text:
Down to Earth (Rainbow album)

Down to Earth is the fourth studio album by the British hard rock band Rainbow. It is their last album to feature drummer Cozy Powell, their first with bassist Roger Glover and keyboardist Don Airey and their only album with vocalist Graham Bonnet. Released in 1979, it contains Rainbow's first hit single "Since You Been Gone", marking a more commercial direction of the band's sound.

Writing and recording
The writing of Down to Earth began at Ritchie Blackmore's house in Connecticut in January 1979. By that time, he had dismissed both bassist Bob Daisley and keyboard player David Stone before singer Ronnie James Dio quit the band. Blackmore had already recruited his old Deep Purple bandmate Roger Glover as producer and started auditioning musicians for the vacant slots in the band, while songwriting progressed with Blackmore, Cozy Powell and session musician Clive Chaman on bass. The backing tracks were largely written by Blackmore and Glover. "It was a great opportunity for me, and why should I bear a grudge? (about being dismissed from Purple in 1973) " recalled Glover. "I'm a huge Ritchie fan. Some of my biggest influences have come from him."

By early 1979, Blackmore had recruited keyboardist Don Airey – a suggestion from Powell – and considered Peter Goalby of Trapeze, as well as another old Deep Purple bandmate Ian Gillan, to replace Dio. In April 1979, Jack Green of The Pretty Things was hired as new bass player for the recording sessions at Château Pelly de Cornfeld, in the countryside of Southern France, but he did not stay for long. Producer Glover ended up playing bass on the album and provided lyrics for all songs. While auditions for the new singer proceeded, Glover tracked down ex-Marbles singer Graham Bonnet, who auditioned in France and was immediately hired.

During song composition, Bonnet composed his vocal melodies though his contributions remained uncredited. His vocals were not recorded with the other tracks in France, but later at Kingdom Sound Studios in Long Island, when all other recording sessions were completed. Down to Earth is the only Rainbow album to feature Bonnet, though he was still part of the band when writing for Difficult to Cure began.

Also recorded for the proposed next single, but unreleased due to Bonnet's departure, was "Will You Love Me Tomorrow". Bonnet had previously recorded this song for his first, eponymously titled, solo album in 1977. Rainbow's version was recorded in the studio in May 1980, during rehearsals for the Japanese leg of the Down to Earth tour. It was subsequently played live throughout that tour.

Tour
In 1980, Blackmore's Rainbow headlined the inaugural Monsters of Rock festival at Castle Donington in England.

Songs from Down to Earth have been performed by Graham Bonnet at his solo shows, as well as at concerts performed with Don Airey (2001) and Joe Lynn Turner (2007).

Release
In the UK there was a limited edition clear vinyl LP release.

"Bad Girl", an outtake from the album sessions, was used as the B-side to the "Since You Been Gone" single. Similarly, "Weiss Heim", an instrumental recorded in Copenhagen in January 1980, was the B-side to "All Night Long".

A remastered CD reissue was released in May 1999, with packaging duplicating the original vinyl.

In 2011, a Deluxe Edition of the album was released, featuring a bonus disc with previously unreleased songs and instrumental versions of the basic tracks.

Reception
AllMusic editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine defines the album "a fine hard rock platter", which "might not offer anything unique, but it delivers the goods." He criticizes mostly Bonnet's vocals, but praises "the guitar artistry and mystical sensibility of Ritchie Blackmore", who "sounds invigorated on the album". PopMatters' Adrien Begrand, reviewing the 2011 Deluxe Edition, remarks how Down to Earth "is somewhat underrated compared to the towering Dio discography, but it remains a strong outing 31 years later", even with "the new material sounding so much more stripped-down compared to the overtly epic heavy metal arrangements of Dio-era Rainbow". The songs are "eight searing, hooky hard rockers", remarkably rendered by Bonnet's performance and energy. The album "is perhaps the most divisive record in Rainbow’s catalogue" according to Record Collector reviewer, because of "Blackmore's single-minded pursuit of mainstream success" and the departure from the sound of preceding albums. He adds that this is a "strong" album with many "classic radio" staples, but the second disc of the Deluxe Edition does not add anything essential to the listening experience.

In 2005, Down to Earth was ranked number 431 in Rock Hard magazine's book The 500 Greatest Rock & Metal Albums of All Time.

Blackmore's opinion
In an interview with Sounds in 1979, Blackmore said: "I have so much respect for classical musicians that when I listen to myself I think, oh, that's nonsense. I can put down other people's music because the fact is I put down my own music and say it's rubbish.  A lot of it is- not all of it- "No Time to Lose" definitely is but "Eyes of the World" is OK.  But a good deal of it is a waste of time."

Personnel

 * Rainbow
 * Ritchie Blackmore – guitar
 * Cozy Powell – drums
 * Roger Glover – bass, backing vocals, producer
 * Don Airey – keyboards, backing vocals
 * Graham Bonnet – lead vocals

 * Production
 * Gary Edwards – engineer
 * Michael Palmer, Leigh Mantle – assistant engineers
 * Greg Calbi – mastering

Charts

 * Album

 * Singles

title: Down to Earth (Rainbow album)


text:
Antiochus X Eusebes

Antiochus X Eusebes Philopator (Ἀντίοχος Εὐσεβής Φιλοπάτωρ; c. 113 BC – 92 or 88 BC) was a Seleucid monarch who reigned as King of Syria during the Hellenistic period between 95 BC and 92 BC or 89/88 BC (224 SE [Seleucid year]). He was the son of Antiochus IX and perhaps his Egyptian wife Cleopatra IV. Eusebes lived during a period of general disintegration in Seleucid Syria, characterized by civil wars, foreign interference by Ptolemaic Egypt and incursions by the Parthians. Antiochus IX was killed in 95BC at the hands of Seleucus VI, the son of his half-brother and rival Antiochus VIII. Antiochus X then went to the city of Aradus where he declared himself king. He avenged his father by defeating Seleucus VI, who was eventually killed.

Antiochus X did not enjoy a stable reign as he had to face three of Seleucus VI's brothers, Antiochus XI, Philip I and Demetrius III. Antiochus XI defeated AntiochusX and expelled him from the capital Antioch in 93 BC. A few months later, AntiochusX regained his position and killed Antiochus XI. This led to both Philip I and Demetrius III becoming involved. The civil war continued but its outcome is uncertain due to the contradictions between different ancient historians' accounts. AntiochusX married his stepmother, Antiochus IX's widow Cleopatra Selene, and had several children with her, including a future king Antiochus XIII.

The death of Antiochus X is a mystery. The year of his demise is traditionally given by modern scholars as 92 BC, but other dates are also possible including the year 224 SE (89/88BC). The most reliable account of his end is that of the first century historian Josephus, who wrote that AntiochusX marched east to fight off the Parthians who were attacking a queen called Laodice; the identity of this queen and who her people were continues to be debated. Other accounts exist: the ancient Greek historian Appian has AntiochusX defeated by the Armenian king Tigranes II and losing his kingdom; the third century historian Eusebius wrote that AntiochusX was defeated by his cousins and escaped to the Parthians before asking the Romans to help him regain the throne. Modern scholars prefer the account of Josephus and question practically every aspect of the versions presented by other ancient historians. Numismatic evidence shows that AntiochusX was succeeded in Antioch by Demetrius III, who controlled the capital in c. 225 SE (88/87 BC).

Background, early life and name
The second century BC witnessed the disintegration of the Syria-based Seleucid Empire due to never-ending dynastic feuds and foreign Egyptian and Roman interference. Amid constant civil wars, Syria fell to pieces. Seleucid pretenders fought for the throne, tearing the country apart. In 113 BC, Antiochus IX declared himself king in opposition to his half-brother Antiochus VIII. The siblings fought relentlessly for a decade and a half until Antiochus VIII was killed in 96 BC. The following year, Antiochus VIII's son Seleucus VI marched against Antiochus IX and killed him near the Syrian capital Antioch.

Egypt and Syria attempted dynastic marriages to maintain a degree of peace. Antiochus IX married several times; known wives are his cousin Cleopatra IV of Egypt, whom he married in 114 BC, and her sister Cleopatra Selene, the widow of Antiochus VIII. Some historians, such as John D. Grainger, maintain the existence of a first wife unknown by name who was the mother of Antiochus X. Others, such as Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, believe that the first wife of Antiochus IX and the mother of his son was Cleopatra IV, in which case AntiochusX would have been born in c. 113 BC. None of those assertions are based on evidence, and the mother of AntiochusX is not named in ancient sources. Antiochus is a Greek name meaning "resolute in contention". The capital Antioch received its name in deference to Antiochus, the father of the Seleucid dynasty's founder Seleucus I; the name became dynastic and many Seleucid kings bore it.

