Nordic countries (is it Finland?) does impose traffic fines based on the person's ability to pay. There a converse iniquity may occur: owners of expensive cars complain they are unfairly targeted by the police. They claim fine-hungry cops are much more likely to ticket a new Ferrari doing 5km/h over the limit than a rusty old Saab doing 5km/h over. If this is so it would constitute selective prosecution. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or worse, the Ferrari going over the speed limit by 1 mph, while the Saab goes over by 30 mph. Or such. (JosephASpadaro 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Except for minor crimes (misdemeanours?), all fines in Finland are proportional to income. The income data is acquired from tax authorities, but there are concessions if your income has substantially fallen since the last taxation year, or if you have dependants.

In particular, driving less than 20 km/h over the speed limit is a minor crime and costs no more than 115 euros (that's for speeds 15 to 20 km/h over the limit). For accuracy reasons, you won't get fined if the police instruments show a speed less than 4 km/h over the limit, and in practice speeding up to 10 km/h over the limit is quietly accepted.

I don't know any Ferrari owners, but the owners of posh BMW's I do know haven't complained about any police attention. There are few enough policemen as is, so I find it unlikely that they would be able to go after anyone in particular. 84.239.133.38 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above are excellent responses. I will also add this. XM, your line of thinking would be tantamount to saying the following. "When I go to Store XYZ, I see that the high def flat screen TV's cost $5,000. Well, geez, that's a LOT of money for a poor person. But that is only a drop in the bucket for a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates. Geez, Store XYZ is discriminating against poor people." The argument holds no water. Granted, the parallels are not exactly 100% (free market TV prices versus governmental fines) -- but it makes the point. (JosephASpadaro 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That is the worst analogy ever. Ever. The fact is punishment for a crime (speeding is a crime) is not the same as purchasing a good or service. Good grief. Would you guys be okay with the penalty for murder being a $1 million fine? Monetary punishments are unfair because they disporptionately punish people with fewer resoruces less. How in the hell can this be constitutional? XM 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhhh ... the better question is how in the hell can this not be constitutional? Monetary punishments have been around for 200+ years, living side-by-side quite nicely with the Constitution. I would posit that all 50 states employ some form of monetary punishments. If this were unconstitutional, I am quite sure that the issue would have been raised at some point over the past 200+ years. By the way, do you know what the word "constitutional" means? If so, point to which specific provision of the Constitution you feel is violated by speeding ticket fines. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here's a real-life example of just that sort of thing. This happened in New York, I don't know when, maybe 20 years ago. The subway fare at the time was one token, and the tokens cost a flat amount, say $1 each. The transit authority proposed reducing the price when tokens were not bought singly, either to reward frequent riders or so that they wouldn't have to do as many transactions or both -- it would be something like $1 for one token but $5 for six. And this plan was promptly shot down by poverty activists who said it discriminated against people who couldn't afford $5 at a time. I remember this because it seemed so weird in view of the fact that many other cities do use that sort of pricing (and indeed New York did adopt it later, when they switched from tokens to cards). --Anonymous, Friday the 13th, 22:20 (UTC).

Look at the issue from a different angle. If Warren Buffet were sentenced to a week's jail, he'd stand to lose a lot more income-earning capacity than a poor person sentenced to a week's jail. So he could argue that he should have only 2 minutes' jail for the same offence, and the poorer you are, the longer you should serve. -- JackofOz 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great counterpoint, JackofOz. (JosephASpadaro 03:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But, of course, rich people do serve less time in jail, if any, for the same or similar crimes. A person who robs a convenience store of a few dollars is likely to do more time than a CEO who bilks his shareholders out of millions, for example. This isn't surprising considering many lawmakers are former CEOs and very few ever robbed a convenience store. Remember the Golden Rule: "Those with the gold make all the rules". StuRat 06:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are guaranteed to equal protection of the laws by the 14th Amendment. That does not in and of itself mean that the government must not discriminate--just that it limit discrimination in areas of suspect classifications (i.e., discrete and insular minorities with immutable characteristics). In this case, the relevant factor would likely be wealth, and as it has been pointed out, the government need only show that it has a legitimate governmental interest and its law has a rational basis--and the government can easily say that it has a legitimate interest in a relatively consistent punishment system (each offender committing similar acts receive similar punishments, although the impacts need not be similar). Now, you might have a point about disproportionate impact, but on basis of wealth, the judge is probably going to tell you to go talk to your legislature if you want a change. –Pakman044 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original poster on this one, a $300 ticket for somebody in poverty can mean they have to sell their car and can't get to work any more, lose their job, and thus become homeless. For a rich person, they don't even have to think about it, they can have their accountant pay it for them. Better yet, they can hire drivers and order them to speed and pay any tickets. The only effect on them is the delay while the ticket is issued. In effect, then, the law says that those in poverty may lose their jobs and homes for speeding, while the rich are only subject to a 5 minute wait.

