Humanities desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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 12[edit]

Most prolific convicted murderer[edit]

Does anyone have any information on who might be the person convicted of the most murders, either in the USA or world-wide? I am specifically inquiring about murder convictions, not murder victims. So, this would obviously exclude people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or Virginia Tech massacre killer Seung-Hui Cho, who killed many victims, but had no murder convictions at all. It would also exclude people who were suspected – or even known – of killing many victims, but (for whatever reason on the part of the prosecutor) were only officially prosecuted for only one or two of the murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the list of serial killers by number of victims yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I did see that. But, how does that answer my question? Am I missing something? Also, my question would not be limited to "serial killers", but to any murderers. In other words, a murderer can kill many victims, but not necessarily serially (e.g., mass murderers). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garavito seems to be your person, convicted on 139 counts (and getting out soon enough). True, there may be war criminals convicted for killing thousands, but those generally boil down to a few "crimes against humanity" or similar, rather than thousands of counts of murder. I'm fairly certain no spree killer has beaten 139 without me remembering. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful. But why do you say that Garavito is "getting out soon enough"? Presumably, you mean getting out of prison? I thought that he was never getting out ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, his sentence is over 1,800 years. But by Colombian law (at the time), nobody can be imprisoned for over 30 years (60 now). Since he was nice enough to point out some hidden bodies, his sentence was actually reduced to 22 years.

But I was wrong about most convictions. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of 270, for plotting a plane bombing. Part of me remembered that. He's probably the guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as Garavito, that article (List of serial killers by number of victims) states: "Additionally, the Ley de Infancia y Adolescencia (the Law of Infants and Adolescents) eliminates the possibility of his release". Although the source cited in that article does not support this statement (upon a very quick read by me). I will check out the article on that plane bomber guy. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. He (Abdelbaset al-Megrahi) was the Lockerbie, Scotland, airplane bomber. I forgot about him. And – interestingly – he was not a serial killer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an act of war, at least in the minds of Libyan leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mine too. And not one of his. But as far as the official record goes, he was a massively mass murderer. One of the perks of winning wars is writing official records. See the redirecting Nürnberg. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't count al-Megrahi, Kim Dae-han was convicted for homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the Daegu subway fire, which resulted in the deaths of 192 people. I don't whether the conviction was for 192 separate counts of homicide or not. Gabbe (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also how sure are we no war criminal has been convicted of a a specific number of counts of murder? E.g. Abdul Quader Molla says he convicted of killing 344 people and that one of charges was for murder but it doesn't say how many people he was specifically convicted of killing (this may help [1]). List of convicted war criminals includes some Cambodians who's charge appear to include murder in addition to crimes against humanity like mass murder e.g. Kang Kek Iew but I'm not sure the number.

And isn't a bit arbitary to require seperate counts? If justice system A allows someone to be tried with murdering 10 named people as part of the same incident, and a conviction requires that the person considered responsible beyond a resonable doubt for the murder of all 10 people with I guess a partial conviction on the count if the judge/s or jury isn't convinced of culpability for all 10 people (as opposed to a more general war crime conviction where the precise number let alone names of victims may not be known and isn't required for a conviction), does this really not count whereas justice system B which doesn't allow this and requires each charge be seperate with effectively the same result does count?

Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne:: The way in which your sentence is constructed, I have no idea what you are asking. Can you clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. So, back to one of my original questions: does anyone have any information about this in the USA specifically? Apparently, in the USA, it is somewhat commonplace for the authorities to charge a multiple murderer with only one or two of his many murders, for a variety of strategic legal reasons. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ridgway's the leader there, as far as convictions. Shady case. The World Trade Center crash was the largest murder (I think), but no courts. Ultra shady.