Reign
According to Josephus, following the death of his father, AntiochusX went to the city of Aradus where he declared himself king; it is possible that Antiochus IX, before facing Seleucus VI, sent his son to that city for protection. Aradus was an independent city since 137 BC, meaning that AntiochusX made an alliance with it, since he would not have been able to subdue it by force at that stage of his reign. As the descendants of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX fought over Syria, they portrayed themselves in the likeness of their respective fathers to indicate their legitimacy; Antiochus X's busts on his coins show him with a short nose that ends with an up-turn, like his father. Ancient Hellenistic kings did not use regnal numbers. Instead, they usually employed epithets to distinguish themselves from other rulers with similar names; the numbering of kings is mostly a modern practice. On his coins, AntiochusX appeared with the epithets Eusebes (the pious) and Philopator (father-loving). According to Appian, the king received the epithet Eusebes from the Syrians because he escaped a plot on his life by Seleucus VI, and, officially, the Syrians thought that he survived because of his piety, but, in reality, it was a prostitute in love with AntiochusX who saved him.

Beginning his reign in 218 SE (95/94 BC), AntiochusX was deprived of resources and lacked a queen. He therefore married a woman who could provide what he needed, his stepmother Cleopatra Selene. AntiochusX was probably no more than twenty years old while his wife was in her forties. This union was not unprecedented in the Seleucid dynasty, as Antiochus I had married his stepmother Stratonice, but nevertheless, the marriage was scandalous. Appian commented that he thought the real reason behind the epithet "Eusebes" to be a joke by the Syrians, mocking Antiochus X's piety, as he showed loyalty to his father by bedding his widow. Appian concluded that it was "divine vengeance" for his marriage that eventually led to Antiochus X's fall.

First reign in Antioch
One of Antiochus X's first actions was to avenge his father; in 94 BC, he advanced on the capital Antioch and drove Seleucus VI out of northern Syria into Cilicia. According to Eusebius, the final battle between AntiochusX and Seleucus VI took place near the Cilician city of Mopsuestia, ending in Antiochus X's victory while Seleucus VI took refuge in the city, where he perished as a result of a popular revolt.

During the Seleucid period, currency struck in times of campaigns against a rival or a usurper showed the king bearded, and what seems to be the earliest bronze coinage of AntiochusX shows him with a curly beard, while later currency, apparently meant to show the king in firm control of his realm, depicted AntiochusX clean shaven. Early in 93 BC, the brothers of Seleucus VI, Antiochus XI and Philip I, avenged Seleucus VI by sacking Mopsuestia. Antiochus XI then advanced on Antioch, defeated Antiochus X, and expelled him from the city, reigning alone in the capital for few months.

Second reign in Antioch
Antiochus X recruited new soldiers and attacked Antioch the same year. He emerged victorious, while Antiochus XI drowned in the Orontes River as he tried to flee. Now AntiochusX ruled northern Syria and Cilicia; around this time, Mopsuestia minted coins with the word "autonomous" inscribed. This new political status seems to have been a privilege bestowed upon the city by Antiochus X, who, as a sign of gratitude for Mopsuestia's role in eliminating Seleucus VI, apparently not just rebuilt it, but also compensated it for the damage it suffered at the hands of Seleucus VI's brothers. In the view of the numismatist Hans von Aulock, some coins minted in Mopsuestia may carry a portrait of Antiochus X. Other cities minted their own civic coinage under the king's rule, including Tripolis, Berytus, and perhaps the autonomous city of Ascalon.

In the capital, Antiochus X might have been responsible for building a library and an attached museum on the model of the Library of Alexandria. Philip I was probably centered at Beroea; his brother, Demetrius III, who ruled Damascus, supported him and marched north probably in the spring of 93 BC. AntiochusX faced fierce resistance from his cousins. In the year 220 SE (93/92BC), the city of Damascus stopped issuing coins in the name of Demetrius III, then resumed the following year; this could have been the result of incursions by Antiochus X, which weakened his cousin and made Damascus vulnerable to attacks by the Judaean king Alexander Jannaeus.

Children
The Roman statesman Cicero wrote about two sons of AntiochusX and Cleopatra Selene who visited Rome during his time (between 75 and 73 BC); one of them was named Antiochus. The king might have also fathered a daughter with his wife; according to the first century historian Plutarch, the Armenian king Tigranes II, who killed Cleopatra Selene in 69 BC, "put to death the successors of Seleucus, and [carried] off their wives and daughters into captivity". This statement makes it possible to assume that AntiochusX had at least one daughter with his wife.
 * Antiochus XIII: mentioned by Cicero. His epithets raised questions about how many sons with that name AntiochusX fathered; when Antiochus XIII issued coins as a sole ruler, he used the epithet Philadelphos ("brother-loving"), but on jugate coins that show Cleopatra Selene as regent along with a ruling son named Antiochus, the epithet Philometor ("mother-loving") is used. The historian Kay Ehling, agreeing with the view of Bouché-Leclercq, argued that two sons, both named Antiochus, resulted from the marriage of AntiochusX and Cleopatra Selene. Cicero, on the other hand, left one of the brothers unnamed, and clearly stated that Antiochus was the name of only one prince. Ehling's theory is possible but only if "Antiochus Philometor" was the prince named by Cicero, and the brother, who had a different name, assumed the dynastic name Antiochus with the epithet Philadelphos when he became king following the death of Antiochus Philometor. In the view of the historian Adrian Dumitru, such a scenario is complicated; more likely, Antiochus XIII bore two epithets, Philadelphos and Philometor. Several numismatists, such as Oliver D. Hoover, Catharine Lorber and Arthur Houghton, agree that both epithets denoted Antiochus XIII.
 * Seleucus VII: the numismatist Brian Kritt deciphered and published a newly discovered jugate coin bearing the portrait of Cleopatra Selene and a co-ruler in 2002. Kritt's reading gave the name of King Seleucus Philometor and, considering the epithet which means mother loving, equated him with the unnamed son mentioned by Cicero. Kritt gave the newly discovered king the regnal name Seleucus VII. Some scholars, such as Lloyd Llewellyn Jones and Michael Roy Burgess, accepted the reading, but Hoover rejected Kritt's reading as the coin is badly damaged and some of the letters cannot be read. Hoover proposed a different reading where the king's name is Antiochus, to be identified with Antiochus XIII.
 * Seleucus Kybiosaktes: the unnamed son mentioned by Cicero does not appear in other ancient literature. Seleucus Kybiosaktes, a man who appeared c. 58 BC in Egypt as a husband of its queen Berenice IV, is identified by modern scholarship with the unnamed prince. According to the first century BC historian Strabo, Kybiosaktes pretended to be of Seleucid descent. Kritt considered it plausible to identify Seleucus VII with Seleucus Kybiosaktes.

Conflict with Parthia and demise
Information about Antiochus X after the interference of Demetrius III is scanty. Ancient sources and modern scholars present different accounts and dates for the demise of the king. Antiochus X's end as told by Josephus, which has the king killed during a campaign against the Parthians, is considered the most reliable and likely by modern historians. Towards the end of his reign, Antiochus X increased his coin production, and this could be related to the campaign undertaken by the Seleucid monarch against Parthia, as recorded by Josephus. The Parthians were advancing in eastern Syria in the time of Antiochus X, which would have made it important for the king to counterattack, thus strengthening his position in the war against his cousins. The majority of scholars accept the year 92 BC for Antiochus X's end:

Year of death
No known coins issued by the king in Antioch contain a date. Josephus wrote that the king fell soon after Demetrius III's interference, but this statement is vague. Most scholars, such as Edward Theodore Newell, understood Josephus's statement to indicate 92BC. According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is apparently based on combining the statement of Josephus with that of Eusebius, who wrote that AntiochusX was ejected from the capital in 220 SE (93/92 BC) by Philip I. Hoover considered Newell's dating hard to accept; a market weight from Antioch bearing Antiochus X's name, from 92 BC, might contradict the dating of 220 SE (93/92 BC). On the other hand, in the year 221 SE (92/91BC), the city of Antioch issued civic coinage mentioning no king; Hoover noted that the civic coinage mentions Antioch as the "metropolis" but not as autonomous, and this might be explained as a reward from AntiochusX bestowed upon the city for supporting him in his struggle against his cousins.

In 2007, using a methodology based on estimating the annual die usage average rate (the Esty formula), Hoover proposed the year 224 SE (89/88 BC) for the end of Antiochus X's reign. Later in 2011, Hoover noted that this date is hard to accept considering that during Antiochus X's second reign in the capital, only one or two dies were used per year, far too few for the Seleucid average rate to justify a long reign. Hoover then noted that there seem to be several indications that the coinage of Antiochus X's second reign in the capital, along with the coinages of Antiochus XI and Demetrius III, were re-coined by Philip I who eventually took Antioch c. 87 BC, thus explaining the rarity of those kings' coins. Hoover admitted that his conclusion is "troubling". The historian Marek Jan Olbrycht considered Hoover's dating and arguments too speculative, as they contradict ancient literature.

