Talk:Misprision of felony

Untitled

Misprision is also a term in literary theory popularized by Harold Bloom. that page should be left there with at least that meaning. DocFaustRoll 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

"It is pronounced as ms-przhn. Sometimes, mistakenly pronounced as "misprison."" What the hell does this mean? How can you pronounce aword with no vowels? How does repeating the spelling of the word give any help at all?

71.102.186.234 10:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an obsolete concept, by any means

The original entry gave the incorrect impression that "Misprision of Felony" was an obsolete concept with no current applicability. Bobleone 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USED THIS DATE - May 20, 2019 - whoa: "obsolete".  Misprision of a Felony, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 4. used under Federal Criminal Civil Rights Charges: pleaded guilty to one count of forced labor and one count of misprision of a felony.  also pleaded guilty to one count of violating federal Fair Housing Act rights, one count of a hate crime, and one count of misprision of a felony. Both defendants will be sentenced on Aug. 22 and face a maximum sentence of 28 years in prison.
Case 2:18-cr-00160-CJB-DMD Document 127 Filed 05/20/19 
Case 2:18-cr-00160-CJB-DMD Document 130 Filed 05/20/19--Wagthegod (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move of section

The section misprision of treason that was formerly part of this article has been moved to the talk page for misprision of treason. James500 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections misprision of terrorism and other jurisdictions and meanings that were formerly part of this article have been moved to misprision. James500 (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There was a proviso to the decision in R v. King that I have not stated yet. James500 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Law

I read on a website that the date of enactment was 1789. James500 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not realy abolished

The article suggests that the *offence* has been aboished but only the common law offence has been abolished. It ghas now been codified in the crimes act. At least in NSW the common law offence offence would be a btreach of section 316 of the crimes act- concealing a serious indictable offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.173.46 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between felony and misdemeanour was abolished by section 580E of the Crimes Act 1900. If felony is abolished, you can't have misprision of felony either. James500 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misprision of felony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613175328/http://m.thenation.com/article/208593-you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history to http://m.thenation.com/article/208593-you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Crime Be Applied to the "Defendant"?

I'm doing research into Judge Richard Baumgartner, who pled guilty to Misprision of a felony after presiding over the trials of the men who were convicted of the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, which resulted in their convictions being "set aside" and requiring new trials.

First question is whether or not this crime can be applied to the person that actually commits the felony? A read of the Article seems to imply that the crime is for "witnesses" and not "actors", but in Baumgartner's case it appears that he pled guilty to the crime of failing to report the crime(s) he actually committed. This Article should give some mention as to whether or not the law can be applied to the person that actually commits the crime. I recognize that Judges operate under special restrictions, i.e. not only are they prohibited from committing crimes, but they are also required to report those crimes when they do commit them. If my theory is correct, the "twist" is that Baumgartner was allowed to plead guilty to the crime of failing to report his own crime(s), which makes both this law, and Baumgartner notable. Given the law's "obsolete" nature, I think that any time it's applied, particularly in this odd manner, makes the enforcement of the law notable for Wikipedia. Perhaps a separate section titled something like "Cases where Misprision of a felony" has been charged" or similar. I suspect this is a crime that is only offered during plea arrangements, and that most, maybe all of the convictions are the result of plea arrangements. It would be compellingly noteworthy if there were ever a case where a charge was "disputed" and taken to trial.

Second I disagree with the structure of the Lede. While I agree that the "obsolete" nature of this law/crime should be in the Lede, it should not be the very first thing that is mentioned. Instead, I think the crime should be defined/outlined, and then the obsolete/archaic nature of the law should then be described. While reading the Article, this "out of order" quality was a significant "bump" (or distraction) in terms of readability. Interested if other people either agree or disagree. I could be wrong. It could be just me.

Third I think that more effort needs to be made into describing exactly how the word should be pronounced. I've never heard it spoken before, and initially I was inclined to (mentally) pronounce it "miss-prison", or "miss-prizshon", with the "zsh" characters intended to represent the phonetics of "Jacques" (as in "Cousteau"). (I have no clue how to type that phonetic spelling standard you see used in dictionaries.) Perhaps one of those audio recording sections could be included in the Article, like what you see used in other areas of Wikipedia.

Finally I note that the Article on the Newsom murders does not mention Baumgartner by name, which seems odd to me, and there is no Wikipedia Article on Baumgartner himself, and at this point I think he's noteworthy enough to merit an Article. Not only did his criminal activities result in his disbarment, and cause problems with the notorious and noteworthy case of the Newsom murders, but one source article I read said that after Baumgartner's criminal problems were made public, the Knox County Prosecutor was "flooded" with motions from people who had been convicted in Baumgartner's court seeking to either have their convictions overturned, or new trials. This was a serious breach of our Judicial System, and Baumgartner achieves notability for all of these reasons. I'm interested in exploring the idea of creating an Article on Baumgartner; if anyone shares that interest please contact me via my "Talk" page.

Tym Whittier (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChickenNugg2343 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Coffee4564, Saints420002.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]