Nolle prosequi is term for not prosecuting, murder or anything. With serial killers (especially when their crimes spread across many states), the cost of putting together individual cases when the killer is already virtually certain to die in prison is seen as pointless. Many other cases need the attention more. Sometimes the bereaved are pissed that certain facts won't come out in court, or that "justice wasn't served" specifically to them. Others are glad to avoid the whole ordeal of sitting through evidence and being around the killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that that is correct. Nolle prosequi refers to the prosecutor's affirmative decision to not prosecute the case ... not now ... and not ever (in the future). (In other words, the charges are essentially "thrown out" altogether. They can never resurface later on, in the future.) In the case of multiple murderers, oftentimes a prosecutor will hold a trial for one murder. And they hold some of the other murders for later prosecution – if need be – as a "safety net" in case the first conviction gets appealed or found invalid or whatever. Since a murder has no statute of limitations, the "other" murders can still be prosecuted later on down the line, in time ... if need be. Also, from the prosecutor's perspective, he avoids the problematic potential of "double jeopardy" if, God forbid, the jury comes back with an acquittal on all murder changes (if, indeed, all murder charges were on trial at the same time). So, in other words, the prosecutor will try one or perhaps two murders – and keep the "other" murders close to their vest – as a strategic legal maneuver ... to insure that the murderer never finds a "loophole" and to insure that he must remain in prison for his entire life. Off the top of my head, this happened with Andrea Yates. (She killed five of her children, yet she was only prosecuted for three of the deaths.) (See: Convictions overturned for mom who drowned 5 kids.) It also happened with Darlie Routier. (She killed two of her children, yet she was only prosecuted for one of the deaths.) In any event, my point is that this is completely different from a Nolle prosequi, in which the prosecutor says: "I have decided that I will not prosecute this crime now nor at any other time in the future. I am dropping all charges, period." This is not what happens in the case of a multiple murderer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and elaboration (though I assure you it's all an Ensurance Trap, not an insurance trap.) If you're teaching history now, I may as well ask: Has any American multiple murderer had any of his/her murders thrown out, period? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am sure that some have. The typical scenario might be ... The prosecutor says to the murderer: "Here's a plea bargain. If you plead guilty to these 10 murders, we will dismiss the charges in the other 5 murders" ... or something to that effect. Or, the prosecutor says: "If you plead guilty to these 10 murders, and you show us where you buried the dead bodies, we will dismiss the charges in the other 5 murders" ... or some such. Or, perhaps, a cross-country serial killer gets a death sentence in California and a death sentence in Texas, so the New York authorities drop the charges for the New York murders ... or something like that. I am sure that it happens, here and there, on occasion. However, a Nolle prosequi for a multiple murderer will more often be the exception and not the rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we were both technically correct, but I accidentally implied that everytime a a prosecutor prioritizes, or survivors are pissed/relieved, it's nolle prosequi. Got it. I always try to be clear, but always find new ways I'm not. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the case of a multiple murderer – when there is no prosecution on a specific charge – it is more likely that the prosecution is simply being held at bay (to be used if it is needed later) ... rather than it being dismissed outright. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, see Terry Nichols, convicted on 161 murder charges for his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, I had forgotten all about him, as well. And, once again – interestingly – he also was not a serial killer. Also, interestingly, his coconspirator Timothy McVeigh received only eight murder convictions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is simply to kill, then mass murder is much more efficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seemingly so. But, with a mass murder situation, it seems like the results are either hit or miss. You either kill a lot of people, or none at all (if plans go awry). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles N. Arnold[edit]

What did the N in Charles N. Arnold's name stand for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From this item it looks like it was Neil.--Cam (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you found the only reliable source out there for this other than ancestry sites. Thank you very much. How did you go about it? Is there any trick on google that I am not familiar with? How does one search "Charles N" with quotations and get results for Charles Neil or Charles Nathan, etc?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political position of Richard Nixon[edit]

