Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 4

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.

November 4

Can I use my wife's debit card for Priceline purposes?

It says they need to see a credit card when you arrive (to have something to charge for incidental fees). If I bid for a 2-star how likely is it that they won't honor my Priceline reservation just because they'll notice my name's not on the card and/or that it's a debit? If they object, could I give them the billing address and last 4 digits of her SSN and a phone call from her saying it's alright and they'll accept that? They could match the number with her name on whitepages.com if they wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.169 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you call them and ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That'd be a great idea except that when you bid on Priceline you wouldn't be able to know the name of the hotel until after you've paid and there's no refunds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.35.18 (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is "they", then - Priceline, or the hotel itself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All anyone here is (responsibly) going to suggest is that you call Priceline and ask what their policy is for things like your situation or where someone books a hotel room for someone else using their service. I don't mean to be dismissive, but there are so many unknowns with your question, as well as intersections with areas where a response could constitute legal advice, that I don't think you can expect much more of a response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You should also check with your wife's bank... they may have issues with you using her debit card. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe unless it's a joint account. But calling Priceline is the only way to find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely Priceline can tell the OP whether the bank providing the card would have a problem with someone other than the account holder using it, as that will depend on the T&C of the card and bank. They may be able to tell you whether they will have a problem with it, and perhaps even suggest it's generally not a good idea, but that's a different matter. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite imprisonments -vs- allegations of having been raped

I was just thinking of Anders Breivik, who committed a massacre in Norway based on xenophobic ideology and was given an indeterminate sentence under life imprisonment in Norway. Suppose that a year before he goes for a hearing about his possible release, he is raped by a group of Arabic-speaking men. Can this fact be used against him at the hearing, to suggest it will have made him more likely to be a danger to society because he'll consider a violent act of "revenge" on the racial group, their supporters, etc.? But I don't necessarily want to limit this to Norwegian law, which few here would know; there are similar instances of parole hearings in many other countries, and additionally "civil commitment" has been used to incarcerate many people without charge. Is there any general legal principle that would exclude victim status from being used against people in any of these cases?

Also, if someone needs to defend themselves from the allegation that he was raped in prison, what burden of evidence does he need to meet? If a guy gets out of Breivik's prison (though again, I use this only as an example) and posts to Twitter that he raped Breivik repeatedly, can that be taken as evidence against him? Or would he need to have a corroborating witness, photos, etc.? (Would Breivik get representation and funds to see if the photos were faked?) Would the government need to show beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the rape, or would Breivik need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't, or something else? If Breivik swore out a statement that the sex was consensual and refuting all charges, would that be evidence enough to prevent it from being used to argue for his continued incarceration? Wnt (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are quite full of it Wnt. He killed a bunch of kids at a socialist party get-away, it had nothing to do with their race. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, what was the purpose of specifying the rapists are Arabic speakers? Your answer to that may well condition how we treat the rest of the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Or any other group that the prisoner already regards as a mortal enemy, and would thus be inspired to further acts of murder and mayhem. This is typically a major point of parole hearings - to determine whether the prisoner is reasonably capable of functioning in society and not being a danger to himself or others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This question can be simplified as: what weight does being a victim carries to a convicted criminal filling for parole?--Senteni (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been only general. I specified Arabic-speaking since this would be a group that the anti-immigrant Breivik would be presumed already to have a possibility of attacking. I do recognize, of course, that Breivik would have a pretty small chance of parole anyway, even in Norway, so maybe he wasn't the best example (the best example being someone I never heard of). Wnt (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be asking a couple questions. First, whether the possibility of future criminal acts (where that possibility is based on the subject's status as a victim) can lead to a denial of parole status. Second, whether such a possibility may be grounds for civil commitment. With respect to US law, the two are radically different proceedings, only really similar insofar as one goal of each is to protect the public welfare.

