Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 February 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

February 19

How do the British courts deal with crimes committed when they were illegal that have since become decriminalized?

Lets say for example, buggery. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalized buggery in certain circumstances (consensual, between two people, in private). Before that, it was a crime outright. If a man in 2015 admitted committing buggery in 1965, before the law changed, he is admitting to a crime. How do the British courts deal with such cases? Could he be retroactively punished because he did break the law at the time? I know this works the other way where things that become illegal can't be retroactively punished if they happened before the law changed.

ps: I'm not talking about buggery specifically, it is just an example of an illegal act that has since been decriminalized. Another example might be the decriminalized of copying DVDs for personal use.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbyLoon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It could well depend on some important factors, including but not limited to: (1) Does the law have a statute of limitations? (2) Is there a political reason or a "public will" to prosecute old crimes which are no longer crimes? (3) Other than confessing to it, is there any other evidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there are three legal systems in the UK, that of England&Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Coming back to your question, IIRC, you can only be punished to the extent of the law at the time of the offence, and the current law. If the law has changed, then the lower punishment is imposed. However, if this is relating to someone you know (or even you), then you must ask a criminal lawyer to get a definitive answer. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In England and Wales the decision to prosecute a person for a crime is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The decision to prosecute people is not always clear cut, they regularly decline to prosecute people because it is not in the public interest. The scenario painted above would very likely fall into that category. Richard Avery (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What about those currently serving a sentence, and then the "crime" is decriminalised. Is there a process to free them in England and Wales? --Lgriot (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting scenario but in practice I think it unlikely that a person would be imprisoned for a crime that would later be decriminalized. As a crime/action rises in its acceptance level to the point of being non-criminal, the offenders are similarly treated more leniently. Richard Avery (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

More high society and antiquarian names

Hey all, so continuing topic here, I've found that letting you lot at these names is the most efficient approach for this little project of mine it seems. These fellows have thankfully uncommon names and would have been active around 1955 to 1966 (and other years, but definitely active in this timeframe). Anyway, here's the names: Calmann, Crowson, Garabed, Abarbanell, Genova, Dr. Cahn, Shefton, Delaine, R.T. Clough, Lucie-Smith, H. Knill, E. Fischer, Guthrie. Oh, also a Prof. Bodkin active in 1953. I should have a second batch of names later today as well. Thanks again for everyone's help. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Shipping small item from Australia to the U.S.

I wanted to buy a small piece of costume jewelry from a store in Australia, and I was surprised to see that they charged $40 to ship to the United States. This was almost as much as the cost of the jewelry! Is it typically this expensive to ship something from Australia to the United States? I found several comments on Yahoo! Answers that shipping to Australia from the US doesn't cost this much, but I haven't found anything about going the other direction. Thanks! OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not usually, no, unless it's heavy or you have to pay customs duties. I ship stuff to and receive stuff from Aus a few times a year and it's not all that pricey for me or my friend there (like under 20 USD). Also, was your price just now in AUD or USD? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 14:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the Australia Post website, a small parcel from Australia to the US should be A$10.50 for Sea Mail or A$14.10 for Air Mail {source - [1] click continue). You may be paying for insurance or for priority service. Hack (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The store might also be trying rip you off. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do tell! If it were me, I would buy it, take it home, package it myself, and take it to the post office to send it directly. A little more work, but not 40 dollars worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I was checking Google to see what Aussie slang is for "ripoff". Apparently, it's... "ripoff". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Australia Tax is the appropriate article for this. Also, I suspect the OP might be in the US. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 17:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any real indication this relates to what's covered in Australia tax in any way. Also there's no real indication Australia Post is involved. It's hardly uncommon stores are only willing to ship items via some sort of courier instead of the local postal service for a variety of reasons (although the courier service could be offered by the postal service). In fact, many Australians have probably experienced this with US sellers. Believe me getting stuff sent to Australia (or New Zealand) can easily be just as expensive, if not more so. That's presuming you can even get them to ship. (Although at least Australia Post actually offer insurance for their standard airmail service or they do to US anyway as does NZ Post. USPS doesn't offer that on first class mail internationally, you need priority mail for that which can be expensive, at least for plebs.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, that was in reply to Bugs's thing. And believe me, I know. Getting my friend's valentine sent to Aus was not cheap and priority would have been a ton. Though thanks to your input here I was able to send it without worrying about he gift being confiscated. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 18:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP never said they were living in Australia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If not, obviously that would complicate matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is the middle ground of just visiting. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Shevat 5775 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the type of shipping. If all the vendor wants to do is get a parcel from Australia to the United States then yes, it can be done fairly cheaply. If the vendor wants to have package tracking (so you can see where your shipment is) and signature on delivery (so the vendor has proof you received it in the event of a dispute) then that costs more. ("Express Courier International Merchandise" seems to be the lowest parcel option that includes signature and tracking, and costs 56 AUD, or about 40 USD.) It's also possible that the vendor is including customs brokerage fees or insurance. Your best best, of course, is simply to ask the vendor how the shipping costs are calculated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

