Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 December 14

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.

December 14

When is a suicide not a suicide?

From Leslie Phillips:

• The coroner recorded that Scoular had "killed herself while the balance of her mind was disturbed", and stated that her death was not suicide.

How can this be? He just acknowledged she had killed herself. Why does the state of one's mind affect whether killing oneself is suicide or not? Does it have something to do with life insurance payouts? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Accidental death is not a suicide, even if it is self-inflicted. Terry Kath, for example shot himself in the head, but his death was not a suicide. --Jayron32 18:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

To record a verdict of suicide the coroner must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to kill themself. If the subject's balance of mind was disturbed then they lacked the capacity to form that intent. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Really, beyond a reasonable doubt??? I'm guessing that's a holdover from when it was considered a crime? --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"The standard of proof required for the short-form conclusions of ‘unlawful killing’ and ‘suicide’ is the criminal standard of proof. For all other short-form conclusions and a narrative conclusion the standard of proof is the civil standard of proof" DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Capacity (law) --Jayron32 19:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder: This discussion is only relevant to the specific jurisdiction where the event occurred, in this case England. Other places' laws may be more sensible, or less sensible, or otherwise different. --184.144.99.241 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The law and its relationship to suicide has an unhappy history. In his 18th century Commentaries on the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone considered the taking of one’s own life as something that ‘ranked among the highest crimes’... (punishable by) an ignominious burial ‘with a stake driven through his body’ and ‘forfeiture of all his goods and chattels’ as a deterrent ‘from so desperate and wicked an act’. By the 20th century, attitudes had changed and while suicide still attracted stigma and moral objection, a less severe jurisprudence was reflected in The Suicide Act 1961, which made the deliberate act of killing oneself no longer a crime.

Suicide and the burden of proof from The Law Society Gazette. The article goes on to say that the standard of proof remains the same as in a criminal prosecution. In other words, the jury had to be satisfied so as to be sure that the deceased intended to kill himself.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Our Suicide legislation article has a table showing the surprising number of countries where it is still illegal to kill yourself, including a few US states. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Since homicide is the taking of another life, on purpose or not, why is suicide not the taking of one's own life, on purpose or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be? Sounds like the etymological fallacy to me. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hence the term "accidental suicide". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To be found guilty of murder in England, intent to kill or cause serious harm has to be proved. Manslaughter in England can be either "voluntary" or "involuntary", depending on whether malicious intent can be proved. Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not murder, but homicide. I've seen arguments here frequently, that the taking of another's life qualifies as homicide even if there's no criminal intent. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Canada the Criminal Code reads in part:

222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

--184.144.99.241 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Homicide in English law says that "There are two general types of homicide, murder and manslaughter", which I described above. We don't have a criminal charge of homicide per se. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I stand enlightened. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Charles Ingalls not in the war

How come Charles Ingalls did not fight in the Civil War? 86.130.215.169 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles Ingalls: The Civil War Years says that nobody really knows, but unless you actually volunteered, the various drafts were a bit of a lottery because states stopped conscripting once their quota had been filled. The more volunteers there were in a state, the fewer men had to be drafted. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The article cites a review of the following book, which might provide details:

Fraser, Caroline (2017). Prairie fires : the American dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder (First ed.). New York. ISBN 1627792767.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) --2603:6081:1C00:1187:9426:C089:AB21:5AB2 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This informative blog says "how or why he might have escaped service has long plagued Little House readers." (Maybe he gave his address as "Little House on the Prairie", and they had trouble finding it.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Conscription in the United States#Civil War "The vast majority of troops were volunteers; of the 2,200,000 Union soldiers, about 2% were draftees, and another 6% were substitutes paid by draftees" so perhaps not that unusual for him to have stayed at home. Do we know what percentage of men in the Union did fight? DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Union Army, there were a (rather implausibly precise) total of 2,128,948 men in the Union army during the war. [1] gives the population of Union states at 18.5 million, and another 3 million in the border states. What proportion of those numbers might be men of potential military serving age is hard to say. If we suppose that half the borderers sided with the Union, half of each population were men, and half the men were the right age to serve, we'd have a pool of 5 million potential recruits. If so, less than half of them actually took up arms. Chuntuk (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)