Talk:Subic rape case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subic rape case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Subic rape case: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Copyedit and source History of Subic Rape Case
  • Expand Visiting Forces Agreement, Custody of Daniel Smith and US-RP relations

Contents

[edit] What's the legal name?

Like Roe v. Wade? --Howard the Duck 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Suzette Nicolas. I saw the hearing live on TV and was able to verify the name through a search on Google News and Yahoo News...apparently, it's only in the local media that she is referred to as "Nicole" and not by her real name. Below are a sampler of foreign news reports that print her real name:
Some Philippine newspapers did publish her name, though. --- Tito Pao 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So its Smith vs. Nicolas? --Howard the Duck 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's Nicolas vs. Smith et al. Should the plaintiff's name comes first? Also, since this is a criminal case, shouldn't this be the people of the Philippines vs. Smith et al.? I'm not sure though. I have no legal background. --Weekeejames 02:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
From Rule 110 of the RP Revised Rules of criminal procedure (2000):

Sec. 2. The complaint or information – The complaint or information shall be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.


-- Boracay Bill 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So is it People of the Philippines vs. Smith, et. al.? --Howard the Duck 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, but that's how I read it. Also, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure says that the offended party is free to institute a civil case seeking to recover damages. My layman's understanding is that the civil case would be Nicolas vs. (whomever she decides to proceed against) -- Nicolas vs. Smith, Nicolas vs. Smith et. al., Nicolas vs. the USMC, Nicolas vs. the USofA, whatever. -- Boracay Bill 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The correct case name is People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Smith [plus the names of the other three], per revised rules of criminal procedure. (I also heard this mentioned at the very beginning of the verdict). A quick search of the SCRA (Supreme Court Rulings Archives) will reveal that all criminal cases are also referred to as "People of the Philippines vs. Mr. Accused" (to use an example) or simply "People vs. Mr. Accused". If it were a civil case, the case would have been "Nicolas vs. Smith". --- Tito Pao 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've used "People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Smith, Keith Silkwood, Dominic Duplantis, and Chad Carpentier" on the lead, but could anyone cite a source saying this is the official case name? Nevertheless, since this is the logical name I guess we can retain it. --Howard the Duck 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Would also be good if we could get hold of the serial number of the case (or something similar to a serial number). Each case has a serial number; in Supreme Court rulings, it's called a GR number (can't remember what GR means though). There is an equivalent name for this serial number for lower-court cases, but I can't remember what it's called. --- Tito Pao 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nickname

I edited the portion about the nickname to show that it's a designated name intended to protect her identity although, as I've written above, her real name is . However, one thing I'm not clear about is if it's the media or the court that gave her the designation. Any help to clarify this would be appreciated. --- Tito Pao 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

She had been called "Nicole" already by the media even before the case was filed in the court. We first learned about "Nicole"'s case (and her nickname) through the media. The legal case came afterwards. --Weekeejames 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about the others?

does anyone know what the verdict says about why the other accused were acquitted? I think it's relevant to the article.

Surfing around, I found http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-marine-lance-cpl-daniel_116528828048767562.html, which said: The court said Duplantis, Silkwood, and Carpentier cannot be considered co-conspirators or principals even if they did cheer and provided "moral aid" during the rape because the prosecution failed to prove that they knew what Smith was going to do. That site doesn't strike me as a very citeable source. Perhaps someone else can find a more citeable source. A link to an online transcript of the court decision would be nice (also the recent CA decision and, eventually, the SC decision).

BTW the inquirer link is gone Sandtiger 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Inquirer about the removal of their link to that archived series of articles. Let's give it a week or so, and remove the link if the articles remain unavailable. -- Boracay Bill 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up...one possible reason why the Inquirer link is gone is because they moved to a new domain name (www.inquirer.net). There was somewhat an issue as to why Inquirer and GMA 7 split up from the original INQ7.net partnership, but as it stands, the two media outlets have their own news portals. So it's likely that the same old article is there...just that, there's a new link for it. --- Tito Pao 12:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The articles have reappeared, over on the www.inquirer.net URL, vs. inq7. I fixed the link. -- Boracay Bill 10:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release of Smith

As of the news, the Philippine government released Daniel Smith without court order last year (I remembered that it was December 29, 2006 at dawn, please verify this). He is currently under custody at the US Embassy in the Philippines. Many rallies are occuring within the area just due to this case. A-yao 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is outdated and incomplete, and needs cites.