At least with parole proceedings, a concern that the subject will commit a crime—including seeking revenge against the individuals responsible for his conviction—is often considered. Now, the question you ask would distinguish a case like that because the evidence that the subject might commit a crime is instead the subject's status as a victim of another crime. My understanding of parole proceedings in the United States (which are a mishmash of substantially different procedures depending on the jurisdiction) is that the parole board can consider just about anything, including crimes that were never adjudicated. See generally, 58 A.L.R. Fed. 911 (discussing case law on the information US federal parole proceedings may consider under a now-repealed federal parole act). Honestly, I think that if the parole board can consider crimes of which the subject was never adjudicated, it may well consider the crimes of another. But, and this is an important but, there are likely going to be limits, whether statutory or constitutional (even though the constitution frequently doesn't touch parole proceedings). If parole were to be denied solely because of the fear that the subject would go out and seek revenge on someone who wronged him, that might be too much. On the other hand, in the fact pattern you describe, you have someone convicted, evidently of a violent hate crime. That alone would be a substantial hurdle to parole. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a fair response. I was just wondering whether the limits have a name; if they're conceptual rights that potentially might even be applied outside of the specialized example I've raised here. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Due process would be the constitutional concept in the United States; making a determination in terms of unfair criteria, for instance, might be considered so detrimental to the fairness of a proceeding as to constitute a constructive denial of access to the process. The big issue with parole is that, from a constitutional perspective, there is no process due by default other than what the jurisdiction promises. That's why parole boards can get away with things like using evidence of a crime of which the inmate was never charged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Parole is early release from a sentence, and there's nothing in the Constitution about it. Due process had put the guy behind bars already. A given state's laws about early release would come into play here. But there is no constitutional right to early release. That is strictly up to the jurisdiction, as you say. It seems slipperier in Norway, where there's a supposed maximum sentence but then they can keep adding onto it if they think he's going to go do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It releases you from prison, but not the sentence. Significant difference from commutation. Still restricted from doing certain things a free man could, and can go back to prison for minor crimes, rather than getting your wrist slapped. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For Norway, the relevant provisions are Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 1990 case of E v Norway established that Norway's procedures dealing with the indefinite detention of mentally-ill criminals were compliant with Article 5, but the position of life prisoners subject to "preventative detention" hasn't yet been to Strasbourg. I assume the procedures are similar, though. Tevildo (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am confused. Maybe I missed something. Let's say that the inmate seeking parole (Anders Breivik, in your example) was raped. And, if released on parole, he wishes to seek revenge (i.e., a crime) against some group in retaliation for that rape. If that were the case, why would the inmate seeking parole ever let out the fact that he was raped? If he knew that it might harm his chance for parole, why report the rape? If he knew that it would foil his plan to commit a revenge crime, why report the rape? I'd think he'd keep his cards close to the vest; not let anyone know about the rape; essentially "fool" the parole board; get out on parole; and then commit his revenge crimes. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, honestly, that presumes that an inmate seeking parole is going to be in control of the information flowing to the parole board. And it also presumes a convict seeking parole in order to exact revenge is going to behave rationally throughout the whole proceeding. I'm not saying it's impossible—it's pretty well known that parole boards have been fooled—but tremendously unlikely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we are understanding each other. I am not suggesting that the inmate seeking parole try to "hide" the fact of the rape only from the parole board (who would eventually find it out through some other official means). I was suggesting that the inmate not report the rape to anyone at all (i.e., prison authorities, his lawyer, etc.), so that no one knows about it. Thus, there is no chance at all that the parole board knows about it. As far as the inmate not acting rationally, that is always a possibility. An inmate intent on exacting revenge would be pretty apt at plotting it, keeping his cards close to the vest, being patient until just the right time, and then pouncing at the right time. ("Revenge is a dish best served cold.") As far as parole boards: it is "tremendously unlikely" that a parole board can be fooled? Do you really believe that? It happens every day of the week, many times a day. Perhaps not so with high profile cases (Charles Manson, Anders Breivik, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jodi Arias, etc.). But with ordinary, regular, run-of-the-mill low-profile criminals, you can bet that it happens every day of the week. Not to mention – as an aside – that parole boards do not have the community interest at heart as their prime motivator. At the end of the day, it all boils down to politics and money. If the state has no money and prison space is tight and at a premium, you can bet that the parole boards are more inclined to offer parole (regardless of the merits of that specific inmate). That is the reality of the situation. It's all a numbers game. Of course, they will deny it officially and, on the record, say "we reviewed his case extensively and we find him to be a suitable candidate for parole, blah blah blah". What goes on behind closed doors, at these parole board decisions, is what matters. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mass killers tend not to get a lot of public sympathy, and whether inside the prison or outside, they might become targets themselves. You mentioned Dahmer. Not long after he was murdered by a fellow inmate, satirist Dennis Miller showed a picture of a parade in Milwaukee and said that Dahmer's killer had been named the Grand Marshall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You said: "Mass killers tend not to get a lot of public sympathy". With which I agree. And that is my point. During a high profile case (Manson, Dahmer, etc.), all eyes are watching the parole board. So, the parole board will deny parole (even if the inmate really does deserve it). On the other hand, in a low profile case (where no one in the public is really watching and the general public is oblivious), the parole board is equally inclined to approve parole (even if the inmate doesn't deserve it). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the way things work in certain jurisdictions like some parts of the US. I'm not convinced it's the way things work everywhere though, particularly places where the government maintains a fairly handsoff involvement other than setting rules and laws. I'm not saying parole boards are completely oblivious to public pressure (notably it's sometimes the case the parole board may have legitimate concerns about someone's ability function if they can't participate in society in any meaningful way), but more that it's not anywhere as significant as you suggest. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: For the inmate to hide the rape might be an obvious response depending on how it is handled. But pretty clearly it's an undesired response. Also, there's the possibility that the rapist himself might be the one to gloat about it, for instance by posting about it on Twitter. In some jurisdictions I think rape has a quite short statute of limitations, five years; the prisoner might have longer than that before the first parole hearing. So perhaps the rapist might brag with relatively little inhibition, and then his victim would have to deal with the effects of that. (as long as he didn't get himself civilly committed, etc... I don't mean this as trustworthy legal advice, since if prosecutors really want you in jail you go!) Oh, and lastly, there's the chance that some anti-racist folks who are confident in their VPNs would simply post fake statements by someone who claimed to have raped Breivik, with fake photos even, and spam the parole board with emails by "concerned citizens" pointing them out, in order to try to convince the parole board it happened when it didn't at all. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: I don't follow your argument at all. You said: "But pretty clearly it's an undesired response". I am not sure what that means? Undesired by whom? I would think it is a desired response that the inmate hides the fact of his rape (due to guilt, shame, loss of status in the prison, etc.). Also, yes, the rapist (Inmate B) can brag that he raped the victim (Inmate A); in which case, the rape victim (Inmate A) simply denies it and says "Inmate B is a liar. He is just making that false claim to make a name for himself in the prison and to get his 15 minutes of fame in the media". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can't we have both? I understand Joran van der Sloot gets beaten up and punched in the tentacles daily, and was recently stabbed and is in critical condition. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is that the story where the authorities said his wife, who reported it, is a pathological liar? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! The best part of that article: the prison director states, quote, "For starters, no woman in her right mind goes to a maximum-security prison and marries the biggest killer there". Good point! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any woman in her right mind would marry a guy with tentacles either... MChesterMC (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

