Talk:Common scold

Cucking Stool/Ducking Stool

Which is the preferred usage, and are they actually the same? http://www.sacredspiral.com/Database/burning/cuckstl.html quotes :

Cucking Stool
This is sometimes confounded with the ducking-stool, but was entirely
dissimilar. Its exact construction cannot be explained in these pages.
Let it suffice to say that it was a seat of even flagitious indelicacy
upon which offending females were exposed at their own doors or in some
public place as a means of putting upon them the last degree of
ignominy. The cucking-stool, in fact, was analogous to the Sedes
Stercoraria in which a new Pope was formerly placed during the
installation ceremonies, to remind him that he was human.
Curiosities of Popular Customs
And of Rites, Ceremonies, Observances, and Miscellaneous Antiquities
By William S. Walsh
J.B. Lippincott Company
Copyright 1897

Hm. the Sedes Stercoraria was a chair with a hole in it, through which a deacon would feel the Pope's balls to check that he was a man. This quote claims that the cucking stool was similar. So it had a hole in the bottom? The woman on the engraving isn't naked, so a hole in the seat wouldn't have any interesting effects... --lament 06:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The woman may not have been naked, but as women did not wear briefs, knickers or other lower undergarments until the early to mid 19th century, relying on petticoats or underskirts, if such were affordable, for warmth and modesty. Thus making a woman sit on such a chair would have exposed her `nether regions' and forced public discharge of bodily functions, hence `stercoraria', which may be translated as `excremental'. User: Barney Bruchstein 10:40, 4th Jan 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Nonetheless it is worrying that a featured article could be so wrong about English law. I will correct it. Francis Davey 13:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The authors seem to have relied on Blackstone's observation far too readily. Even cursory research (i.e. other encyclopedic Internet sites) reveal that these too stools may have had a similar function and served as punishment for the same crime, but were in fact two different devices used at different times (see favourite Wikipedia reference, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica [1]). Apparently cucking stools were commonly used until the mid-16th century. Therefore all literary references, the woodcut and most of the legal information would refer to the (not entirely) distinct ducking stool. That an article with such questionable facticity should achieve featured status is frankly an embarrassment. If this is not clarified soon, I'll have to request that its featured status be removed. The cucking stool article will also need an overhaul. Pteron 00:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added reference to the contrary definitions out of the Encyclopedia; and also added the details provided of the last use of the ducking stool according to that account. Next time I am at the U of L law library I will see if by some good fortune they have any of the books on ancient punishments cited in the EB. Smerdis of Tlön 16:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pedantry: England and Wales

I note that my reference to England and Wales as a "part" of the United Kingdom has been corrected to "parts". I am going to revert to the original. Perhaps I should explain why:

Firstly, in constitutional terms, the United Kingdom, is a union of three parts: (1) Northern Ireland; (2) Scotland; and (3) England and Wales. The Act of Union, which created Great Britain was a union of two parts: Scotland on the one hand with England and Wales on the other.

Secondly, and the reason for the above, is that in legal terms, the United Kingdom consists of three jurisdictions as above. There is a single legal system across England and Wales. It is true that there are some specifically Welsh legal provisions, but there are also legal provisions to regions within England, or to local authorities. The court system of England and Wales is not divided at the Welsh border (Wales forms a part of the Wales and Chester circuit), in historic terms the two countries have had one law since Henry VIII.

From the point of view of domicile, one can be domiciled in Scotland, or in England and Wales, and a company can chose to be established in England and Wales.

For these reasons, I believe "part" is correct.

Francis Davey 09:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a pun?

Is the common scold a pun on the common cold? Or the other way around? Or just an eerie coincidence of the English language? - Plutor 13:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simply hilarious. My sides are splitting. --80.88.220.10 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

FARC

Very, very short and no references. Only a few links too. Will put on unless someone objects. Skinnyweed 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs FAR. Wwwhhh

Fye Bridge

Local websites refer to cucking, inc one recording that the plaque has been stolen. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/6429114/in/set-160394/ GBH 07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause

This article claims in two places that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution renders the common scold law invalid because the law only applied to females, but gives no citation or other evidence that this is the legal effect of the EPC. I suspect the claims may be original research or improper synthesis. The EPC could cause the law to extend to everyone regardless of sex for all I know. Does anyone know a reliable source for this? --Closeapple (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) establishes that sexual discrimination will be scrutinized very closely and requires a compelling government interest to be justified; in practice this amounts to strict scrutiny. In accordance with well settled principles of criminal jurisprudence (nullum crimen sine lege) the result of invalidity would be to abolish the crime rather than extend it to men. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The equal protection clause does not render scold laws invalid for several reasons. First, it doesn't exist in over 2/3rds of US states that follow the Model Penal Code reforms that eliminated most common law definitions of crimes; it is doubtful whether it still exists anywhere in the US. The two states mentioned, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, do not have this crime on their books. Second, no one has been charged with this crime since the adoption of the 14th amendment apparently, so no one has had standing to sue and render a scold law invalid. Third, those charged under the law would have to show a disparate impact. If those charged under a scold law were given the exact same punishment as a male charged for disorderly conduct, any challenge would fail. Fourth, even if there was a disparate impact, a criminal statute is not per se unconstitutional if the statute is substantially related to an important government purpose under intermediate scrutiny analysis. For instance, a statutory rape law in California under which only males may be punished was ruled constitutional in Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County[2]. Michael M is more on point because it involves a criminal statute targeting one sex rather than sexual discrimination. While you might theorize or form your own opinion that they would hypothetically invalid, they are not legally invalid.

Nullum crimen sine lege is a legal concept, not a rule of law. Part of nullum crimen is the Principle of Analogy. For those states which still use the common law, the court has discretion in interpretation and can include conduct and circumstances not strictly covered by statute or case law. For instance, in Lewis v. Commonwealth, the prosecutor argued that defendant's conviction for riotous and disorderly conduct on a bus should be upheld even though the statute only punished disorderly conduct on a "railroad or street passenger railway." 184 Va. 69, 34 S.E.2d 389 (1945). The limitation on the Principle of Analogy is whether the discretion creates overbroad police powers in violation of the Due Process clause. See Papachristou_v._Jacksonville 405 US. at 168. Would application of scolding statutes to men be an overbroad police power? For the forgoing reasons, scolding statutes would not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause and could even extend to cover men in US jurisdictions still using English common law. For a recent example, see application of rape statutes to the rape of men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.60.192 (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common scold. 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/20080128091716/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ducking to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ducking

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common scold. 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/20070117004233/http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html to http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Why "common"?

What does the word "common" signify in the phrase "common scold"? Does it relate to "common law"? Are there other kinds of scolds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E1:ABC:1A0A:F5A5:CBEB:EC68:A0AF (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)