This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone verify the following is true regarding Korean Law?
From the article:
This prompted widespread protests across Korea, demanding that the soldiers be retried in a Korean court, where murder is defined as simply causing the death of a Korean citizen without regard to the presence or absence of motive or negligence, quite different than the definition under U.S. law.
Is there really no distinction with respect to negligence? This particular example makes it sound like there is a distinction. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E5D71738F935A25756C0A967948260&n=Top%2fNews%2fInternational%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fSouth%20Korea ― —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.115.81 ( talk • contribs) 2006-02-28T16:11:01
One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan How on Earth did South Korea end up with soldiers in Kyrgyzstan of all places? Nik42 09:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
U.S. embassy in Bucharest, Hungary - Is it Bucharest or Hungary, could someone check?-- 193.178.141.144 ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)h.s.
This edit, in which an anon removed mention of adultery and said "What does this case have to do with adultery?" caught my eye. That had followed on a ClueBot reversion of earlier edits in which the same anon had inserted uppercase text asking that question into the article. The affected article sentence is supported by a cite of this Guardian article, which makes no mention of adultery.
Out of curiosity, I looked back and found that this seems to have first appeared in this March 2, 2011 edit, which added a description of the incident mentioning adultery and citing this Newsweek article which says, "VanGoethem was found not guilty of negligent homicide and adultery in a military trial that ended Jan. 31, 2006, but guilty of obstruction of justice and making false statements."
I am apparently partly responsible for the confusion here as in this January 19, 2014 edit I removed a {{ failed verification}} tag and replaced the cite of the Newsweek source with a cite of the Guardian source. I don't recall the edit, but I imagine that the link to Newsweek source had temporarily gone dead, prompting the tag, that I found the Guardian source by googling, and that I failed to notice that the Guardian source did not mention the adultery charge.
The case apparently did have something to do with adultery; per Newsweek, adultery was apparently charged. The alleged adulterous behavior probably had had little or no direct relationship to the traffic accident leading to the negligent homicide charge (that is WP:OR on my part); the accident may have occurred on the way to or from an alleged alderous assignation (more OR). Whatever the details might be re the adultery charge, I don't think re-adding mention of that and re-citing Newsweek in support would improve the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone verify the following is true regarding Korean Law?
From the article:
This prompted widespread protests across Korea, demanding that the soldiers be retried in a Korean court, where murder is defined as simply causing the death of a Korean citizen without regard to the presence or absence of motive or negligence, quite different than the definition under U.S. law.
Is there really no distinction with respect to negligence? This particular example makes it sound like there is a distinction. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E5D71738F935A25756C0A967948260&n=Top%2fNews%2fInternational%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fSouth%20Korea ― —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.115.81 ( talk • contribs) 2006-02-28T16:11:01
One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan How on Earth did South Korea end up with soldiers in Kyrgyzstan of all places? Nik42 09:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
U.S. embassy in Bucharest, Hungary - Is it Bucharest or Hungary, could someone check?-- 193.178.141.144 ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)h.s.
This edit, in which an anon removed mention of adultery and said "What does this case have to do with adultery?" caught my eye. That had followed on a ClueBot reversion of earlier edits in which the same anon had inserted uppercase text asking that question into the article. The affected article sentence is supported by a cite of this Guardian article, which makes no mention of adultery.
Out of curiosity, I looked back and found that this seems to have first appeared in this March 2, 2011 edit, which added a description of the incident mentioning adultery and citing this Newsweek article which says, "VanGoethem was found not guilty of negligent homicide and adultery in a military trial that ended Jan. 31, 2006, but guilty of obstruction of justice and making false statements."
I am apparently partly responsible for the confusion here as in this January 19, 2014 edit I removed a {{ failed verification}} tag and replaced the cite of the Newsweek source with a cite of the Guardian source. I don't recall the edit, but I imagine that the link to Newsweek source had temporarily gone dead, prompting the tag, that I found the Guardian source by googling, and that I failed to notice that the Guardian source did not mention the adultery charge.
The case apparently did have something to do with adultery; per Newsweek, adultery was apparently charged. The alleged adulterous behavior probably had had little or no direct relationship to the traffic accident leading to the negligent homicide charge (that is WP:OR on my part); the accident may have occurred on the way to or from an alleged alderous assignation (more OR). Whatever the details might be re the adultery charge, I don't think re-adding mention of that and re-citing Newsweek in support would improve the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)