ἐῶ (ancient greek)

ἐῶ is contraction of εἰμί? Which dialect? where can I find a table for this contraction ? --132.64.31.53 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See wikt:ἐάω.—Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

it can't be, the sentence "μεμνημένος σαφῶς ἐῶ" --132.64.31.53 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look here and take your pick, that is see what fits your sentence better but it does say the form can be "ἐῶ verb 1st sg pres subj act epic doric ionic aeolic", that is not a contraction but the subj. of εἰμί. Is that sentence from Menander's Samia? That's what Google shows at least. Incidentally: Is this the appropriate desk? Wouldn't asking at the Language desk be more efficient? Just asking.Contact Basemetal here 03:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks, I thought I asked there. sorry 132.64.30.220 (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, ἐῶ is a contraction of ἐάω (when an ancient Greek word has a "circumflex" accent over the vowel in its final syllable, there's almost always a contraction of some kind involved). AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What was the Catholic church's official position on Jews and Judaism prior to the 20th century?

I was reading the Wiki article on integrism, which talked about how Catholic dissidents made up the largest anti-Semitic population in America. Assuming that it's true, what was the official Catholic position on Jews and Judaism prior to the 20th century? How anti-Semitic was it? Did the anti-Semitism spread to other Catholic dissidents, such as the Protestants? What are the characteristics of pro-Semitic theology or not-anti-Semitic theology? 140.254.136.177 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Relations between Catholicism and Judaism might prove helpful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The same as it was in 1901? Look at Vatican II and Pope John Paul II if you are serious. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in a number of ways Vatican II was more of a turning point than 1900. The pre-1870 Papal States, where the Pope had direct secular power, were not particularly distinguished by good treatment of Jews (the notorious Edgardo Mortara case, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)