Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 30

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 30

Bail

I know that bail is the money that is given to the sheriff for temporary release until trial, promising that the accused will appear in trial. But what I don't understand is the money part. Why can't the person just agree to appear in trial or be given consequences for not appearing? Alternatively, the person may sit in a safe place until trial. Then, the trial may determine whether the accused will be sent to prison or let go. Why pay at all? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As the article Bail says "Bail is a mechanism to release suspects from imprisonment pre-trial, while ensuring their return for trial. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited..." It is the possibility of loss of the bail money or other collateral that compels the person "out on bail" to return for a court date. You say that "Alternatively, the person may sit in a safe place until trial." Yes, but one such "safe place" is jail. Many people have an aversion to imprisonment. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this. I think the accused is arrested for something. The accused does not want to go to jail, but makes an agreement with the sheriff that he will give a substantial portion of his assets if he fails to appear in court. The accused doesn't want to lose the money, so he appears in court just to show that he has fulfilled his promise. The money is returned to him, when he shows up. Also, because he is not in jail, he is free to live his normal life. In jail, he can't work, so he can lose his job and his family due to the long time of separation from the real world. If a jail cell looks like a homeless shelter with regular walls instead of cage-like bars and jail time takes only one unpaid vacation day, then will people be more willing to sit in jail? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You're describing how bail works. And these decisions are often made by judges, not by sheriffs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How can can "jail time" only take one one unpaid vacation day? The whole point is that the court decides they can't trust the defendant to appear in on their own recognizance so either sets bail to try and encourage the defendant to appear or sometimes simply denies bail completely. General prison conditions can be a concern but for many people the biggest issue is not that the bars but that their freedom to work etc is denied which it generally is because that the point of putting them in prison, so they can't easily escape and are likely to appear in court when their charge is going to be heard. In many countries, people have the right to a speedy trial or something similar but the interpretation of this varies and it's very few would suggest the trial needs to be held within a day not least because the defence and prosecution may need more time than that to prepare for the trial. (And I'd note there are some jobs where even taking a day off work would make significant problems.) Yes there are alternatives to try and make it more difficult for the defendant to run away like electronic monitoring and as I said below people often say the system in the US is particularly messed up for a developed country, but you don't seem to understand the basics so you have little hope of understanding the problems. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For petty crimes, like public drunkenness, the accused may very well be taken to jail just for the night, until the judge/magistrate can handle the case the next morning, which likely involves a fine, community service, and immediate release. Here the night in jail is more about ending the dangerous situation than preventing the accused from fleeing. StuRat (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's either while awaiting bail, or when no bail is involved. It has nothing to do with my point, or the OP's question. Nil Einne (talk)

I disagree. Here's a case where the bail magistrate sets bail until court is in session: [1]: "In Massachusetts, a person arrested when courts are closed can request to be released until the court is next open. The police will call a Bail Magistrate to determine whether the defendant can be released, either on personal recognizance or a cash bail.". StuRat (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my point or the OP's question? Nothing. We are discussing the situation where the defendant is not given bail while awaiting their trial. The OP suggested some magical way the defendant could only have to take one day unpaid vacation in prison when denied bail. I pointed out this was not possible. You've in no way explained how this is possible instead brought up irrelevant stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely have. If arrested for public drunkenness, when the court is not in session, and denied bail by the bail magistrate, they would then spend a night in jail until their case could be handled the next day when court was in session. For petty cases like this, there's often no jury and they want to free up the jail space, so they can handle them quickly, especially if the defendant admits to the charge(s), and pays the fine, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If the defendant is required to admit the charge, you haven't solved the problem. You're basically forcing the defendant to waive their right to a fair trial for the ability to only spend 1 day in prison (Although I don't believe that this always requires the defendant to plead guilty to work.) That's actually one of the problems with the US system although the biggest concerns is with plea bargains and it usually involves more than 1 day in prison while denied or being unable to afford bail. In any case, you've still in no way explained how this actually works in the many other cases involved bail. The OP implied it should be always possible for the defendant to only have to take 1 day unpaid vacation time while I pointed out it was not possible. If you can explain how the OP's scenario actually works, then you have a point. If you can't, then you're basically bringing up irrelevant stuff about certain circumstances which don't actually apply to many cases so have nothing to do with my point or the OP's point with I addressed (since as I said the OP was clearly not just referring to certain circumstances but implying it was somehow always possible to do this as a solution to the problem of people losing their freedom due to either being denied bail or being unable to afford it). Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You claimed "The OP implied it should be always possible for the defendant to only have to take 1 day unpaid vacation time...". I don't read it that way. They actually said "If a jail cell looks like a homeless shelter with regular walls instead of cage-like bars and jail time takes only one unpaid vacation day, then will people be more willing to sit in jail? ". They posed a hypothetical scenario where for some cases only 1 day in jail is possible, which is correct. They did not imply that this is possible in every case.