Manner of death
The manner of the king's death varies depending on which ancient account is used. The main ancient historians providing information on Antiochus X's end are Josephus, Appian, Eusebius and Saint Jerome:

The account of Josephus: "For when he was come as an auxiliary to Laodice, queen of the Gileadites, when she was making war against the Parthians, and he was fighting courageously, he fell." The Parthians might have been allied with Philip I. The people of Laodice, their location, and who she was are hard to determine, as surviving manuscripts of Josephus's work transmit different names for the people. Gileadites is an older designation based on the Codex Leidensis (Lugdunensis) manuscript of Josephus's work, but the academic consensus uses the designation Sameans, based on the Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus manuscript.
 * Based on the reading Gileadites: In the view of Bouché-Leclercq, the division of Syria between AntiochusX and his cousins must have tempted the Parthian king Mithridates II to annex the kingdom. Bouché-Leclercq, agreeing with the historian Alfred von Gutschmid, identified the mysterious queen with Antiochus X's cousin Laodice, daughter of Antiochus VIII, and wife of Mithridates I, the king of Commagene, which had recently detached from the Seleucids, and suggested that Laodice resided in Samosata. Bouché-Leclercq hypothesized that AntiochusX did not go to help his rivals' sister, but to stop the Parthians before they reached his own borders. The historian Adolf Kuhn, on the other hand, considered it implausible that AntiochusX would support a daughter of Antiochus VIII and he questioned the identification with the queen of Commagene. Ehling, attempting to explain Antiochus X's assistance of Laodice, suggested that the queen was a daughter of Antiochus IX, a sister of Antiochus X.
 * Based on the reading Sameans: the historian Josef Dobiáš (historian) considered Laodice a queen of a nomadic tribe based on the similarities between the name from the Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus with the Samènes, a people mentioned by the sixth century geographer Stephanus of Byzantium as an Arab nomadic tribe. This would solve the problems posed by the identification with the queen of Commagene, and end the debate regarding the location of the people, as the nature of their nomadic life makes it impossible to determine exactly the place where the fight took place. Dobiáš attributed the initiative to AntiochusX who was not merely trying to defend his borders but actively attacking the Parthians.

The account of Appian: Antiochus X was expelled from Syria by Tigranes II of Armenia. Appian gave Tigranes II a reign of fourteen years in Syria ending in 69 BC. That year witnessed the retreat of the Armenian king due to a war with the Romans. Hence, the invasion of Syria by Tigranes, based on the account of Appian, probably took place in 83 BC. Bellinger dismissed this account, and considered that Appian confused AntiochusX with his son Antiochus XIII. Kuhn considered a confusion between father and son to be out of the question because Appian mentioned the epithet Eusebes when talking about the fate of Antiochus X. In the view of Kuhn, AntiochusX retreated to Cilicia after being defeated by Tigranes II, and his sons ruled that region after him and were reported visiting Rome in 73 BC. However, numismatic evidence proves that Demetrius III controlled Cilicia following the demise of Antiochus X, and that Tarsus minted coins in his name c. 225 SE (88/87 BC). The Egyptologist Christopher J. Bennett, considered it possible that AntiochusX retreated to Ptolemais after being defeated by Tigranes since it became his widow's base. In his history, Appian failed to mention the reigns of Demetrius III and Philip I in the capital which preceded the reign of Tigranes II. According to Hoover, Appian's ignorance of the intervening kings between AntiochusX and Tigranes II might explain how he confused Antiochus XIII, who is known to have fled from the Armenian king, with his father.

Eusebius and others: According to Eusebius, who used the account of the third century historian Porphyry, AntiochusX was ejected from the capital by Philip I in 220 SE (93/92 BC) and fled to the Parthians. Eusebius added that following the Roman conquest of Syria, AntiochusX surrendered to Pompey, hoping to be reinstated on the throne, but the people of Antioch paid money to the Roman general to avoid a Seleucid restoration. AntiochusX was then invited by the people of Alexandria to rule jointly with the daughters of Ptolemy XII, but he died of illness soon after. This account has been questioned by many scholars, such as Hoover and Bellinger. The story told by Eusebius contains factual inaccuracies, as he wrote that in the same year AntiochusX was defeated by Philip I, he surrendered to Pompey, while at the same time Philip I was captured by the governor of Syria Aulus Gabinius. However, Pompey arrived in Syria only in 64 BC, and left it in 62 BC. Aulus Gabinius was appointed governor of Syria in 57 BC. Also, the part of Eusebius's account regarding the surrender to Pompey echoes the fate of Antiochus XIII; the writer seems to be confusing the fate of AntiochusX with that of his son. The second century historian Justin, writing based on the work of the first century BC historian Trogus, also confused the father and son, as he wrote that AntiochusX was appointed king of Syria by the Roman general Lucullus following the defeat of Tigranes II in 69 BC.

Succession
It is known from numismatic evidence that Demetrius III eventually succeeded AntiochusX in Antioch. Eusebius's statement that AntiochusX was ejected from the capital by Philip I in 220 SE (93/92 BC) is contradicted by the coins of Demetrius III, who was not mentioned at all by Eusebius. Any suggestions that Philip I controlled Antioch before the demise of Demetrius III can be dismissed; in addition to the numismatic evidence, no ancient source claimed that Demetrius III had to push Philip I out of the city.

In 1949, a jugate coin of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus XIII, from the collection of the French archaeologist Henri Arnold Seyrig, was dated by the historian Alfred Bellinger to 92BC and ascribed to Antioch. Based on Bellinger's dating, some modern historians, such as Ehling, proposed that Cleopatra Selene enjoyed an ephemeral reign in Antioch between the death of her husband and the arrival of his successor. Bellinger doubted his own dating and the coin's place of issue in 1952, suggesting Cilicia instead of Antioch. This coin is dated by many twenty-first century scholars to 82BC.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Antiochus X Eusebes


text:
Straitjacket

A straitjacket is a garment shaped like a jacket with long sleeves that surpass the tips of the wearer's fingers. Its most typical use is restraining people who may cause harm to themselves or others. Once the wearer slides their arms into the sleeves, the person restraining the wearer crosses the sleeves against the chest and ties the ends of the sleeves to the back of the jacket, ensuring the arms are close to the chest with as little movement as possible.

Although straitjacket is the most common spelling, strait-jacket is also frequent. Straitjackets are also called camisoles.

The effect of a straitjacket as a restraint makes it of special interest in escapology. The straitjacket is also a staple prop in stage magic.

The straitjacket comes from the Georgian era of medicine. Physical restraint was used both as treatment for mental illness and to pacify patients in understaffed asylums.

Due to their strength, canvas and duck cloth are the most common materials for institutional straitjackets.

History
The word "strait", in this context, means "confinement". The straitjacket is described as early as 1772, in a book by the Irish physician David Macbride, although there are claims an upholsterer named Guilleret invented it in 1790 France for Bicêtre Hospital. (See the French Wikipedia article, Camisole de force.)

Before the development of psychiatric medications and talking therapy, doctors did not know how to treat mental disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety disorders. They attempted treatments that are cruel by modern standards, and the straitjacket was one of them. At the height of its use, doctors considered it more humane than restraints of ropes or chains. It prevented the patient from damaging clothes or furniture, and from injuring self, staff, or fellow inmates.

Before the American Civil War, the mentally ill were often in poorhouses, workhouses, or prisons when their families could no longer care for them. Patients were forced to live with criminals and treated likewise: locked in a cell or even chained to walls. By the 1860s, Americans wanted to provide better assistance to the less fortunate, including the mentally ill. The number of facilities devoted to the care of people with mental disorders saw a dramatic increase. These facilities, meant to be places of refuge, were called insane asylums. Between 1825 and 1865, the number of asylums in the United States increased from nine to sixty-two.

The establishment of asylums did not mean treatment improved. Because doctors did not understand what caused the behavior of their patients, they often listed the possible causes of mental illness as religious excitement, sunstroke, or even reading novels. They believed the patient had lost all control over their morals and strict discipline was necessary to help the patient regain self-control. Asylums often employed straitjackets to restrain patients who could not control themselves.

Many assessors, including Marie Ragone and Diane Fenex, considered straitjackets humane, gentler than prison chains. The restraint seemed to apply little to no pressure to the body or limbs and did not cause skin abrasions. Moreover, straitjackets allowed some freedom of movement. Unlike patients anchored to a chair or bed by straps or handcuffs, those in straitjackets could walk. Some registered nurse specialists even recommended restrained individuals stroll outdoors, thereby reaping the benefits of both control and fresh air.

Despite its popular consideration as humane, straitjackets were misused. Over time, asylums filled with patients and lacked adequate staff to provide proper care. The attendants were often ill-trained to work with the mentally ill and resorted to restraints to maintain order and calm. In fact, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some prisons even used straitjackets to punish or torture inmates.

Modified variants of the garment are still in use. A particular brand of straitjacket is called an "Argentino" suit, manufactured by PSP Argentino Inc. In Canada in 2015, there was a class action lawsuit that won over the misuse of the restraint.

Security
The security of a straitjacket depends very much on its size, which should be as small as practicable to be secure. A tight jacket at the chest and armpits will make it difficult for the wearer to pull the arms out of the sleeves.

The sleeves of the jacket are sewn shut at the ends—a significant restraint in itself because it restrains the use of the hands. The arms are folded across the front, with the ends of the sleeves wrapping around to fasten or tie behind the back. On some jackets, the sleeve-ends are anchored to the garment to allow the fastening or knot to rotate away from the wearer's hands as they move their arms, making it more difficult to undo. Some straitjackets are designed to have the person's arms crossed behind them rather than in front to ensure further restraint.

