Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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

November 18[edit]

Presumption of Innocence & the Me Too movement[edit]

Is it just me or does the legal concept of presumption of innocence get brought up in discussions surrounding sexual harassment and sexual assault much more than than any other types of crimes such as murder especially in light of the #Metoo movement in the United States?

For example, if you are an anime fan, you probably have known about the huge and polarizing controversy around the English dub voice actor Vic Mignogna. In this case, his #StandwithVic defenders have brought this principle up in the heated discourse quite often to the point where we #Kickvic have to use the fact that Vic was the plaintiff suing his accusers to counter this particular argument. I mean, you don't see this kind of behavior with other types of crimes especially if you are familiar with high-profile cases. I am pretty sure quite a huge portion of the general public believed that OJ Simpson was guilty long before he lost his civil suit and it is quite obvious that quite a lot of people already believe that Jussie Smollette is guilty of making up a racial hoax and no longer stand by him. Then there is the media circus surrounding the Scott Peterson case and the Disappearance of Susan Powell case in which the obvious perpetrator did not even get arrested. If there is any academic communication studies about this, I would like a link to it. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its an old basic rule already present in roman law but in the end justice is foremost forced to be a representation of the judicial worldview of the majority of society - which it must be to keep its moral superior position as "independent" judge. From pure judicial view or more correctly judicial logic this opens a huge portal for critics but thats just a consequence of keeping the system accepted by the majority. --Kharon (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the presumption of innocence works in a legal setting, saying that society should follow the same rules is a bit problematic:

That means we would treat people as if they are entirely innocent, until convicted of a court. For example, priests with massive evidence of child abuse would still be left in a position to harm children, until a court found them guilty. The courts themselves acknowledge that this is a problem when they allow people to be arrested and held in custody, despite not yet having been convicted.

We don't normally try a dead person, due to their inability to defend themselves. However, if we suspect a dead person was guilty of a murder, but haven't actually proven this is a court of law, does this mean the police should continue to investigate as if it was still an open case ? Of course not.

In the case of crimes against blacks in the US South post-civil war, or Jews in Nazi Germany, etc., those who committed crimes might never have been charged, or been found innocent in a biased court. Should society consider them innocent ? Of course not.

Courts sometimes release people not because they were proven innocent, but because of some procedural error, like not having been read their rights. Again, this doesn't mean we should trust the released individual with our lives.

In some jurisdictions, a suspect who pleads no contest isn't technically found guilty.

So, for a variety of reasons, it is necessary to prejudge individuals before, and sometimes in spite of, a court ruling on guilt. Hopefully we do so with some attempt at fairness. For example, one accusation, from a known enemy, without proof, should be given far less weight than accusations from 100 people, with proof, with no reason to lie. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd speculate:

relative lack of obvious physical evidence compared to the average murder case
heavier reliance on witness testimony which is easier to disregard offhand, as it's more believable to claim one or several persons are lying than to invoke a government conspiracy
general public space saturation with sexual harassment claims and also public justice in general, since these days there's far more protests calling out somebody than 10 years ago, and most people have been burnt by supporting a cause that turned out to be trolling and are now wary of taking sides, or got radicalized and don't even listen to your arguments. 93.136.31.83 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the vitriolic rants against #MeToo are variations on the Just-world hypothesis, and I'd say that the sections on "guilt reduction" and "self as victim" seem especially relevant. Essentially, people like to pretend that crimes didn't happen when the available evidence (or lack thereof) makes it easier for them, and they really like to pretend that specific crimes don't happen if they imagine themselves being accused of it. I think also of the women who write about the fear their son will be accused of rape. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about how sexual harassers justify their positions. I think even most people who have expressed opposition to a MeToo accusation aren't of that ilk. I think what OP is saying is that people who don't perpetrate sexual harassment/violence can still openly side with a totally guilty-seeming accused person, and wants to know why that happens. Another guess I can offer is polarization along gender lines, similar to how white people expressed belief that OJ Simpson is guilty, while black people claimed he was innocent. Sure he looks guilty as hell today with the evidence and in hindsight, but this was also the era of LA riots. There is a social capital element to this. Probably most people today either have experienced sexual harassment/violence, have been fairly or unfairly accused of it, or see either of those as a realistic threat in their future. This can make them less likely to review the facts of the case fairly. 93.142.92.186 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot: a few people have recommended me the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt on this topic. I haven't yet read it but it sounds like it could have some of the answers you're looking for. 93.142.92.186 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for speculation, opinion, or debate, and should be closed accordingly.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an assertion to say that people have been using the principle of presumption of innocence to counter accusations of sexual harassment and assault much more in comparison to other types of crimes. I am just trying to find sociological studies and evidences that would back my claim. I have no control over the adequacy or lack thereof of the answers to my questions 70.95.44.93 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The court system treats innocence or guilt as a binary condition: either one or the other. However, outside of the limited scope of a court of law, people are allowed to treat suspicion on a continuum, and are allowed to treat people with varying responses based on their own assessment of where a person lies on that continuum. That is, while the courts are required to treat a person's status as a binary condition, there's no requirement that anyone else must. As an aside, the faulty "binary thinking" is why so many women's legitimate and credible evidence of sexual assault is dismissed and ignored, and those dismissals and ignorings are the main reason why women decide to not report actual sexual assaults, and the crime is massively under-reported. The standards for starting a formal investigation are, by necessity, different than the standards for punishing a person for a crime, and those standards do NOT require proof first! If they did, then we'd never be able to accuse anyone of anything if we needed to prove their guilt before accusing them. --Jayron 32 14:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is, presumption of innocence just do not apply to usual social interaction. You may distinguish 3 levels. At state/legal level, you are innocent until proven guilty (but may be detained while investigated); this is the only level where PoI applies. At public/commercial level, you can expect to be treated just like anyone regardless of your criminal record, even proven guilty, so PoI is irrelevant. At private level, you cannot expect anything, if people want to avoid interaction, refuse to give you job or to invite you at their parties, well, they may do so freely and "I don't like you", or even "this is unfair, but other people do not like you so I have rather not you around" is reason enough, so PoI is also irrelevant.

So basically all this "Presumption of Innocence" bullshit is just that: BS. When wrongly accused, the expected legal move is to sue for Defamation (a thing that was successfully done against at least one me too leader). Modern social media make it difficult, we still do not have some sort of reverse class action providing for action against "everyone libeling me". And in any case, suing for defamation may backfire in 3 ways : Streisand effect, lack of success that will actually support the accusation or at least deliver the message that you can freely broadcast it, or even utter disaster.

bottom line: public shaming is hard to fight back.People have their live ruined, or even suicide. Mob is a bitch, and hoes will be hoes, bitching around.Gem fr (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And predators will be predators, and sometimes they do the right thing and kill themselves once they're caught. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, legend has it that someone believed Epstein killed himself, seems we found him xD Gem fr (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

xD? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Party of Iceland, presumably.--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with Epstein? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has something to do with Epstein... eventually. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new ref desk, to address obscure riddles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor die?[edit]

As I've just commented on the article talk page, our article makes two claims: that he died of disease and that he died of being beaten to death.

