Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 16 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 18 > |
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. |
I'm trying to identify a literary work I read when I was in elementary school. The time: First half of twentieth century. The place: A city on west coast, USA. The main character: A male teenager.
In the first part, the main character goes to a bad neighborhood trying to buy some goods and must fist fight his way back home. Then, he leaves home and aboard a ship. He spends a long time at sea.
I would appreciate any reference. 200.55.136.228 ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what is the law called when a woman gets raped and the defence is that she didn't have enough clothes on to prevent rape at the time? ~ R. T. G 15:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Because clothing conveys messages to observers which are inaccurate reflections of the wearer's actual intent, attitudes,and personality characteristics, clothing is not relevant to the issue of consent. The popular belief, however, is that clothing does accurately reflect attitude and intent. Because judges are not immune to inaccurate perceptions and because they may adhere to stereotypical beliefs, they are likely to find that clothing is probative of consent and thus admit the victim's clothing as evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence.
As a point of further clarification, lets say you were on that jury. Maybe you found the comment disgusting. I would hope we'd all agree that despite that, it wouldn't be completely inappropriate for you to decide to convict the defendant even though you don't think the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt simply because their lawyer said something disgusting. I don't think you can even make inferences about the character of the defendant from it.
I'd also note that there is another reason why journalists and politicians (at least outside parliament) would want to take with what they say beyond risking needless diversion. Defamation.
Media organisations in particular tend to be careful about not actually saying someone is guilty, especially after they have been not guilty, no matter if they may question aspects of the case. There are exceptions, e.g. the famous Daily Mail Murderer's headline in the Stephen Lawrence case but those are special cases.
And Irish defamation law, while maybe not quite as plaintiff friendly as it was before, is still I believe far closer to that in England and Wales than the US. E.g. [3]. Although frankly even in the US, I think in most cases, most media is not going to claim someone is guilty after they've been acquitted.
Nil Einne ( talk) 12:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 16 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 18 > |
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. |
I'm trying to identify a literary work I read when I was in elementary school. The time: First half of twentieth century. The place: A city on west coast, USA. The main character: A male teenager.
In the first part, the main character goes to a bad neighborhood trying to buy some goods and must fist fight his way back home. Then, he leaves home and aboard a ship. He spends a long time at sea.
I would appreciate any reference. 200.55.136.228 ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what is the law called when a woman gets raped and the defence is that she didn't have enough clothes on to prevent rape at the time? ~ R. T. G 15:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Because clothing conveys messages to observers which are inaccurate reflections of the wearer's actual intent, attitudes,and personality characteristics, clothing is not relevant to the issue of consent. The popular belief, however, is that clothing does accurately reflect attitude and intent. Because judges are not immune to inaccurate perceptions and because they may adhere to stereotypical beliefs, they are likely to find that clothing is probative of consent and thus admit the victim's clothing as evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence.
As a point of further clarification, lets say you were on that jury. Maybe you found the comment disgusting. I would hope we'd all agree that despite that, it wouldn't be completely inappropriate for you to decide to convict the defendant even though you don't think the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt simply because their lawyer said something disgusting. I don't think you can even make inferences about the character of the defendant from it.
I'd also note that there is another reason why journalists and politicians (at least outside parliament) would want to take with what they say beyond risking needless diversion. Defamation.
Media organisations in particular tend to be careful about not actually saying someone is guilty, especially after they have been not guilty, no matter if they may question aspects of the case. There are exceptions, e.g. the famous Daily Mail Murderer's headline in the Stephen Lawrence case but those are special cases.
And Irish defamation law, while maybe not quite as plaintiff friendly as it was before, is still I believe far closer to that in England and Wales than the US. E.g. [3]. Although frankly even in the US, I think in most cases, most media is not going to claim someone is guilty after they've been acquitted.
Nil Einne ( talk) 12:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)