Talk:Misprision of treason

message: I have moved the following remark from misprision of felony because it does not belong there:
A related crime, misprision of treason, was frequently used in England during the 16th and 17th centuries to punish enemies of the Crown.
I think that this remark should receive some attention before it is included in the main article (if it should be included at all):
Treason, misprision of treason and contempt of the sovereign, etc. were used more frquently and in an oppressive manner in the past; but why single out those two centuries in particular (I presume that the answer to that question is Henry VIII and the Civil War; but it should be said explicitly)?; and why single out misprision of treason (was this particular offence used to "push the envelope", as oppossed to treason itself which certainly was, and if so, how exactly was that done?)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from misprision of felony

message: The expression 'at the discretion of the court' (see R v. Morris [1951] etc.) requires some explanation (preferably via a link to another article), but at the moment the article 'sentence (law)' does not explain the rules for sentencing common law offences, and there does not appear to be an article on criminal sentencing in the UK (or common law generally).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom: sentence for misprision

message: Not everything in the old textbooks that have been recently linked to from this page is necessarily accurate. In his book, Professor Bellamy says that Lord Coke's etymology of 'misprision' is wrong and that he is wrong about the origins of the offence. James500 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1662/12/11/ does not link to the quote about the Tonge case. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: I have added a clean-up tag that this article needs to cite non-primary sources to verify what the law says in different countries stems from the English law offence. The reason that non-primary sources need to be cited is that it is a form of editorializing for Wikipedia to claim that the law is about a particular offence corresponds to the topic of the article, when the law, itself, says it is part of a different one. In the New Zealand law that I tagged the offence is described as party to treason and is only one alternative element clause of what constitutes the New Zealand offence. Some evidence is needed to show that the wording of the New Zealand law can be traced back to the English common law offence. The sort of evidence I would expect might be commentary from the drafters of the codification of New Zealand law, the parliamentary debate that discusses this section of the law, or some sort of historical research about this law. Simply observing the words are the same, without citing a reason why, is insufficient to make the claim, and injects an editors opinion into the article, when the wording might be coincidence, and have no basis in fact. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the law as a source