brothers of Jesus Christ

When the Bible speaks of the four brothers of Jesus Christ, who were they really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.97.238 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't tell you who they really were, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet. We do have an article Historical Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is possible one of us knows, just not likely.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See Matthew 13:55.—Wavelength (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published the article "Jesus’ Family—Who Were They?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003920.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This question (or a similar one) is now also being asked at the Humanities desk. Should they be merged? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Brothers of Jesus. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The duplicate thread from miscellaneous
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the Biblical book of John, four men were listed as the brothers of Jesus. My understanding is that after Joseph died Mary went to live with her sister and all the people of that household were considered family IN THAT CULTURE. Therefore the men who were actually cousins of Jesus was listed as brothers because that would be fully understood in that culture. Is this correct or wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eronile (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Opinions (will it surprise you?) differ on the subject. See Brothers of Jesus for our article. Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Wow, it's like deja vu. Wow, it's like deja vu. The same (or similar) question is being asked at the Misc desk. Should that one and this one be merged? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a Greek word for "cousin", as our article notes:

The term "brother" (adelphos) is distinct in Greek from "cousin" (anepsios), and the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus distinguishes between those who were "cousins" of Jesus (anepsioi) and his "brothers."

Nobody in the New Testament ever refers to Jesus' cousins, only to his brothers (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, John 7:3, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5). Consider James the Just, the most well-attested of the brothers. Mark and Matthew both call him Jesus' brother, as does Paul, who personally met him (Galatians 1:18-19). Even the Jewish historian Josephus refers to him as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". --Bowlhover (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, there was Jesus' brother Bob Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Autistic people and Downs Syndrome people