Most jackets feature a crotch-strap to prevent wearers from pulling off the jacket. Some bear loops at the front and/or sides; the sleeves are threaded through these to prevent the arms from being raised over the head. Friction buckles are used to fasten institutional jackets with webbing or cloth straps because they are difficult to open without a free pair of hands.

In stage magic, gimmicked jackets, made for magicians who practice escape stunts, omit arm loops, fasten with simpler buckles, and/or leave hidden openings in the sleeves.

Safety
Wearing an institutional straitjacket for long periods of time may cause pain for wearers. Blood pools in the elbows, causing swelling. The hands may become numb from lack of proper circulation. Bone and muscle stiffness causes the upper arms and shoulders to experience pain. Many wearers in these situations attempt to move and stretch their arms by thrashing around in their jackets, which is why institutions take great precautions, such as monitoring patients and conforming to strict protocols, when outfitting people in straitjackets.

Escape techniques
To remove a straitjacket with both back and crotch-straps, it is not necessary to be able to dislocate one's shoulders in order to gain the slack necessary to pull an arm out of the sleeves. The necessity of this ability was fictitiously created by Harry Houdini and his brother Hardeen to try to lessen the amount of competition. Houdini later in his career published his technical handling of the escape in a newspaper. Escape artists around the world commonly continue this rumor to "spice up" the escape. Without dislocating the shoulder, it is sometimes possible to get more room by pulling at the inside of the arms as they are being strapped or by keeping an elbow held outward to gain slack in the sleeves when the arm is relaxed. Another way to gain slack is to take and hold a deep breath while the jacket is being done up.

It is possible for one person to put a willing volunteer into a straitjacket, but it generally takes at least two people to straitjacket a struggling person. For a jacket without a front strap, the most common way to escape is to hoist the arms over the head before undoing the crotch strap and at last the strap at the back of the neck. This allows the jacket to simply be peeled off upward over the head. The straitjacket escape was popularized by Houdini, who "discovered" it. Houdini first did it behind a curtain, forcing the audience to listen to thumps while watching a billowing curtain for many minutes. He found the trick went over better when the audience could see his struggles. In a few of his later and more popular acts, he performed the straitjacket escape while hung upside down from a crane, and also did the same when placed in a sealed milk can which was filled. Houdini's (and many other illusionists) acts showed the straitjacket in action in a variety of ways.

Fastest regulated Posey straitjacket escape
The official "Fastest Escape from a Regulated Posey Straitjacket" is 2.84 seconds, set by Danilo Audiello at the Studio Fleming Medicina Generale, Foggia, Italy, on 11 August 2014.

Other speed/difficult straitjacket escape records and attempts
Straitjacket escape is one of the most sensational and famous magicians' tricks; it was a staple in illusionist Harry Houdini's act. Thus, new world records for straitjacket escape are constantly being attempted, in various ways and with various degrees of difficulty added. Some of the more newsworthy attempts and successes include:

 * On Mindfreak, Criss Angel set a world record when he escaped from two straitjackets at once while hanging from a crane over Bourbon Street in New Orleans.
 * On the 1980s weekly television show Dick Clark's Live Wednesday, Steve "Mr. Escape" Baker successfully escaped from two straitjackets while hanging upside down over the stage. His first attempt ended in a minor muscle injury; however, he repeated the stunt and was successful.
 * On September 27, 2003, James Peters (UK) escaped from a Posey straitjacket 193 times in eight hours at YMCA Chelmsford, in Essex.
 * On January 8, 2005, at the Arndale Centre, Manchester UK, David Straitjacket set the Guinness World Record for the fastest straitjacket escape in a time of 81.24 seconds.
 * On June 19, 2005, Ben Bradshaw from Australia performed a Posey straitjacket escape using four backstraps, an arm loop, a crotch strap, arm straps and self-tightening clasps. He managed to escape in a time of 50.08 seconds on the Guinness World Records studio in Sydney, beating the previous 81.24-second record by David Straitjacket.
 * On August 5, 2006, Michal Angelo set a new record by escaping from a regulation straitjacket while being fully submerged under water in a time of 29.1 seconds, beating the previous 38.59 second record by Ben Bradshaw.
 * Jonathan Edmiston "Danger Nate" set a new Guinness World Record for "Fastest Straitjacket Escape" using a Posey straitjacket with the front arm loop, side arm loops, and pelvic strap in a time of 20.72 seconds on July 4, 2007, at the Independence Day Celebration on the US Naval Base in Yokosuka, Japan.
 * Matt the Knife set a new Guinness World Record for "Fastest Escape from a Straitjacket" using a Posey straitjacket with the front arm loop, side arm loops, and pelvic strap in a time of 18.8 seconds on September 17, 2007, at The Media Hotel in Beijing, China.
 * On October 8, 2007, American Cliff Gerstman escaped from a straitjacket while floating in zero gravity. The escape was performed in an airplane flown by Zero G Inc. and sponsored by Northrop Grumman. This was the world's first zero gravity straitjacket escape and took 40 seconds to complete.
 * On September 4, 2010, on the Fox News channel show Fox & Friends, Alexanderia the Great set a record for an extreme straitjacket escape. She escaped a regulation straitjacket secured with 50 feet of 1/4 inch chain and 10 padlocks in 2:37.
 * On October 8, 2011, illusionist Lucas Wilson set a new Guinness World Record for fastest escape from a Posey straitjacket and chains, while in suspension. Lucas time was 19.2 seconds beating the previous record of 54.24 seconds.
 * On March 6, 2011, Roslyn Walker became the first person to escape from a regulation Posey straitjacket complete with front and side loops and have his arms secured behind his back during the Secret Escape Challenge meeting in Essex. It took him 14 minutes and 27 seconds to free himself.
 * On January 9, 2013, UK female escape artist Sofia Romero, also known as Sof Strait, set a new Guinness World Record for most straitjacket escapes in one hour. She escaped from a regulated Posey straitjacket 49 times consecutively on the set of Officially Amazing (Lion TV) at The Old Vic Tunnels in London, UK.
 * On July 23, 2013, Alexanderia the Great performed an underwater straitjacket escape in a small bullet-proof clear tank in full view for America's Got Talent, live on stage at Radio City Music Hall. Billed as a combination of two of Houdini's greatest escapes (The Straitjacket and The Milk Can or Water Cell escapes), Alexanderia was put into a regulation Houdini straitjacket, with five leather straps including a crotch strap. The straitjacket was then secured with an additional 25 feet of 1/4-inch steel chain. A padlock was secured each time the chains were wrapped around her body and arms, resulting in a total of five padlocks. Alexanderia then went into a small (3x3) clear bullet-proof (Lexan) tank filled with water. The lid to the tank was padlocked shut, forcing her underwater with no way to breathe. Unlike any of Houdini's Milk Can or Water Cell escapes, no curtains were used to hide the method of escape.

title: Straitjacket


text:
Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die!

Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! is the ninth studio album released by British band Jethro Tull, recorded in December 1975 and released in 1976. It is the first album to include bassist John Glascock who also contributes with backing vocals. Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! is the last Jethro Tull concept album, which follows the story of Ray Lomas, an aging rocker who finds fame with the changes of musical trends. It was Jethro Tull's only album of the 1970s not to achieve Gold certification.

Recording
Like their previous album, Minstrel in the Gallery, the band recorded the album in the Maison Rouge Mobile Studio. They recorded "Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die" and "The Chequered Flag (Dead or Alive)" along with the outtakes "Salamander's Rag Time", "Commercial Traveller" and "Advertising Man (Unfinished backing track)" on 19 and 20 November 1975, "Big Dipper" on 3 January 1976, "Pied Piper" and "Quizz Kid" on 4 and 5 January, "Taxi Grab", "Pied Piper", "Crazed Institution" and "Old Rocker (Quizz Kid intro)" on 8 January, "From a Dead Beat to an Old Greaser", "Salamander" and "Pied Piper" along with the outtake "A Small Cigar (acoustic version)" on 12 January, and finally "Bad-Eyed and Loveless" along with the outtake "A Small Cigar (orchestral version)" on 27 January 1976.

Background
Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson says the point of the album was to illustrate how his style of music may go out of popularity with every other fashion and fad, but he is determined that if he sticks to it, everything comes back around and the style will rise again.

Ian Anderson explains that the concept came from the turmoil of the rise of the punk movement, and was not meant to be autobiographical of him as an ageing songwriter, although "some members of the press took the album as our attempt to 'get with' the punks". Anderson also stated that the basis of the concept is "to point out that this business [music, fashion] is cyclic, and that if you stick around long enough, you do come into fashion again."

Concept
Originally intended to be a rock musical, the story would follow an aging and retired rock star named Ray Lomas - winning money in a 'Quizz' show, trying to commit suicide and waking up years later to find out that the grease fashion has returned. Although much of the album concept is only explained in the cartoons printed in the sleeves, there are changes in the plot or in details between the cartoons and the music.

A clip of the title track was released in the Slipstream video, which returned to much of the original album's concept.

Critical reception
Rolling Stone complained about the "muddled story" of the album, saying that "Ian Anderson should stick to music, because he most definitely is not a storyteller." Nevertheless, the same review praised Anderson's skill at musical composition, and the guitar solos of Martin Barre.

