Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 7 October 2009

==Keep==

I think this article is important as an explaination of a technical law term, but also as a link from Long Black Veil. Pustelnik 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I created this article last night because I thought it made no sense for the crimdef template (see mistake of law) to link to a Wiktionary article. Surely there are substantive, encyclopedic comments to be made about the alibi.

I want to do the following, but I don't know how. Someone should please do it for me

• Change the name of the article Alibi to Alibi (film).
• Create or modify the disambiguation page.
• Modify the Crimdef template so that "Alibi" points to Alibi (law) and not the Wiktionary article.

It is my belief that Misplaced Pages should be as independent as possible, and should not rely on Wiktionary for significant topics that deserve more than a dictionary definition. YechielMan 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While it might be your belief, that's not the concensus. (See ) Unless you (or someone else) can make this into an encyclopedic article, it will probably get deleted. Kathy A. 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Bearian 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Misplaced Pages's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

Surely there are more things to say about this? Such as the need to disclose an alibi to the prosecution before trial, rather than just mentioning it half way through... Do any lawyers know more about this (and other aspects)? Malick78 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious hypocrisy

When describing religious hypocrisy, some writers have argued that religion becomes an alibi, in the sense of a source of dishonesty. The article could maybe mention the uuse of the word alibi in certain contexts like this. ADM (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Paragraph

I have removed the following unreferenced subsection from the Canadian section:

Note that in cases where a defendant is charged with multiple similar offences, allegedly committed by the same perpetrator, disclosing an alibi for any particular individual offence prematurely may actually hurt the defence. In such a situation the prosecution must rely on the fact that the defendant has no alibi for any of the alleged offences and may additionally want to show that it is extremely unlikely that this is a coincidence. This means that allowing the prosecution to reduce the list of alleged offences to the ones for which no alibi is available (see confirmation bias) may significantly weaken the defendant's case in court.

There are no references to support the above paragraph, and, to the best of my knowledge, is contrary to Canadian criminal law (which specifically prejudices the defence for late disclosure of an alibi). Singularity42 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added the paragraph, not intending it to be part of the Canada section (but as another subsection of "Alibi Defence") and as a reminder that providing an alibi can hurt the defence. Of course I admit that, apparently, Canadian law encourages selection bias (the reference to which has been removed from the quote above) by the prosecution and therefore the issue is perhaps even more relevant in that context.

So I would like to see the paragraph restored, if you like outside the Canada section as originally intended , because the impression is now created that there are no valid (logical) reasons to withhold an alibi. The introduction to the alibi defence section in particular suggests that an alibi is like a get-out-of jail-free card, without pointing out that it can be used against the defendant just as easily (when provided prematurely, as clearly stated in my original text). It should not be hard to find many cases where selection bias based on provided alibis has led to the miscarriage of justice, but the argument is perfectly sound even without giving any specific examples. Providing examples will just open up the possibility of disputing the examples rather than the argument itself, which would be a waste of time. AlexFekken (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to AlexFekken writing the above comments, I realized from his comments that I incorrectly copy and pasted the disputed paragraph. The error has since been fixed. I believe the missing part that is referred to is the last sentence referring to confirmation bias. Singularity42 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC) That's right, thanks for correcting that. AlexFekken (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's still a reliable source issue. I think there needs to be a reliable source that has considered the issue of how selection bias has affected alibi defence. Otherwise, while it is an interesting argument, it would still be original research. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew somebody would want to see an example anyway, so I have started looking. The first case in the Canadian list of miscarriages of justice is the Stephen Truscott case of 1959. According to this he was originally convicted mainly because of the alleged time of death of the victim. He was (much) later cleared (http://en.wikinews.org/Canadian_court_clears_Stephen_Truscott_of_1959_murder) because "a review of evidence cast considerable doubt on the prosecution's original case such as the timing of Lynne Harper's death". Not quite the sort of case I had in mind (there was as only a single murder), but still a clear of case of moulding the evidence to the available alibi, which is my main point. And it happened in Canada as well (because of my own selection bias in looking for examples). Do you need more? AlexFekken (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually examples that are the issue. It's whether there is a reliable source. See WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Original Research. Right now, you have researched the issue (by looking for examples), and have drawn conclusions (possibly correct - I don't know enough about the issue of selection bias to say for sure). But that's original research. What you need is some reliable, secondary source that has said that selection bias can affect the decision to disclose an alibi (or even a reliable source that just says it is sometimes a good idea to not disclose an alibi). Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also add WP:NOT#OR. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the points you are making. But if I do then I would also need a "reliable secondary source" to make a statement like "1+1=2"? I.e. I cannot rely on basic education and common sense (as a reliable source), but need to refer to (for example) a professor in mathematics to support my statement? Is that right? AlexFekken (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Transwikied to Wiktionary