Any reliable sources? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. If he was beaten, this could have caused wounds which then became infected, causing death. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really being beaten to death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, the cause of death wasn't always apparent. If he was beaten, and there were signs of infection, then he died, it wouldn't have been clear which was the cause. He could have still died from hemorrhaging, for example. Even now, when somebody dies and they don't have an autopsy, they basically just guess at the cause of death for the death certificate. But the best we can do to determine the cause of historic deaths of that era is to scour sources for a list of the symptoms, then try to do a modern diagnosis. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that William McKinley died of infection subsequent to being shot, but it's still considered to be an assassination. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia says that Otto's death was caused by diarrhea. There is no mention of anyone beating him to death. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a cause of death, it's a symptom. Disease could cause that, perhaps with dehydration being the actual cause of death. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least it is more than idle speculation without doing even a tiny search. Bernd Schneidmüller: Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (819–1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 266. In: Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Stefanie Hahn, Hans-Jürgen Derda (Hrsg.): Otto IV. Traum vom welfischen Kaisertum. Petersberg 2009, p. 281–288. Should be the sources for the cause of death, or symptom leading to death if we want to be pedantic.80.138.66.157 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, he may have had a beating, but not a fatal one? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. No beating mentioned near the end of his life at all. I would think the claim is a hoax or vandalism. At least from what i gathered and thecomplete lack of mention of any beating leading to his death other than here. 80.138.66.157 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reliable source in the article, footnoted AND directly attributed to the historian Ernst Kantorowicz, saying he was beaten to death. What is the reliable source saying he died of disease? --Jayron 32 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia lists a source (this is the Wikipedia translation), but it's unclear if this source is just for his will, or if it also covers the cause of death: Bernd Schneidmüller: The Welfs. Reign and Remembrance (819-1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 266. Cf. the detailed description by Claudia Lydorf: "Who is it that we are negotiating about my life, since it is none more?" Will and death of Emperor Otto IV. In: Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Stefanie Hahn , Hans-Jürgen Derda (ed.): Otto IV. Dream of the Welf emperor. Petersberg 2009, p. 281-288. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they are used for both death and direct aftermath. Certainly is getting curious now.80.138.66.157 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the possibility that there is a disagreement over his cause of death. The 13th century is a LONG time ago, and it is not unreasonable to say that we just don't know which version of events is certain. --Jayron 32 17:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course possible but being bloodily beaten to death by clergy, of all people, seems hardly something there would be huge disagreement over, no? Still possible of course but... not like it was between two natural causes or whatever. Switched to the desktop by the way in case the IP changed. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised. Edward II of England, who lived 100 years after the aforementioned Otto either had a hot poker shoved up his ass, died by natural causes, was strangled, starved, beaten to death, etc. The ultimate answer is we have no idea how Edward II died. We are pretty sure he's dead by now, but he basically gets stuffed into prison and then disappears from the historical record. There's a lot of ex-post-facto stories circulating, and depending on how much the many-years-later historian had a reason to like or dislike Edward, the more gruesome the manner of his death becomes. The red-hot-poker-up-the-ass version is the most memorable, but it is certainly not any more certain than any of the other possibilities. For a ruler some 100 years older still than Edward II was, I would not be any more surprised that we don't have good information. --Jayron 32 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious deaths or disappearances of leaders still occur in modern times. See Disappearance of Harold Holt. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the article about Kantorowicz regarding the book used as source: "Instead of offering a more typical survey of laws, institutions, and important political and military achievements of Frederick's reign, the book struck a distinctly panegyrical tone, portraying Frederick as a tragic hero and the idealized embodiment of the German nation. It included no footnotes and seemed to elide historical events with more fanciful legends and propagandistic literary depictions. The work elicited a combination of bewilderment and criticism from the mainstream historical academy. Reviewers complained that it was literary myth-making and not a work of serious historical scholarship. As a result, Kantorowicz published a hefty companion volume (Ergänzungsband) in 1931 which contained detailed historical documentation for the biography." Now it seems he did try to justify himself afterwards but... is that book really something that is even reliable by Wikipedia standards, especially on its own without the companion guide? No idea what the perception was after 'expanding' the book but... this does not sound promising to be honest. But then again, it is only from a wiki article and unsourced itself haha. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point; I would say in that case it seems like Kantorowicz is not a good source, and any information from it should be stricken from the article, or if it must remain, to add an explanatory note saying that most historians think his work is bullshit. --Jayron 32 17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that he was involved in German ultra-nationalism as well in his youth, so more or less when he wrote the book. Despite being part jewish. This is getting more and more bizarre lol. Medievalist Norman Cantor even went as far as saying "but for his Jewish heritage, the young Kantorowicz could be considered a Nazi in terms of his intellectual temperament and cultural values." Now that is NOT universally accepted but... yeah not a good light. Especially because the book in question was written in his younger days. Which in my mind taints each and everything the man said regarding german history. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this site in german (tranlation) might state that he suffered the "thin schiszin", but ordered his own cook to beat him as penitence. You may not find that reliable.—eric 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not good enough? Was written by one Klaus Röttger, who is not a historian but was a journalist for a local paper, if i was not stupid and actually looked for the correct person, at least. But i think that journo should be him. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe it could be he blamed his cook for the dysentery and kicked him in the neck. A German speaker might be required.—eric 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ':53E, didn't realize I was replying to one.—eric 18:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Google translation of the relevent bits from that source:

"A well-meaning friend sent him therefore a new drug for cleaning stomach and intestines in pill form. Whatever it contained, the effect was terrible. The entire digestion broke down. The "thin schiszin", as Eike von Repkow called the condition, probably the Ruhr, in the language of his time a little disrespectful, became so bad that it was said that on the night of the 12th to the 13th of May ... penitential, he humbled himself, because he was full of "unspeakable remorse," in every way imaginable. He ordered his cooks to kick him on the neck, threw himself on the ground with bared back and let himself be beaten with rods until even the monks were moved by "such penitence"...In short, it came to an end... However, he took his time...But on 19 May 1218 the time had come: the Emperor died peacefully, more or less calmed down."