Chris Welch, writing for Melody Maker, gave a mixed review, saying that he "long(ed) for the beat of Barriemore Barlow to break free, or the guitar of Martin Barre to swoop", at the same time he praised Anderson's poetics.

AllMusic's review called the album "one of the minor efforts in the [Jethro Tull] catalogue".

Releases
Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! was remastered in 2002 and the CD version contains two bonus tracks that were cut from the original LP, "Small Cigar" and "Strip Cartoon".

The album has been released in a box set called 'Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young to Die! - The TV Special Edition' in November 2015. The box set contains previously unreleased tracks and outtakes of songs from the album remixed by Steven Wilson, besides an 80-page booklet telling the story of the recording and the video of the special TV show recorded in 1976 and available officially for the first time.

2002 Remaster

 * "A Small Cigar" originally appeared on the 1993 album Nightcap.
 * "Strip Cartoon" was first released as the b-side of the 1977 single "The Whistler" (from the Songs From The Wood album); it made its LP & CD debut on the 1988 box set 20 Years of Jethro Tull.

Personnel

 * Jethro Tull
 * Ian Anderson – lead vocals, acoustic guitar, flute, harmonica, additional electric guitar and percussion
 * Martin Barre – electric guitar
 * John Evan – piano, keyboards
 * John Glascock – backing vocals, bass guitar
 * Barriemore Barlow – drums, percussion

Orchestrations by Dee Palmer. Orchestra conducted by Dee Palmer.
 * Additional musicians
 * Dee Palmer – saxophone (on track 5), Vako Orchestron, piano (on track 11)
 * Maddy Prior – backing vocals (on track 8)
 * Angela Allen – backing vocals (on tracks 2 & 7)

 * Additional personnel
 * Robin Black – sound engineer
 * Michael Farrell – cover design, illustrations
 * David Gibbons – design, illustrations


text:
Talk:Long Live Rock 'n' Roll

Untitled
"were appeared"? Also song titles should be in quotes,Ortolan88

Also need to decide how to spell the title! Rock 'n' Roll, Rock 'N' Roll, Rock & Roll or Rock and Roll ??? --Auximines 16:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The cover art suggests the first option is correct. - Lee (talk)  16:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the FOURTH LP not the third. Russtnail 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Daisley and David Stone
The article needs to tell which songs Bob Daisley and David Stone appeared on. Gringo300 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was my link and editing removed?
The list metal rules put together of "The top 500 heavy metal albums" was used on Metallica's Master of Puppets page. If it was fine on that page than why was it remove here(and also on GNR's Appetite for Destruction page).-- 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs) :That link is not used on the Master of Puppets article as a reference nor should it be used anywhere for a reference. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Long Live Rock 'n' Roll


text:
Talk:Straitjacket

Untitled
Nice start. Isn't straitjacket the most common form? --Mrwojo 20:11 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Webster's has straitjacket and straightjacket; Random House has straitjacket and strait-jacket; OED has strait jacket and strait waistcoat. Though an etymological error, I suppose straightjacket is inevitable, because the thing keeps you straight.  If anyone rewords this, remember that alternate forms of the article title are also bolded. Ortolan88
 * Actually it's called a straitjacket because it keeps you confined (ie, you're in straits). --user.lain 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly. A page exists for barely FIFTEEN minutes and BANG! there's a link to bloody sexual bondage on it. Is there ANYTHING you freaks DON'T use to get your rocks off? Can I create an article on trowels without fear of this phenomenon, or does someone get off on those? (end rant) -- Tarquin 20:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree that much more could be said about the institutional use and history of straitjackets. Arguably even Houdini and straitjackets is a more encyclopedic topic than BDSM and straitjackets. I guess it's on my list now for whenever I get past the other eight dozen topics on my list Dystopos 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ehem you can personally dislike it all you want but that doesn't mean that people don't like it.

A question - there's an overabundance of BDSM-referenced material in wikipedia. Is it really appropriate to have a fetish-oriented picture on a page that has very little material realted to it, in particular when there is already a sufficient image showing a posey jacket? I think the 'leather jacket' picture is gratuitous and unnecessary, particularly in the context of the article. dbs 16:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Removal
I know that lots of people are interested in escapology and might want to try to get out of a straight jacket themselves, but I don't think that disclosing removal techniques on the internet is the best thing to do. Opinions?--Maier 03 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "not the best thing to do". --user.lain 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you state why you believe removal techniques in a public forum are inappropriate or should not be published? These techniques are available in many many available formats, from magic books up through some simple google searches.  Why should it not be documented here?  dbs 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late response... Point taken. I guess it is common knowledge, I'm just one that doesn't like the thought of Wikipedia being liable for anything. That's all.--Maier 03 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The escape method that you have is simply wrong and dangerous. The part about "dislocating a shoulder" was fictitiously created by "Harry Houdini" and his brother "The Great Hardin" to try to lessen the amount of competition. Harry Houdini later in his career published his technical handling of the escape in a newspaper. To this date, both Hollywood and escape artists around the world continue this rumor to "spice up" the escape. Although, I am not a fan of exposing the truth on how the trick is really done, should we allow a rumor to continue here and possibly risk hurting a would be beginner "escape artist"? I am only here to inform you, I leave it in your hands if you wish to edit it out. LondonTaxi (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
In episode 12 of Heroes, Godsend, NIkki/Jessica Sanders is put into a straitjacket and sedated. This could be added into the 'Popular Culture' section, but its just a thought.--Arwen undomiel 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Colour-coded collars
I read that Posey jackets have different coloured collar loops depending on size. Does anyone know what colour means what? Lady BlahDeBlah 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The color labels the size (red = smallest, then green, yellow and blue). 193.190.253.148 06:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Real" use of straightjackets?
I wonder whether and in what places and circumstances straightjackets are still used today, aside from magic shows and bondage sex activities? Are these still in use in hospitals, psychiatric institutions, and law enforcement? Why or why not?

 * This is a good question and one the article should address. I believe they are not still in use, but I don't know how to substantiate it. Шизомби 19:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It is impossible to prove a negative but I can tell you that no mental health organization in the US would use it as it would fail JCAHO (ergo, no insurance reimbursement). As someone who has practiced in both the US and Canada for the past decade I can say I have never seen one of these devices. --70.167.14.194 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Straitjackets are still in use in many countries including the USA and Spain . In the USA you need a doctor's prescription in order to obtain a straitjacket. The Posey straitjacket is still used in institutions in various states to restrain patients who could potentially harm themselves or others. If they weren't still being used in large enough quantities why would Posey still manufacture them ? A variety of restraints are used in US institutions not just straitjackets including locking wrist and ankle restraints. According to the Telegraph the Spanish use straitjackets on illegal immigrants.

History?
This article would really benefit from a "history" section regarding the design and use of the item. Chubbles 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Osawatomie State Hospital
Just reading through the article, the whole Osawatomie State Hospital section feels oddly tangential - the focus completely and awkwardly shifts, 'such was the case at Osawatomie...' is too narratorial. This information is only useful for people interesting in Osawatomie, not for anyone curious about straitjackets in general. On a sidenote the whole page could do with some references. 89.243.186.5 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Zippo

Straitjacket as a fashion Item.
Should this be made as a section? Zazaban 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Penal use
I came to this article after reading Jack Black's "You Can't Win", where he says he was punished/tortured while in a prison by being made to wear a straitjacket, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this. Does anyone know anything about this? If it's true it would be a valuable addition to the article, and if not then a paragraph disclaming the use of straitjackets as penal punishments/torture might be worthwhile. 195.137.91.247 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The only issue would be whether it is a reliable/useful source or not. Dared111 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page?
Could we get a Disambiguation Page for this? If someone tries to find a 1964 Joan Crawford movie called "Strait-Jacket" and they don't type in the hyphen, that is difficult to find. I am new to Wikipedia. How do I make a Disambiguation Page? Thanks.LA Movie Buff (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Use in mental health institutions
Having spent a significant amount of my professional life in UK mental health care I must seek some references for the claims made in the article about their use in these establishments. The article states that straitjackets were used in "the cure of mental illness". In what way does restraining a mentally ill person cure them? There are further claims about their use in understaffed asylums. This claim needs a citation. On the face of it the idea seems plausible but if you think the whole thing through it is not a viable concept given the number of people presumably required to initially 'jacket' a violent patient. My experience and personal investigation indicate that the press and other media have (for obvious reasons) exaggerated the amount of violence experienced in mental health hospitals and clinics. The idea that these garments were used "extensively" certainly requires a reference. Richard Avery (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It looks like the entire section on history may have been copied from the Kansas State Historical Society's webpage. Looking over the article's history, I found that the section was added in an edit on 13 August 2007.  The wording of the older version is identical to the other webpage, and includes the language about Kansas history. 173.66.232.236 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Please just promise me never again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriously mentally ill (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of "See also"
The following items were added as a "See also" section. Given that the straitjacket is a psychiatric device in first place, I find that selection too biased to include without discussion, hence I revert this recent edit. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Handcuffs
 * Legcuffs
 * Thumbcuffs
 * Bondage cuffs
 * BDSM
 * Testicle cuffs

psychiatric belt buckle?
The last paragraph in History is unclear. The belt buckle article doesn't list psychiatric uses, and a Google search for "psychiatric belt buckle" didn't give any results that seemed to fit in the context. Might the reference be to body belts? BitterGrey (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Bump. The link provides no information. Can we get some clarification? 66.87.71.197 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

World Records Additions?
Should there be an expansion to the listings for record-escapes based on alterations? For example: escaping a straitjacket while chained and upside down, as this record was beaten recently by 21 year-old Lucas Wilson of Port Dover, Ontario, Canada. While the situation of the escape is changed slightly, the main focus is still on escaping from a straitjacket -- Redterror117 01:16, 01 November 2011 (UTC)

Posey
This word/name is used without any explanation. I thought it was a "style," but a comment here on the talk page indicates it is a brand name. I think this should be made clear on the page itself. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Straitjacket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080921052025/http://chk-bicetre.scola.ac-paris.fr:80/histoire/historique/documents/textes/lancien-regime.htm to http://chk-bicetre.scola.ac-paris.fr/histoire/historique/documents/textes/lancien-regime.htm#alienes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Compulsive masturbation
It's not uncommon among the institutionalized population to find a few compulsive masturbators, which seems to disturb the white coats.