And I agree that any situations where a person is rewarded for pleading guilty or "no contest" or accepting a plea are problematic, as they will occasionally cause innocent people to plead guilty out of fear. These place expediency above justice. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: Such situations are virtually the only situations. Only 14% of defendants in this study [2] pleaded not guilty. Not all the guilty pleas were plea bargains, but bear in mind that aside from a few trusting to the mythical mercy of the court, many defendants are forced to plead guilty to "time served" in order to get out of jail ... in other words, being allowed to have a trial only after doing the full sentence for the crime, and then some, but only being allowed to go then if they say they did the crime. Speaking of which ... I think they have to do "allocution", a sort of forced public confession. I wonder how many defendants do that to get out of jail with time served, then get hauled back into court for perjury because they could be proven to be innocent of the crime and the prosecution needs to go after someone else they dislike? In any case, the primary skill a public defender prepped for in his time on the debate team at college was to be able to convince the recalcitrant defendant to give up and plead guilty so that he doesn't spend the rest of his life in jail... and put the defender even further behind in his case load. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If they don't practice proper elocution in their allocution, do they face electrocution ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but hopefully most of those 86% who plead guilty actually are. It's the innocent ones who plead guilty I'm concerned about. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(EC) What does that have to do with my point or the OP's point? Nothing. We are discussing the situation where the defendant is not given bail while awaiting their trial. The OP suggested some magical way the defendant could only have to take one day unpaid vacation in prison when denied bail to ensure they show up at their trial. I pointed out this was not possible since the time between arrest and the trial, even in ideal circumstances normally has to be longer than that because both sides normally need time to prepare their case. In fact if it's a complex case the case itself will generally take longer than a day, and even if the defendant is on bail they are often expected to be in court for most of the trial so they need time out from work for that anyway. Especially in circumstances where the possibility of denying bail is likely to be considered (admittedly maybe not so much in the US). You've in no way explained how it's possible for someone to be denied bail and so have to spend their time imprisoned to ensure they will show up in their trial (although as I mentioned below, it isn't just to ensure they show up at their trial anyway) but for this prison time to only take one day unpaid vacation time. (Work releases etc are one possibility, but in that case the defendant isn't spending all their time in prison. As I said above below, there are actually many ways things can probably be handled better than they are in the US but the point is if you do have to completely deny bail and keep the defendant in prison, this cannot involve the defendant only having 1 day unpaid vacation time since they need to be imprisoned for all the time between their arrest and their trial concluding.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I acknowledge I should have said "could only ever have" instead of "could only have" and "not normally possible" instead of "not possible" and "cannot always involve" instead of "cannot involve" above although I think it was clear that I was saying there are many circumstances where it's not possible rather than saying it's never possible if we consider minor cases. (One of the reasons is I forgot how atrocious the US system is that this is something that's actually an issue at such a low level.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's so rich people don't have to suffer the indignity of jail, whereas poor people by design have no dignity to suffer. --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's rather an oversimplification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does have some truth to it. The laws are made by people who do have the money to put up bail for themselves and their family. Or, alternatively, such people can be "released on their own recognizance", meaning they have no bail at all. Meanwhile, poor people aren't likely to be able to make bail or be released in that way. If there really was an attempt to apply bail equally to all, it would involve a statute setting bail based on the defendant's assets or income, so that the amount potentially lost is equally significant to all. StuRat (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And even that's not guaranteed to be equal. A 10% loss for someone scraping by and who has no spare income is a lot different than a 10% loss to someone with property and stock. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct. That's why I said the amount should be "equally significant", as opposed to an equal percentage. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason why bail generally has to be paid upfront is because if the person has run away, trying to chase down their assets may be difficult, assuming they even have enough to make up the bail (which they often don't) and in any case is likely to be regarded as an unnecessary expense. Note that "paid" here doesn't have to me in cash, in some jurisdictions property like a house can be put up for bail, but all of these still require that the defendant actually has something of sufficient value. In other words, how is the defendants assurance that they will pay X amount of money if they fail to appear any more reliable than their assurance they will appear in court? As others have suggested above, bail tends to be a problem mostly when they the defendant can't afford it, so it's not like they have assets that the court can easily pursue anyway since if they did, they would put these up for bail. (Some of the high level people involved in drug dealing or organised crime may have such assets, but they don't necessarily want the government to know they do, although most will find some way anyway.) Note that in the US which seems to be what your question is directed at, defendants don't always pay the bail themselves. A bail bond agent may be used who pays (actually it's a little more complicated than that, but the point is for various reasons the court gets the money) if the defendant fails to show up. The defendant has to pay a non refundable fee for the service usually a percentage of however much the bail is. And the bail agent is generally allowed to hunt down the defendant if they disappear. There is a lot of criticism of the system in the US e.g. [3], but you need to actually understand the basics before you get in to that. I suggest you read basic articles like bail and Bail in the United States and think carefully to understand why many of your questions here (as with many of your questions in general) make zero sense if you understand the basics. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I was reading bail before coming here, and I tried to explain the process of bail in a court system. I just wanted to see if I got my understanding correct and asked a question on top of that. You probably just looked at the final sentence, even though the final sentence of the follow-up contribution was a question based on the process of bail. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No I read all your comments in this thread (actually all comments in this thread point blank) before replying, they make no sense if you read the bail article, suggesting you did think about what you were reading or did not understand it. Otherwise you will not need to ask why you need the money, as it should be fairly obvious if the defendant cannot be trusted to appear without bail money, then there is no way to be certain you'll be able to apply some consequence to the defendant if they don't show up because the defendant may be long gone, perhaps afraid of the consequences of the offence they've been tried with. As also already said by me and others, your comment about "safe place" also makes no sense if you have even a basic understanding. Yes a person can be held in prison while awaiting trial but there are obviously many reasons why that's not generally an ideal situation for either the defendant or the people detaining them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• The sheriff / court wants to bail the suspect. If they don't, the suspect would be "remanded in custody" (UK term) and that costs the state money to house and guard them in the gaol. Both sides want the suspect to be bailed until the trial is ready, unless the court has a real concern that the suspect will either attempt to escape beforehand, or that they're going to carry out some other crime in the meantime. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it occurred to me after replying the later point hadn't been mentioned yet. The OP seems to be assuming the bail process is all about ensuring the defendant shows up at court. But while it's true the money part is mostly about that, other parts particularly release conditions like who the defendant may associate with, where they may go etc, or just the refusal to release the defendant point blank may be because there is concern the defendant will offend in some way while released rather than simply because of concern the defendant will fail to appear. And offend is used losely as one of the possible offences is interfering with a witness which while generally an offence, the concerns go beyond that. I'd note that our article bail, which the OP says they read, covers all of this and more. As a minor nit pick, "other crime" although commonly used, presumes that the defendant has committed a crime, but of course unless we're talking about bail while awaiting sentencing, it has not yet have been proven the defendant has committed any crime to the level required by a court unless they've been found or pled guilty before. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bail is entirely a matter of prejudice and hatred for the poor. There is no rational reason for it, and experience in Kentucky has been that not only can bail be eliminated; even the use of questions about whether someone is employed or lives locally can be eliminated with no increase in failure to appear. I didn't have these in browser history, but I found a link to one of the earlier studies before those two criteria were removed [4] and there may be more recent studies at that site. Needless to say, I don't expect serious reform soon - the sun won't rise if Huitzlopochtli doesn't eat. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