However, progressive fines would be difficult to implement, as that requires the court to accurately determine the wealth of each person. And, in case anyone thinks I just want my own fines lowered, I believe I have an above-median wealth, so my fines would likely increase from such a policy (I also think the US badly needs a hefty gasoline tax to protect us from dependency on foreign oil, despite me driving a vehicle which gets only 14 MPG).

An even worse example of this type of thing was that $300 would get people out of service in the Union army during the US Civil War, making it a war only the poor and middle class were forced to fight ($300 was a lot for the middle class to scrape together at the time). This led to draft riots. Something similar is happening in the Iraq War now, where the Congressional nonrepresentatives are almost all filthy rich, and, as a result, almost none of them have family members in Iraq. The same is also true for the other two branches of government (or other three branches, according to Dick Cheney). Well, that's my economic class discrimination rant for the day. StuRat 06:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A $300 speeding ticket is no different than purchasing a $5000 hi-def TV set. If I worked hard enough to become a millionaire, and I can afford the $5000 TV set, then I can choose to purchase it. If I am dirt-poor and purchasing a $5000 TV set would render me homeless, then I can make the affirmative choice to not purchase (i.e., forego) the TV set. This happens every day of the week with all of us. Back to the speeding ticket. If I want to affirmatively take the risk of engaging in speeding, and I am a millionaire, I might not be so concerned with the $300 "risk" and I might be willing to take it. If I was dirt-poor and I knew that a $300 speeding ticket would render me homeless, I would not affirmatively invite that homelessness upon me and I would not take the $300 risk (and I would not speed). If I genuinely and sincerely feared homelessness, the risk of speeding would not be worth it. That is, being late 10 minutes for work would not supersede losing my home. As with anything, it's a matter of personal accountability. I love it when people break the law, and then "blame the system" for the woes that they invited upon themselves by breaking the law in the first place. No personal accountability or sense of responsibility. (JosephASpadaro 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If one made fines exactly fair (taking the same percentage of everyone's income), you'd probably end up with an even more perverse system; a person earning US minimum wage (~$5 per hour) and working a 40 hour week would earn about $10,000 per year; a 1% fine of $100 should be sufficient deterent. Now lets suppose Larry Ellison, who earns even more than Buffett was found speeding; he earned $8.5 million dollars last year; should he pay a speeding fine of $85,000 for the same offence?! Even more difficult would be basing it on savings or liquid capital; many desperately poor people only just have enough money to survive - money comes in at the same rate it leaves, so they will have net savings of $0; as they have no way of paying, should they pay no fine? And of course there's the crazy stuff rich people can do to reduce their apparent, taxable wealth; Larry Page (founder of Google) only earns $10 a year salarY! The current system is certainly not fair, but it works very well when you ignore the extremes. Laïka 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Under that perverse system, if I become unemployed and earn $0 per year, I would pay $0 in fines. And, thus, I can get away ad finitem with conduct that would otherwise have consequences. And this, in turn, will motivate me to stay unemployed. A very perverse cycle indeed. (JosephASpadaro 01:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It should be pointed out that the Finnish system of proportional fines works quite well, and no one is campaigning for its abolishment. There is in fact a minimum level of fines, based (roughly) on the income you'd get on the dole. Some people might consider it a loophole that a hypothetical person with much wealth and low taxable income would pay small fines, but there are few such people. Were Larry Page to live in Finland, it wouldn't matter that his nominal wage is low - his actual income from (realized) capital gains would be considered when assessing fines. 84.239.133.38 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional question

Can a Judge refuse to knowingly violate part of a state's constitution? I am headed for a trial where I am not deemed compotent to testify in my trail according to the state's constitution. The desired outcome here is to be denied the right to testify (and therefore dew process), so that I can have this unjust & discrminatory clause in my state's constitution overturned.

I know it is hard to believe that I would be willing to sacrafice myself (or at least $300 of myself) in order to save other atheists, specifically speedy atheists, from this discriminatory & unjust provision from an intollerant era that still looms over us today. Sort of like Jesus did for the Christians.