Its most typical use is restraining people who may cause harm to themselves or others.

Is that euphemistic?

Self-harm of this nature was never considered a problem in the sexually permissive Georgian age?

This has nothing at all to do with the excessively long sleeves? — MaxEnt 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"ineffective" and thrashing
I can't find the edit in the history, but the paragraph on thrashing around to improve blood flow used to contain a reference to this being an ineffectual method of relieving pooling blood - now there's an opinion with no citation about how all institutions are very careful to monitor patients etc. feels out of place. 82.47.98.38 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Legality and Present-Day Usage?
I feel like the page is missing information when it comes to contemporary legality and usage of straitjackets (like, are they still in frequent use and if so, where?) that could really help provide context. I'mma put up a template to that effect. 174.0.253.201 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Straitjacket


text:
Philip I Philadelphus

Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus (Φίλιππος Ἐπιφανής Φιλάδελφος; between 124 and 109 BC–83 or 75 BC) was a Hellenistic Seleucid monarch who reigned as the king of Syria from 94 to either 83 or 75 BC. The son of Antiochus VIII and his wife Tryphaena, he spent his early life in a period of civil war between his father and his uncle Antiochus IX. The conflict ended with the assassination of Antiochus VIII; Antiochus IX took power in the Syrian capital Antioch, but soon fell in battle with Antiochus VIII's eldest son Seleucus VI.

After the murder of Seleucus VI in 94 BC, Philip I became king with his twin brother Antiochus XI, and planned to avenge Seleucus VI. In 93 BC Antiochus XI took Antioch from Antiochus IX's son Antiochus X. Antiochus XI became the senior king, and Philip I remained in a base in Cilicia. Antiochus X returned and killed Antiochus XI that year. Philip I then allied with his younger brother Demetrius III, who was based in Damascus. Antiochus X was probably killed in 88 BC. Demetrius III took the capital and besieged Philip I in Beroea (Aleppo), but the latter prevailed and took Antioch; their youngest brother Antiochus XII took Damascus.

Philip I tried unsuccessfully to take Damascus for himself, after which he disappears from the historical record; there is no information about when or how he died. The Antiochenes, apparently refusing to accept Philip I's minor son Philip II as his successor, invited Tigranes II of Armenia to take the city. While the invasion of Tigranes II is traditionally dated to 83 BC, the year most scholars agree on for Philip I's death, the conflict may have taken place in 74 BC. Numismatic evidence and clues in ancient contemporary literature indicate that Philip I might have died in 75 BC, giving Antiochus X's widow Cleopatra Selene and her son Antiochus XIII, who probably took control of the south following the death of Antiochus XII in 82 BC, a year of claiming the whole kingdom. Philip I initiated monetary reforms, and his coins remained in circulation until the Romans conquered Syria in 64 BC. Thereafter, Roman authorities in Syria continued to issue coins modeled on Philip I's coins, including his portrait, until 13 BC.

Background, name and early life
The Seleucid dynasty which ruled Syria following the death of Alexander the Great was plagued by dynastic feuds during the 2nd century BC, exacerbated by Ptolemaic and Roman interference. Dynastic marriage was used to maintain a degree of peace between Ptolemaic Egypt and Syria; Ptolemaic princess Cleopatra Thea became the consort of three successive Syrian kings in 150, 145 and 138 BC. Syria gradually disintegrated due to constant civil wars, as the Seleucid kings and their heirs fought for power, tearing the country apart. This lasted until about 123 BC, when Antiochus VIII provided a degree of stability which lasted for a decade until his brother Antiochus IX declared himself king.

With his Ptolemaic wife Tryphaena, whom he married in 124 BC, Antiochus VIII fathered five sons: Seleucus VI, the eldest; Antiochus XI and Philip I, who were apparently twins; their younger brother, Demetrius III; and the youngest, Antiochus XII. The name Philip (Greek Phílippos) means "lover of horses". Seleucid kings were mostly named Seleucus and Antiochus; "Philip" was used by the Antigonid dynasty as a royal name, and its use by the Seleucids, who were descended from the Antigonids through Queen Stratonice, was probably meant to signify that they were heirs of the latter. The war with Antiochus IX claimed Tryphaena's life in 109 BC. Following Antiochus VIII's assassination in 96 BC, his second wife, Tryphaena's sister Cleopatra Selene, married Antiochus IX, who took Antioch. Antiochus VIII's sons did not submit to their uncle; Seleucus VI took Antioch in 95 BC after killing Antiochus IX, while Demetrius III seized and ruled Damascus. Antiochus IX's son Antiochus X married Cleopatra Selene and defeated Seleucus VI, who escaped to Mopsuestia, where he was killed by rebels in 94 BC.

Reign
Philip I and Antiochus XI probably resided in Cilicia during Seleucus VI's reign. In 94 BC, shortly after their brother's death, Philip I and Antiochus XI minted jugate coins with their portraits on the obverse. The historian Alfred Bellinger suggested that their base of operations was a coastal city north of Antioch, but according to the numismatist Arthur Houghton, Beroea is a stronger candidate because the city's rulers were Philip I's allies. All the jugate coins were minted in Cilicia; the series with the most numerous surviving specimens was probably issued in Tarsus, making it the likely base of operations. Antiochus XI was portrayed in front of his brother, indicating that he was the senior king. Deriving their legitimacy from Antiochus VIII, the brothers were depicted on the coins with exaggerated aquiline noses similar to their father. Hellenistic kings did not use regnal numbers, which is a modern practise; instead, they used epithets to distinguish themselves from similarly named monarchs. On his coins, Philip I used the epithets Philadelphus (sibling-loving) and Epiphanes (the glorious, or illustrious). The brothers intended to avenge Seleucus VI; according to the fourth century writer Eusebius, they sacked Mopsuestia and destroyed it.

Reign in Cilicia and Beroea
While Philip I remained in Cilicia, Antiochus XI advanced on Antioch and drove Antiochus X from the city in the beginning of 93 BC. Philip I did not live in the Syrian metropolis and left Antiochus XI as master of the capital. By autumn 93 BC, Antiochus X regrouped and defeated Antiochus XI, who drowned in the Orontes. The first century historian Josephus mentioned only Antiochus XI in the battle, but Eusebius wrote that Philip I was also present. Bellinger believed that Philip I's troops participated, but that he remained behind at his base, since only Antiochus XI was killed. Following the defeat, Philip I is thought to have retreated to his capital, which was probably the same base from which he and his brother operated when they first prepared to avenge Seleucus VI. Antiochus X eventually controlled Cilicia, and Philip I probably took Beroea as his base.

Demetrius III may have marched north to support Antiochus XI in the battle of 93 BC, and he certainly supported Philip I in the struggle against Antiochus X. Eusebius wrote that Philip I defeated Antiochus X and replaced him in the capital in 93/92 BC (220 SE (Seleucid year)). However, Eusebius does not note the reign of Antiochus XI or mention Demetrius III. The account contradicts archaeological evidence, represented in a market weight belonging to Antiochus X from 92 BC, and contains factual mistakes. The English minister and numismatist Edgar Rogers believed that Philip I ruled Antioch immediately after Antiochus XI, but suggestions that Philip I controlled Antioch before the demise of Antiochus X and Demetrius III can be dismissed; they contradict the numismatic evidence, and no ancient source claimed that Demetrius III, who actually succeeded Antiochus X in Antioch, had to push Philip I out of the city.

In any case, Antiochus X disappeared from the record after 92 BC, but could have remained in power until 224 SE (89/88 BC); he probably died fighting against Parthia. Taking advantage of Antiochus X's death, Demetrius III rushed to the capital and occupied it; this led Philip I to break his alliance with his brother. With most of Syria in the hands of Demetrius III, Philip I retreated to his base. In 88 BC, Demetrius III marched on Beroea for the final battle with Philip I. To raise the siege, Philip I's ally Straton, the ruler of Beroea, called on the Arab phylarch Aziz and the Parthian governor Mithridates Sinaces for help. The allies defeated Demetrius III, who was sent into captivity in Parthia. Any captive who was a citizen of Antioch was released without a ransom, a gesture which must have eased Philip I's occupation of Antioch.