I have today edited the Application to this case section of this article, adding a couple of cites of articles from the list of collected news articles. The single sentence following my second cite, "The Court of Appeals has yet to decide on the custody ruling of the trial court and on the appeal of the Subic rape case.", has been overtaken by events and is now incorrect and outdated; that needs to be corrected and the corrected info supported by a cite. Further info probably needs to be added as it develops, supported by appropriate cites. I don't plan on appointing myself maintainer of this article, but I'll keep looking at it from time to time. -- Boracay Bill 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope it's now quite updated. The article, though, still needs to be expanded, maintained and completed. --Weekeejames 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have some kind of agenda behind it. For example, the commentary on society and rape doesn't make sense for an encyclopedic entry. The intro line "it all started when..." is also unprofessional and too informal. The bias needs to be toned down a bit in other areas as well and the sources need to be more well rounded in my opinion. Swatpig 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Just because the 'History' section of the article is in narrative form does not mean it is "unprofessional" and "too informal". *raises an eyebrow* -^ I learned this during my creative writing class in college. The secion 'Rape in the Philippines' is quite relevant to the article, although it needs to be expanded. And yes, you are entitled to your own opinion on this talk page. I suggest for you to help improve the article instead of mere complaining. Thanks! --Weekeejames 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are thanking me for. I am not familiar enough with the case to expand it. As an outsider looking into the topic I am able to share with the contributors an opinion that an unbiased person may consider valuable. In addition to the POV, "It all started out when..." may be ok in your creative writing class but I haven't read any encyclopedic text that uses such phrases. I am not going to change it, you may do what you wish. Swatpig 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It was thanking in advance should you ever contribute to help improve the article. But no thanks, I am taking it back! Bias actually is more prone, magnified twice from an outside view than from the inside. The notion of Wikipedia's being free should include the freedom to write in any writing style or form for as long as it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. Try doing your critiques based on the contents and context of the articles, and not based on your own POV's "encyclopedic text" or "phrases" that you believe should be used. This way, you will be more objective. Yeah try harder. --Weekeejames 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:MOS -- Boracay Bill 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The manual of style is great as far as technical consistency throughout the wikipedia is concerned. But, it is in itself "not rigid", "flexible", "does not demand perfection", "does not claim to be the last word...", etc. Style is just one of the many aspects in writing. Forms and other qualities are another. Back to the History subsection, the narrative form isn't necesarily subjective; Journalistic writings more often employ the narrative form! I wouldn't mind if anybody would edit it in their own flavor for as long as the facts are there and presented in an unbiased manner. I was hoping Swatpig would do it. I hope I can improve this article more, but I'm moving on to my other wiki endeavors. --Weekeejames 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "The American servicemen denied the charges.''

Drawn to look at this article once again by a recent change, I happened to glance at parts unrelated to that change, and was struck by

[...] Nicole also alleged that Smith's other companions, Lance Corporals Keith Silkwood and Dominic Duplantis and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, were inside the van cheering Smith on as the incident happened. The American servicemen denied the charges. [...]

Perhaps I am nitpicking here, but I read this as saying that Smith's companions denied that they were in the van cheering Smith on. AFAIK, this is not the case. The charges placed against Smith's companions are unclear from the article; my understanding is that all four were charged with having committed the crime of rape, and that all four denied that they had committed that crime. I have deleted the sentence "The American servicemen denied the charges.". It would probably be better to replace this deleted sentence with clarification of precisely what charges were denied, by whom, and on what grounds. -- Boracay Bill 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing

It is still ongoing? If it's done, perhaps the article should reflect that. Shrumster 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The case handled by the CA is done but of course it is being appealed in the Supreme Court. We don't know if the SC will say it's moot and academic as the CA said with Smith being in the US Embassy (we don't have jurisdiction there per international laws on embassies) or will enforce Philippine jurisdiction over the accused and request the transfer of Smith back to Philippine authorities. Berserkerz Crit 12:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/b/Talk%7ESubic_rape_case_3f2c.html"