So, I'm planning on demanding to testify, and requesting that the Judge uphold his oath to the Arkasnas constitution. What are the likely outcomes? The worst that can happen is I have to pay the $300 fine, right? (I'm not going to be rude or show contempt, so I wont get charged with contept of court) Court date is mid Aug. XM 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about bad analogies?!?!? (from your question above) You think that a law-breaking speeder defending the rights of atheists against some perceived (though unreal) persecution is analygous to what Jesus Christ did for Christians? Wow. By the way, I believe in psychology there is a term called the "martyr" complex or the martyr syndrome. Check it out. (JosephASpadaro 03:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest you contact the ACLU - they should be able to put you in touch with a lawyer specialising in this type of case. DuncanHill 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I left a voicemail. XM 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, the ACLU lawyer might need a hearty chuckle that day. (JosephASpadaro 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

From the first time you asked about this, the responses indicate that it's very likely that the portion of the Arkansas state constitution that says that atheists are not competent to testify has long been set aside. If this is the case, the judge will tell you so and ask you to cut the theatrics. Or he'll note that this puts the Arkansas constitution in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the latter has priority and therefore you can testify.

All of which would seem to be moot, since nowhere in any of your posts is there any indication that you were not, in fact, speeding. Therefore, you'll pay the fine. Your best hope is that the officer doesn't show up at the court date and the ticket is set aside, if that's the law in Arkansas. Although ultimately, I think the best idea is to take responsibility for your actions, pay the fine and get on with your life. Donald Hosek 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Donald Hosek. I agree with your comment about the "theatrics" 100%. Exactly on point. (JosephASpadaro 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you so vehement against him? Atheists have been persecuted for decades in smaller American towns by Christians who think they're being "persecuted" when somebody won't pretend to be Christian so as not to hurt their feelings. --Charlene 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is persecuting who? There is no issue here at all. The provision in the State Constitution is null and void via the Federal Constitution. There is no issue at all -- TM is simply attempting to make an issue of a non-issue. Essentially, "theatrics". What is the goal of TM? Presumably to void the illegal provision in the State Consititution (since it's unfair and discriminatory, etc.). The problem is -- that has already been done. That problem has already been solved. Do you sincerely think that judges in Arkansas -- with dockets bursting at the seams -- have nothing better to do with their time than to keep reinventing the wheel? TM has some other ulterior motives, beyond the disingenuous claims of "righting a wrong" (since that wrong has already been righted). I certainly don't know for sure -- but I suspect that he is trying to "get out of" a $300 speeding ticket under the guise of being a martyr against perceived persecution. (JosephASpadaro 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not being vehement against him, and certainly not because he's an atheist. He's been busy trying to come up with some reason why he shouldn't have to pay the fine for speeding any reason except for the one which would seem acceptable: He was not guilty. I don't care about his religious beliefs or lack thereof. If I were an atheist, though, I'd cringe to have him claiming to represent atheists, much as I cringe at many people who claim to represent Catholics, Christians or religious people in general. Donald Hosek 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic court is a machine run by a very average lawyer whose day revolves around the twin legal touchstones of "let's keep it moving" and "that's not my problem". Whatever happens, your hearing will be over so quickly you wonder if it's started yet. Here's what will happen: the prosecution case will be entered; you'll be asked if you want to testify; you'll present your interesting constitutional theory; the judge will either a) summarily dismiss it (probably while you're halfway through the first sentence - he gets 5 guys a day who have constitutional theories about stuff) or b) say he'll take it under advisement and tell you to proceed with your testimony; now you either have to give testimony, stand mute, or argue with the judge about his role in the grand legal scheme of the world; if you argue he'll just tell you to shut up; if you continue to argue he'll find you in contempt and chuck you in jail; regardless of what action you previously took the judge will either rule straight away or more likely defer his ruling for a later (paper) finding; "next case". Bish-bosh, in and out, five minutes tops. If you're unhappy with the constitutional handling of your point then that's a matter he's happy for you to discuss that matter with some superior court. The judge controls the timing of the hearing, period. He knows 999/1000 of the interesting constitutional theory brigade will never appeal, and he doesn't care one iota about the 1/1000 who does. He's kept his docket moving, he's made his rulings, and everything else isn't his problem. Say "hi" to Justice Scalia from me. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent explanation for the process. I'll just add one thing: worry about the constitutional issues if and only if you are barred from testimony. None of the other actors have much to gain by keeping you from testifying on the basis of an Arkansas constitution clause that practically everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face. –Pakman044 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay McWalter -- your post above could not have been more perfect. You are 100% correct. (JosephASpadaro 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, Finlay McWalter left out one noteworthy consideration from his Kafkaesque, yet sufficiently reliable procedural description of how these things generally work. Assuming, XM, you avoid this "Patrick Henry in traffic-court" strategy, and assuming you don't have more than one moving violation in the last few years or so (vague range). The judge may actually reduce the fine sua sponte ... *if* you are apologetic, polite, and (most importantly) concise. dr.ef.tymac 07:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]