Reign in the capital
Shortly after the battle, in late 88 BC or early 87 BC, Philip I entered the Syrian capital, and had Cilicia under his authority. He was faced with the need to replenish the empty treasury to rebuild a country destroyed after years of civil war, and in case a new pretender to the throne arose. Those factors, combined with the low estimates of annual coin dies used by Philip I's immediate predecessors in Antioch—Antiochus X (his second reign) and Demetrius III—compared with the general die estimates of late Seleucid kings, led numismatist Oliver D. Hoover to propose that Philip I simply re-coined his predecessors' coins and skewed their dies. This resulted in currency bearing Philip I's image, reduced in weight from the standard 1600 g to 15,65 g. This yielded a profit of half an obol on each older coin which was re-struck. Profit was, however, not the main aim of Philip I; it is more probable that he wanted to pay his troops with coins bearing his own image instead of that of his rivals. The recoinage was also necessary since Philip I's coins were reduced in weight and the king needed to enforce the use of his currency by removing his rivals' heavier coins out of circulation. Philip I may have adopted the New Seleucid era dating, which have the return of Antiochus VIII from his exile in Aspendos in 200 SE (113/112 BC) as a starting point; the traditional Seleucid era started in 1 SE (312/311 BC).

Philip I's position on the throne was insecure: Cleopatra Selene hid in Syria with Antiochus XIII, her son by Antiochus X, waiting for an opportunity to regain the throne, while Antiochus XII replaced Demetrius III in Damascus, but there is no evidence that he sought to compete with his brother for Antioch. According to Josephus, Philip I took advantage of Antiochus XII's absence in a campaign against Nabataea to seize Damascus. The governor of the city—Milesius, who opened the gates for the Philip I—was not given a suitable reward by his new master, leading him to wait until Philip I left the city; he then closed the gates, locking the king out until Antiochus XII returned. In the Seleucid dynasty, currency struck during campaigns against a rival (or usurper) showed the king with a beard. Antiochus XII was shown beardless for the first two years of his reign; in 228 SE (85/84 BC), he appeared with a beard, possibly related to Philip I's attack on Damascus. But since Antiochus XII did not march north against his brother, the hypothesis about a connection between Antiochus XII' beard and Philip I's attempt to take Damascus weakens; no coins of Philip I were struck in Damascus, indicating that his occupation of the city was brief.

End and succession
After the attack on Damascus, Philip I disappeared from ancient literature. Without proof, 83 BC is commonly accepted as Philip I's year of death by most scholars; he could have been buried in the Nikatoreion Mausoleum, Seleucia Pieria. Traditionally, Philip I is considered by most scholars to have been succeeded by Tigranes II of Armenia, who was invited by the people of Antioch despite the existence of Philip I's probably-minor son Philip II. The second century historian Appian assigned a fourteen-year reign to Tigranes II which ended in 69 BC, and most scholars accepted the ancient historian's version, hence the date 83 BC. The fate of Philip I is a source of debate in academic circles, as no clues regarding how, where, and when, his life ended, exist. Many theories were presented by different historians:
 * Escaped to Cilicia: An inscription of Philip II was found in Olba, the capital of a Cilician priestly principality. Historian Auguste Bouché-Leclercq concluded that Philip I could not have returned to the capital following his defeat in Damascus because the populace became weary of the endless Seleucid dynastic quarrels. Bouché-Leclercq conjectured, based on the inscription of his son, that Philip I might have escaped to Cilicia and died in the chaos caused by the Second Mithridatic War (83–81 BC) between Mithridates VI of Pontus and Rome. Another possibility is that Philip I was preparing to take back his throne after the death of Antiochus XII (d. 82 BC), but was caught off guard by the arrival of Tigranes II and put to death in Cilicia. Historian Theodora Stillwell MacKay suggested that Philip I fled to Olba following his confrontation with Antiochus XII. The epigraphers Josef Keil and Adolf Wilhelm suggested that Philip I stayed with the priest-prince of the city.
 * Peaceful long reign: according to Bellinger, the silence of ancient literature might be an indication of a peaceful reign that was perhaps facilitated by Philip I's alliance with Parthia; this would explain the massive amount of silver coinage produced by Philip I found as far as Dura-Europos, which was under Parthian rule. Appian's account is flawed, and contradicts contemporary accounts, notably the Roman statesman Cicero, who wrote in 75 BC that Cleopatra Selene sent Antiochus XIII to Rome to appeal for his right to the Egyptian throne; he did not have to appeal for his rights to Syria which, in the words of Cicero, he inherited from his ancestors. Cleopatra Selene and her son probably took advantage of Antiochus XII's death in 82 BC to assume control of the south; the statement of Cicero indicates that in 75 BC, Tigranes II was still not in control of Syria, for if he were, Antiochus XIII would have asked the Roman Senate for support to regain Syria, since Tigranes II was the son-in-law of Rome's enemy, Mithridates VI. Likewise, Philip I could not have been alive since Antiochus XIII went to Rome without having to assert his right to Syria.

 * The argument for a later Armenian invasion is corroborated by Josephus, who wrote that the Jews heard about the Armenian invasion and Tigranes II's plans to attack Judea only during the reign of the Hasmonean queen Salome Alexandra, which began in 76 BC; it would be odd if Tigranes II took control of Syria in 83 BC and the Jews learned about it only after 76 BC. Another point of argument is the massive quantity of coinage left by Philip I, which could not have been produced if his reign was short and ended in 83 BC. In light of this, Hoover proposed 75 BC, or slightly earlier, as Philip I's last year; this would be in line with Cicero's statement about Antiochus XIII. Hoover suggested the year 74 BC as the date of Tigranes II's invasion, giving Cleopatra Selene and her son time to claim the whole country.

Legacy
Philip I's coins were still in circulation when the Romans annexed Syria in 64 BC. The first Roman coins struck in Syria were copies of Philip I's coins, and bore his image with the monogram of the Roman governor. The first issue was in 57 BC under governor Aulus Gabinius, and the last series of Philip I's posthumous coins was minted in 13 BC. The Romans may have considered Philip I the last legitimate Seleucid king, a theory held by Kevin Butcher and other scholars. Hoover opted for a simpler answer; Philip I's coins were the most numerous and earlier Seleucid coin models were destroyed, making it economically sensible for the Romans to continue Philip I's model. Anomalous coins of Philip, differing from his standard lifetime models but similar to the later Roman Philip coins, indicate that they might have been minted by the autonomous city of Antioch between 64 and 58 BC before governor Aulus Gabinius issued his Philipean coins, making it viable for the Romans to continue minting coins already being struck.

Family tree

 * style="text-align: left;"|Citations:
 * style="text-align: left;"|Citations:

title: Philip I Philadelphus


text:
Handcuffs

Handcuffs are restraint devices designed to secure an individual's wrists in proximity to each other. They comprise two parts, linked together by a chain, a hinge, or rigid bar. Each cuff has a rotating arm which engages with a ratchet that prevents it from being opened once closed around a person's wrist. Without a key, handcuffs cannot be removed without specialist knowledge, and a handcuffed person cannot move their wrists more than a few centimetres or inches apart, making many tasks difficult or impossible.

Handcuffs are frequently used by law enforcement agencies worldwide to prevent suspected criminals from escaping from police custody.

Metal handcuffs
There are three main types of contemporary metal handcuffs: chain (cuffs are held together by a short chain), hinged (since hinged handcuffs permit less movement than a chain cuff, they are generally considered to be more secure), and rigid solid bar handcuffs. While bulkier to carry, rigid handcuffs permit several variations in cuffing. Hiatts Speedcuffs are rigid handcuffs used by most police forces in the United Kingdom. Both rigid and hinged cuffs can be used one-handed to apply pain-compliance/control techniques that are not workable with the chain type of cuff. Various accessories are available to improve the security or increase the rigidity of handcuffs, including boxes that fit over the chain or hinge and can themselves be locked with a padlock.

In 1933 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police used a type called "Mitten Handcuffs" to prevent criminals from being able to grab an object like the officer's gun. While used by some in law enforcement it was never popular.

Handcuffs may be manufactured from various metals, including carbon steel, stainless steel and aluminium, or from synthetic polymers.

Sometimes two pairs of handcuffs are needed to restrain a person with an exceptionally large waistline because the hands cannot be brought close enough together; in this case, one cuff on one pair of handcuffs is handcuffed to one of the cuffs on the other pair, and then the remaining open handcuff on each pair is applied to the person's wrists. Oversized handcuffs are available from a number of manufacturers.

The National Museum of Australia has a number of handcuffs in its collection dating from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These include 'T'-type 'Come Along', 'D'-type and 'Figure-8' handcuffs.