So you would be happy with a person arrested for mass murder to be set free on the faith that he will (1) show up for the trial and (2) not kill anyone in the interim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The "risk assessment" criteria include one point for A, B, or C felony charges. That's actually pretty small, compared to 5 or 7 points for previous failure to appear for trial. But -- compare the notion of putting up bond to get out of jail for murder. I mean, suppose you killed someone. Are you worried about whether some sucker relative you got to put up their house based on your sob story is going to lose it or not? Or are you worried about spending the rest of your days in a miserable little cell? Remember, "bail" isn't even a punishment for a single person, but for a family or a racial community. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a mistake to think that anyone who commits murder is a psychopath with no concern for their family. Many murderers do have people they care about, and try to protect. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Even Ted Bundy cared about some individuals. That doesn't mean it was a good idea to have him running around in public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Orientalist

In the news was a mention of a professor of Orientalism who was admitted to PhD study in the Netherlands, although he had only elementary school education. I forgot his name. Does someone know who I mean? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely, but if he has a WP article, it should be here: Category:Dutch orientalists. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Found searching Category:Indonesian academics: Poerbatjaraka. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Was Qatar ever really an island, and if not, why did everyone think so?

Our article on Qatar has a map from the 1700s that shows it as an island. Other old maps online [5][6] do the same. The latter is based on a map by Ptolemy, and conceivably all of them were just playing follow the leader right into the 1700s, but this seems hard to fathom. But looking at the Google Maps of Qatar, the notion that that vast wasteland of sand formed in the last 300 years seems even harder to fathom. Can someone explain? Wnt (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not commenting on the historic evidence, but the possible tombolo is only 23 miles across, and it's not impossible for such an area to silt up over the course of centuries, or even far less. Alternatively, the sea level may have dropped. StuRat (talk)

See Island of California. People indeed were playing follow the leader right into the 1700s in that case, so I don't think it would be particularly hard to fathom in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether the fact that it's next to Bahrain, which is an island, led to mix-ups or wrong assumptions as well.

"particularly hard to fathom" - I see what you did there, Nyttend... :-) Matt's talk 09:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No puns; I simply copied Wnt's wording :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So you just went with the flow to avoid rocking the boat ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This [7] source would seem to confirm that early cartography was mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not able to access that link but managed to get into [8] instead. I am surprised that the source describes the connection as a "short and defensible strip of land", given what it looks like on satellite map. Wnt (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Transgenders in the military

Can someone please point me to some reliable sources demonstrating that trangenders have successfully served in the US military? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you consider Chelsea Manning as having "successfully" served? Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The oath is "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ..." Yes I believe she did successfully serve. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[9] Wnt (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To put 15,500 soldiers into context, it's equal to one entire Ghanaian, Croatian or Kuwaiti army. Just something to think about. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is reliable.-Jayron32 03:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/07/trump-trans-military-ban-daily-show-trevor-noah-interview-veterans . DOR (HK) (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, using "transgender" as a noun is considered gauche. "Transgender person," where the word is an adjective, is unobjectionable. [10] - Nunh-huh 10:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)