Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 July 27

Humanities desk
< July 26 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 28 >
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 27

edit

Rape Conviction Question

edit

If a person who is accused of rape wins in criminal court but loses in civil court, are this person's employers and potential employers going to be capable of finding out about this person's rape conviction in civil court? Futurist110 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There probably won't be anything to prevent their finding out about it, but there's no civil version of the sex offender registry if that's what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the particular jurisdiction, there is usually an option in a civil court case to apply for an order to prevent publication of the outcome. It would be up to the court to decide about that. With no such order the press and other media would be free to publicise the result and name the person involved. There would be no automatic notification process, nor would a civil court judgement appear if there were any checks on criminal records. Wymspen (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is a person in civil court found guilty of rape? A conviction is for a crime, and that is handled in criminal court. What is handled in civil court is not at the same threshold of law and evidence and is more for monetary purposes. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several things spring to mind here:
  1. A civil finding of liability is not a criminal conviction. As others have said, it will not show up on a criminal record check, nor will the individual be on the sex offenders register.
  2. In the UK, I could imagine that if the Disclosure and Barring Service got wind of the court's finding, they may be entitled to use the information to put in place the relevant measures to refuse the individual clearance to work with children or vulnerable adults. However, only organizations who employ people to work with these groups would have access to such decisions.
  3. If the case was reported in the media, there's every chance an employer or potential employer could find the information, whether by reading the media, or a simple google search of the person's name bringing up a link to the media article. What Whympsn says about the power of courts to make non-publication orders is true. However the only times I could imagine this being done was at the request of the plaintiff (the rape victim) in a case where naming the defendant would enable identification of the victim (such as an incest case). I could possibly also imagine a court suppressing publication if the defendant was a minor at the time of the rape. But in general, the media would otherwise be free to report the court's finding, with the potential result of an employer or potential employer stumbling on this information.
  4. Note that any court judgement that a person owes another person money will show up in a Credit report, meaning if the person applies for credit (a mortgage, loan, or credit card, for example) the institution he is applying to will be able to see this information, which would definitely include the sum of damages awarded. However, I don't know if this includes why the person was ordered to pay ("rape"), or if it would simply be a record that the person was ordered by court X on date Y to pay a debt in the sum of $x (whatever sum the victim-plaintiff was awarded by the court). So yes, being found civilly liable for rape could cause problems in getting any sort of credit or loan, particularly if the sum of damages awarded was large, but potentially even if it was small. As far as the bank or other institution sees it, someone had to take this guy to court to force him to pay up, which obviously reflects badly on his credit-worthiness. (BTW this applies to any "debt judgement" by a court that the debtor owes the money, and the creditor has had to resort to legal action to force him to pay up - regardless if it's an unpaid bill for goods or services, or a damages award for rape or anything else).
Hope this ramble helps. Others feel free to correct any errors I have made. Eliyohub (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I felt free to correct your inconsistent indentation. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you are referring to practice in the United States, the court judgment will be a matter of public record, so employers will be able to learn about it. (As Sir Joseph notes, this would not be a conviction, but simply a finding of civil liability for the sexual assault, presumably resulting in monetary damages and perhaps a court order to stay away from the plaintiff.) Settlements, however, can be made confidential, although if the settlement were entered into after the court case was filed, employers would be able to tell that there was some kind of settlement. John M Baker (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They would be able to learn about it if they went trawling through court records. However, whilst many employers routinely do criminal record checks, how many would in fact go searching for civil judgements? Credit rating agencies do routinely collect info about civil judgements, but would the average employer be likely to actually look for or stumble across what would otherwise presumably be rather obscure information? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend how obscure it was. In the US in particular, it doesn't seem that rare that these sort of things show up as publicly accessible and indexed on search engines. And I'm fairly sure searching someone's name on the internet isn't exactly rare nowadays as part of the employment process. Note also that credit reports are commonly a part of the employment process in the US although I'm not sure how much info about civil judgements shows up in the info provided to putative employers [1] [2] [3]. This video is IMO particularly illustrative of credit reports and associated agencies (like background check agencies) in the US [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have filled out plenty of job applications in the US, both with major corporations and the government. None have ever asked if I have had a civil judgment against me. I would suggest that if someone is aware of such a question, they post it. There are employers who ask to do credit checks. But that is not the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether the judgement will come up on your credit record. In the UK, it definitely can. See [5], [6], or [7]. Note that from what I can see, the credit record does not show why it was decided that you owe the money - simply how much you were ordered to pay, when the order was made, and whether the judgement has been "satisfied" (translation: you have in fact paid up the money you owed). Though the credit record does seem to note the court case serial number, so if an employer did want to delve deeper, they could look up details about the specific case (though this may vary in difficulty). Also, if the court orders you to pay and you do in fact pay promptly (within 30 days), it may not end up on the record. However, if the creditor / plaintiff is forced to take further action to enforce payment of the court order, it will show. From a credit record perspective, you have at this point defaulted on a debt. The fact that you may have been ordered to pay the victim / plaintiff millions you don't have is irrelevant. Not sure how things work in the US or other countries, though I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Eliyohub (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Royal Orders

edit

Hi,

I'm currently trying to do a page on my great grandfather who was a politician and a Knight first class of "Order of the Dannebrog" and "Order of Vasa". However, I can't publish the article without finding any digital reference to this being the case. I've spent two hours trying to find a complete list of recipients of these titles online, but have so far been unsuccessful. Do you know if the two respective orders keep any online archives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runi Oregaard (talkcontribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles about the Danish Order of the Dannebrog and Swedish Order of Vasa. I added a heading to the question. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that sources do not have to be online they can be from printed sources as long as they are considered reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of those two awards may not be sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the reason for being a recipient of those awards might be sufficient grounds for notability, if there was adequate press coverage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese shoes

edit
 

What's the name of these traditional Chinese shoes? They seem to be quite stereotypical appearing in various martial art films as well. Thanx.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

传统的鞋款
傳統鞋
休闲鞋
AllBestFaith (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they just spats? Muffled Pocketed 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are not spats, they are shoes... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In modern Chinese the traditional style is usually just called "cloth shoes", 布鞋, which are differentiated from "modern" shoes by the sole, which is stitched from many layers of cloth. The variety with a thicker upper, stuffed with cotton, for winter wear might be called "cotton shoes", 棉鞋. The type with a soft sole and so suitable for tai chi or martial arts might be marketed as "tai chi shoes" or "(martial arts) training shoes", but they are regarded as a sub-type of "cloth shoes". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]