This leaves the possibility the self-imposed beating killed him eventually, or a disease caused by the pill, or just poisoning from the pill. We remain as confused as ever. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small addition by a native speaker, Ruhr is dysentry. Did not get translated. And the 'rods' with which he was chastised is also a rather imperfect translation i think. Or are those those parts of 'bushes' or twigs bundled together called rods in english? Like as an unrelated example for practically the same thing: the german Santa canes children that don't behave. That sort of thing was used when chastising oneself or having people do it. Twigs and the like that break the skin after a while, which surely does not help a dying man, but is not a 'real' beating either. Or were there more substantial objects used when doing pennance? That still leaves the thing with the cooks though. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for those who live in the Ruhr valley. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

If you ever been there, it is shocking how apt the name actually is :P 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Dysentery does cause diarrhea, so that's consistent. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2003:D6:2729:FF5A:18F7:C82E:F8DA:53E -- see explanation of "birch rod" under birching... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a primary source describing Otto's death, the Narratio de morte Ottonis iv., allegedly an eyewitness report. I haven't been able to find an online version to check, but as I understand it, Otto was terminally ill from a complete collapse of the digestive system. Fearing eternal damnation (he seems to have been excommunicated from the Church or at least in conflict with it) he ordered himself to be beaten as a means of atonement. Whether the actual cause of death was the illness or the beating is anybody's guess and not terribly interesting. As to the reliability of the narratio, this is for historians to judge, but it's probably the only source that we have. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From here, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum. p. 1373. but looks to be the wrong page. Milman, H. H. (1883). History of Latin christianity. pp. 58–9. cites and has an english summary.—eric 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is correct, but the volume is the wrong one. You want tomus tertius. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::Just to clarify, that's not a primary source, but a contemporary account. Unless Otto was liveblogging his own demise, it isn't a primary source. Since the person writing is not directly involved in the action, it's a secondary source, though one that is contemporary to the events. --Jayron 32 12:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source begs to differ. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. If it is an eyewitness account, it would be a primary source. I had mistakenly thought it was just the story collected by an historian contemporary to Otto. My bad. --Jayron 32 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelmann, E. A. (1873). Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von Braunschewig. pp. 463–8. looks to have a long account of 13-19 May (with an expansive footnote for "on 18 May he made a fine testament"). German and Fraktur.—eric 15:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelmann tells the same story — not surprisingly as he also cites the narratio as his principal source. The beating happened on May 18th, he laid down his will later the same day, and he died on the 19th. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

grapes vinegar for religious Muslims - allowed?[edit]

Is it allowed for religious Muslims to consume vinegar that made of grapes? I'm asking it because I know that vine is forbidden for muslim but I'm not sure about vinegar. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many many different sects of Islam, so to answer universally for every religious Muslim on earth would be nearly impossible. However, there are some forums and online FAQs and the like where I have found some information on this. Without wanting to recommend any to you, this contains a good collection of possible beginnings for your research. --Jayron 32 21:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Alcohol in Islam. Vinegar that is properly made will contain only minuscule traces of ethanol, no more than in many other foods such as fruits, because bacteria make vinegar by digesting the ethanol. But any devout Muslim should seek advice from an imam or other Islamic authority if they have a religious concern. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in our article on najis. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page, My Halal Kitchen says: 'Vinegar is a condiment that was favored by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It has numerous health benefits and flavors everything from salads and cooked vegetables and acts as a meat tenderizer in marinades and more. In a hadith narrated by Ayesha, Muslim and Ibn Maja, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “Allah has put blessing in vinegar, for truly it was used by the Prophets before me.”' Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't a good source for information about properly pious practice of any religion. The questioner might find the Islam Stackexchange useful. I'm not religious, but I find the debate there about about the proper practice of Islam fascinating. The people answering questions very similar to yours are, I'm sure, all practicing Muslims, but probably not authority figures, though they give scriptural references pretty thoroughly. Content warning: sometimes misogyny and violence come up as topics there. Avoid it if that might upset you. Temerarius (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]