admitted trolling by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are people with Downs syndrome and autism more likely to be economically inactive in society? Are they a drain on taxpayers or do they pay their way in society? --Garststrap (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC) The question is far too broad. First, autism and Down's syndrome are totally unrelated. It's like comparing hemophilia and anorexia, or tabby cats and bonsai trees. Second, each has a very broad spectrum, and there are certainly famous and rich people with both issues. (And autism cannot be diagnosed physiologically.) Third, "drain on society" implies a socialist political system, where parents don't support their own children. Not to be crude, but is a pet horse a "drain on society"? If this is a homework assignment I'd challenge the hidden collectivist and eugenic premises and the equivocation made by ignore several essential differences. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Not to bite your head off or anything, but could you perhaps ask your question in a less loaded (and offensive) manner? Also, the two really are not comparable. Autism Spectrum Disorder ranges all over the place in terms of severity and symptoms and many people with ASD are not only productive members of society, but also history makers although I can't get a list right now of historical people thought to have ASD. Down's Syndrome is a bit trickier as it tends to have an impact on the person's lifespan as well as their physical and mental capabilities. That said, there are more than a few cases of individuals with Down's syndrome who are economically successful. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 30 Shevat 5775 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC) In the interests of Political Correctness, the approved terms appear to be "Down syndrome" in the USA and "Down's" (no 'syndrome') in the UK. Do not ask me why the terms are different between nations, or why "Down's syndrome" is considered offensive. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Approved by whom? I have a severly autistic niece and went to elementary school with three mentally retarded children, two of whom had Down's syndrome. There was nothing down about them. Political Correctness is as offensive as Sharia; a Marxist-Leninist doublethink concept straight out of Orwell's 1984. To hell with it. (Nothing personal, Tevildo, since I know you are just reporting here. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I think we're all in agreement here that political correctness needs to be killed with a rusty trench spike. I was objecting to the drain on society stuff it had been a serious display of ignorance rather than simply trolling. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC) This has little to do with political correctness (whatever that empty phrase means to you). Health conditions which take their name from the physician who first identified them are in modern parlance within medical literature more commonly given without any apostrophisation. Supposedly this is a recommendation from the US National Institute of Health in 1974 [2] although there is no absolute standard on this and some medical literature continues to use the version with the possessive. Overall the possessive form has become less common in the last 40 odd years although some diseases or syndromes have lost their apostrophes at a faster rate than others [3] and the adoption of the non-possessive form has been more widespread in the US than in Europe [4]. On the specific assertion that "Down's" without the word syndrome is the "approved" term in the UK, and "Down's syndrome" is offensive I would dispute this. British speakers may often say "he has Down's" etc. but this is a colloquialism and no different to someone saying "he has Parkinson's" or "he has Asperger's". The NHS Choices website uses the term "Down's syndrome" [5] as does the British Medical Association website [6] [7] as does the main British Down's Syndrome charity [8]. Valiantis (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Autism is a tough one - it's a spectrum condition that runs all the way from near-normal people through Asperger syndrome to very profound Autism. At the extreme Autistic end, sufferers are typically unable to live independently - so they may indeed be a "drain on society" - at least from an economic perspective. But at the opposite end, people with Aspergers can be high wage earners and responsible for important discoveries and developments and are far from "economically inactive" or a "drain"...quite the opposite in fact. Whether this is a zero sum thing - or whether there is a net win or loss would be hard to determine. Downs syndrome is more clear, it doesn't have much of an up-side, so there is inevitably some cost to society...but "economically inactive" is a bit much - many victims can hold down a job of some kind. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC) The OP who posted this question has made no other contributions, so I suspect they have desired to create a controversy. If that's the case, I'll say that children, the elderly, pets and the unemployed, as well as the disabled are individuals with a right to life and care by those who they have created or who created them. The parasite seems to be the OP. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Hmmm, it appears I let myself be trolled then. Well-played, sir, well-played. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC) The successful fictional weirdo from Nightcrawler gives a glimpse of the real power of autistics' one-track thinking, attention to detail and disregard for others' feelings. The successful actual weirdo, Bill Gates, could probably get a spectrum diagnosis if he went for one. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC) The lack of regard for other peoples' feelings is supposed to be exclusive to Aspberger's I think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Why not read our article on Asperger Syndrome which will indicate that your assertion is incorrect - and arguably not even meaningful on the basis of current medical usage as set out in the 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Valiantis (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC) No need to get unfriendly about it. I was told that was the primary symptom by a few psychiatrists and a rather rude family member when I was young. Seemed authoritative to nine year-old me in the late 90s and had no reason to be challenged given the sources. Blame psychiatrists for giving bad diagnoses (I'm often old I care too much). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Even among them, everyone's different. But yeah, I should have said some autistics. There's also a bit of the grey area between autism and "serious" sociopathy in that film. They're certainly not mutually exclusive (or inclusive). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) This opinion is not necessarily endorsed by the DSM-V, which is absolutely not endorsed by InedibleHulk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I actually have Aspergers/Autism-spectrum (sorry, I should probably have mentioned this earlier!) - it is absolutely NOT true that we have a "lack of regard" for other people's feelings. Very much the opposite, in fact. What we do (mostly) lack is the ability to deduce other people's feelings from cues such as facial expression, body language, subtle language cues, voice intonation and such. I'm sure that my wife could tell you that I generally have no clue if she's feeling mildly upset about something, or a little depressed, or being about to tell me something wonderful - so I may appear to be unfeeling about it, and react entirely inappropriately. But she's learned to tell me how she feels, and when she does, I have no problem whatever in having genuine feelings for her situation and taking appropriate action as a result. So without doubt, I do have regard for other people's feelings (and it's kinda insulting to imply that I don't without first checking the facts, or at least RTFA). What I most certainly do lack is that Dianna-Troy/Betazoid capability to magically detect other people's emotional states...(that StarTrek character is *exactly* how you 'normal' people seem to me!). I have explicitly learned to use certain facial variations to see obvious emotional states - anger, joy, etc. Tone of voice is more or less impossible as a cue, and I find it almost impossible to detect anything from word choice. The subtle stuff can be too subtle for me to detect it on a conscious level and continually monitoring everyone around me for those more obvious signs is exhausting! The mental circuitry that picks up on these tiny signals at a subconscious level is either broken or missing in my brain - there isn't anything I can do about that. The idea that people on the autistic spectrum are sociopaths who don't care about the humanity of others is a really very serious misconception! The problem is not with how we react to other people's internal state - it's about how we detect it. Of course it's possible for someone with autism to also be a sociopath - but that's no different from also having depression or also having a broken leg...it's an unrelated matter. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) As for Down's Sydrome, Jamie Brewer probably has more money than you. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Asked, answered, and archived--when it probably deserves hatting at the best. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Haha. I got you guys again!! So gullible the lot of you with your supposed superior intellects. Now answer this one. Why did Jimmy cross the road? Because he didn't want to catch down syndrome. !!!82.19.76.217!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.164.50 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) OP is indeffed and claims trolling was deliberate. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)