Is Richard Nixon considered a liberal Republican, a moderate or a consvervative in domestic affairs? As far as I know he was far less conservative than Reagan or Goldwater. I also doubt that he would identify with the Tea Party of today. --Jerchel (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that the general public saw Richard Nixon as conservative-leaning, certainly anti-Communist, but if you read his various domestic actions he's hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon was from the moderate center of the Republican party because that's where the votes were; not as conservative as Goldwater (and nowhere near as intellectual), and not as liberal as the Rockefeller wing. However, he'd quite certainly identify with the Tea Party if they'd help him get votes; he was a purely political animal. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you put it that way, I have heard Nixon described as a "Nixonite", meaning just what you said. (Far from the only politician to drift with the wind of popular opinion, of course.) I've also heard it said that "If Nixon thought the public wanted a President with scruples, he would have had some." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ It's easy to underestimate both the liberalism (most generally in action) and the conservatism (either from his deepest heart or to reassure other Republicans) of Richard Nixon. I don't have the exact quotation at hand, but he once said something like "I would describe myself as a liberal on civil rights, a conservative on national security [or fighting communism] and a moderate on economic policy". His administration did include a few liberal Democrats, such as Dr. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and several liberal Republicans, such as California Lt-Gov. Robert Finch, who became Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and William Ruckelshaus, the first director of the Environmental Protection Agency. And the original enquirer's guess about today's Tea Party is, I think, correct, considering how much the Tea Party dislikes some of the agencies and programs Nixon started, such as the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Legal Services Corporation. His administration also offered programs, never enacted by his Congresses, for universal health insurance (first proposed in a skeleton form seventy years earlier by Theodore Roosevelt) and a guaranteed minimum income for families.

¶ But one should keep in mind that Richard Nixon was always one of America's most political creatures, using politics to advance policy and policy to promote his politics. § For example, opinion has always been both very heated and very divided as to the motives behind the Philadelphia Plan, an early affirmative action program, which required many building contractors to hire minimum proportions of minority workers; some see this as a minimum response to civil-rights needs or pressure, some as an appeal to moderate and liberal voters, and others as a Machiavellian attempt to weaken trade unions and split white workers away from the Democratic Party's New Deal coalition of the labor movement, liberal reformers and racial minority groups. § The Family Assistance (minimum income) Program was seen in part as a cheaper alternative to existing and projected Federal welfare programs. [See, inter alia, Michael Harrington's book, The New American Poverty.] § Nixon's health-insurance plan, similar in many ways to today's "Romneycare" and "Obamacare", was a market-based alternative (with Federal subsidies to non-government insurers) to Single-payer health care on the British or Canadian model, an idea which was widely favored at the time, with the support of Sen. Edward Kennedy and the labor movement (AFL–CIO and UAW). § As with poverty and civil rights, the new environmentalist movement and its popular appeal could not be ignored, so the Nixon Administration tried to stay ahead of, or at least in step with, Congressional action in order both to minimize political damage from seeming indifferent to pollution and to minimize damage to business or property rights from inevitable environmental regulation.

¶ Again, one can't look into the souls of Richard Nixon and his ideologically-diverse team, but it's possible to see his social and economic program as one or more of the following: (1) a sincere response to real human needs, (2) an attempt to minimize social programs' damage to business and the economy, (3) a bow to inevitable political reality, (4) an attempt to sabotage, torpedo or thwart certain left-wing initiatives, (5) an appeal to liberal Republicans, (6) an appeal to moderate, liberal and minority voters, and/or (7) an attempt to split the progressive Democratic coalition.

¶ In his 2012 memoirs, Known and Unknown, Donald Rumsfeld recounts his early years in the Nixon White House drastically shrinking the Office of Economic Opportunity from a large, ambitious agency to an workshop for pilot demonstration projects; Rumsfeld also says Nixon had specifically picked him to run the Cost of Living Council that administered wage and price controls because Rumsfeld (like Nixon) didn't believe in such controls and could be trusted to limit both their duration and their economic damage. [Donald Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown: a memoir, Penguin Sentinel Books paperback edition, 2012, ISBN 978-1-59523-084-3 pp. 119-129 & 139-140]. (One should bear in mind, however, that Donald Rumsfeld still harbored some political ambitions when he wrote these memoirs, and may have directed his emphasis to please conservative Republicans. Similarly, while Richard Nixon's invaluable taped conversations in the White House generally express rather reactionary, partisan views and motives, they must be heard or read with a view to both his different audiences and to any future historical record he thought he was creating.)

¶ I should stop here, without attempting to describe as liberal, moderate or conservative Nixon's other domestic polices—for example on the budget, taxes, civil rights, civil liberties, "law and order", education or drugs. Although I've never been a Nixonian, I have tried here to give as fair and balanced summary of all viewpoints as I could.—— Shakescene (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]