Plastic handcuffs
Plastic restraints, known as wrist ties, riot cuffs, plasticuffs, flexicuffs, flex-cuffs, tri-fold cuffs, zapstraps, zipcuffs, or zip-strips, are lightweight, disposable plastic strips resembling electrical cable ties. They can be carried in large quantities by soldiers and police and are therefore well-suited for situations where many may be needed, such as during large-scale protests and riots. In recent years, airlines have begun to carry plastic handcuffs as a way to restrain disruptive passengers. Disposable restraints could be considered to be cost-inefficient; they cannot be loosened, and must be cut off to permit a restrained subject to be fingerprinted, or to attend to bodily functions. It is not unheard of for a single subject to receive five or more sets of disposable restraints in their first few hours in custody.

However, aforementioned usage means that cheap handcuffs are available in situations where steel ones would normally lie unused for long times. Recent products have been introduced that serve to address this concern, including disposable plastic restraints that can be opened or loosened with a key; more expensive than conventional plastic restraints, they can only be used a very limited number of times, and are not as strong as conventional disposable restraints, let alone modern metal handcuffs. In addition, plastic restraints are believed by many to be more likely to inflict nerve or soft-tissue damage to the wearer than metal handcuffs.

Legcuffs

Legcuffs are similar to handcuffs, but have a larger inner perimeter so that they fit around a person's ankles. Some models consist of elliptically contoured cuffs so that they widely adapt to the anatomy of the ankle, minimizing pressure on the Achilles' tendon. Standard-type leg irons have a longer chain connecting the two cuffs compared to handcuffs.

On occasions when a suspect exhibits extremely aggressive behavior, leg irons may be used in addition to handcuffs; sometimes the chain connecting the leg irons to one another is looped around the chain of the handcuffs, and then the leg irons are applied, resulting in the person being "hog-tied". In a few rare cases, hog-tied persons lying on their stomachs have died from positional asphyxia, making the practice highly controversial, and leading to its being severely restricted, or even completely banned, in many localities.

Legcuffs are also used when transporting prisoners outside of a secure area to prevent attempts to escape. When being placed in standard legcuffs, the prisoner will still have the possibility to manage normal steps and can therefore walk independently, but is prevented from running. When the connecting chain between the legcuffs is shortened, the prisoner will have even difficulties to walk so that the flight risk is further minimized. In this case, the prisoner will have to be carried by the transporting officers or has to be moved in a wheelchair.

In some countries, prisoners are permanently shackled with legcuffs even when they are held in their cells. Such a long term use of leg shackles may soon result in pressure marks on the prisoner's ankles and will cause serious harm. Therefore, such a treatment of prisoners is commonly considered a cruel and unusual punishment.

Combinations
Some prisoners being transported from custody to outside locations, for appearances at court, to medical facilities, etc., will wear handcuffs augmented with a belly chain. In this type of arrangement a metal, leather, or canvas belt is attached to the waist, sometimes with a locking mechanism. The handcuffs are secured to the belly chain and the prisoner's hands are kept at waist level. This allows a relative degree of comfort for the prisoner during prolonged internment in the securing device, while providing a greater degree of restriction to movement than simply placing the handcuffs on the wrists in the front. When the handcuffs are concealed by a handcuff cover and secured at the prisoner's waist by a belly chain, this combination will result in a rather more severe restraint and the restrained person may feel discomfort or even pain.

For added security, some transport restraints have a pair of leg irons connected to a pair of handcuffs or a belly chain by a longer connector chain. These combinations further restrict the detainee's freedom of movement and prevent them from escaping.

Double locks
Handcuffs with double locks have a detent which when engaged stops the cuff from ratcheting tighter to prevent the wearer from tightening them. Tightening could be intentional or by struggling; if tightened, the handcuffs may cause nerve damage or loss of circulation. Also some wearers could tighten the cuffs to attempt an escape by having the officer loosen the cuffs and attempting to escape while the cuffs are loose. Double locks also make picking the locks more difficult.

There exist three kinds of double locks as described in a Smith & Wesson brochure:

 * Lever lock: Movement of a lever on the cuff causes the detent to move into a position that locks the bolt. No tool is required to double lock this type of cuff.
 * Push pin lock: A small peg on the key is inserted endwise into a hole to engage the detent.
 * Slot lock: These also are actuated with a peg, but in this case it is inserted into a slot and moved sideways to engage the detent.

Double locks are generally disengaged by inserting the key and rotating it in the opposite direction from that used to unlock the cuff.

Keys
Most modern handcuffs in the United States, the United Kingdom and Latin America can be opened with the same standard universal handcuff key. This allows for easier transport of prisoners. However, there are handcuff makers who use keys based on different standards. Maximum security handcuffs require special keys. Handcuff keys usually do not work with thumbcuffs. The Cuff Lock handcuff key padlock uses this same standard key.

To prevent the restrained person from eventually opening the handcuffs with a handcuff key, a handcuff cover may be used to conceal the keyholes of the handcuffs.

Hinged and Rigid Handcuffs
When applied behind the back with keyholes away from the hands, handcuffs connected by a hinge or rigid bar are much more secure than handcuffs connected by a chain. Even with a key in hand it is difficult or impossible to reach the keyholes with it.

Hand positioning
In the past, police officers typically handcuffed an arrested person with their hands in front, but since approximately the mid-1960s behind-the-back handcuffing has been the standard. The vast majority of police academies in the United States today also teach their recruits to apply handcuffs so that the palms of the suspect's hands face outward after the handcuffs are applied. The Jacksonville, Florida Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and others are notable exceptions, as they favor palms-together handcuffing. This helps prevent radial neuropathy or handcuff neuropathy during extended periods of restraint. Suspects are handcuffed with the keyholes facing up (away from the hands) to make it difficult to open them even with a key or improvised lock-pick.

Because a person's hands are used in breaking falls, being handcuffed introduces a significant risk of injury if the prisoner trips or stumbles, in addition to injuries sustained from overly tight handcuffs causing handcuff neuropathy. Police officers having custody of the person need to be ready to catch a stumbling prisoner.

As soon as restraints go on, the officer has full liability. The risk of the prisoner losing balance is higher if the hands are handcuffed behind the back than if they are handcuffed in front; however, the risk of using fisted hands together as a weapon increases with hands in front.

Escaping
Since handcuffs are only intended as temporary restraints, they are not the most complicated of locks.

There are several ways of escaping from handcuffs:

 * 1) slipping hands out when the hands are smaller than the wrist
 * 2) lock picking
 * 3) releasing the pawl with a shim
 * 4) opening the handcuffs with a duplicate key, often hidden on the body of the performer before the performance.

The above methods are often used in escapology. As most people's hands are larger than their wrists, the first method was much easier before the invention of modern ratchet cuffs, which can be adjusted to a variety of sizes. Modern handcuffs are generally ratcheted until they are too tight to be slipped off the hands. However, slipping out of ratchet cuffs is still possible. During his shows, Harry Houdini was frequently secured with multiple pairs of handcuffs. Any pair that was too difficult to be picked was placed on his upper arms. Being very muscular, his upper arms were far larger than his hands. Once he had picked the locks on the lower pairs of handcuffs, the upper pair could simply be slipped off.

It is also technically possible to break free from handcuffs by applying massive amounts of force from one's arms to cause the device to split apart or loosen enough to squeeze one's hands through; however, this takes exceptional strength (especially with handcuffs made of steel). This also puts an immense amount of pressure on the biceps and triceps muscles, and when tried by suspects (even unsuccessfully) can lead to injury, including bruising around the wrists, or tearing the muscles used (including pulling them off their attachments to the bones).

Another common method of escaping (or attempting to escape) from being handcuffed behind the back, is that one would, from a sitting or lying position, bring one's legs up as high upon one's torso as possible, then push one's arms down to bring the handcuffs below one's feet, finally pulling the handcuffs up using one's arms to the front of one's body. This can lead to awkward or painful positions depending on how the handcuffs were applied, and typically requires a good amount of flexibility. It can also be done from a standing position, where, with some degree of effort, the handcuffed hands are slid around the hips and down the buttocks to the feet; then sliding each foot up and over the cuffs. These maneuvers, and the reverse (otherwise impossible) maneuver of bringing the handcuffed hands up behind the back and forwards over the head and then down in front, can be done fairly easily by some people who were born without collarbones because of the inherited deformity called cleidocranial dysostosis.

From this position, one has a better chance of attempting to use a tool (such as a shim or lockpick) to work one's way out of the handcuffs.

National regulations regarding depiction of handcuffed suspects
In Japan, if an arrested suspect of crime was photographed or filmed while handcuffed, their hands have to be pixelated if it is used on TV or in the newspapers. This is because Kazuyoshi Miura, who had been arrested on suspicion of the murder of his wife, brought a successful case to court arguing that being pictured in handcuffs implied guilt, and had prejudiced the trial.

Similarly, in France, a law prohibits media from airing images of people in handcuffs, or otherwise restrained, before they have been convicted by a court. Also in Italy the Code of criminal procedure prohibits the publication of images of people deprived of personal liberty while they are handcuffed or subjected to other means of physical coercion. According to the Italian independent authority on data protection, the same prohibition applies when the image of the handcuffs is pixelated.

In Hong Kong, people being arrested and led away in handcuffs are usually given the chance by the policemen to have their heads covered by a black cloth bag.

In Sri Lanka, women are generally not handcuffed by the police.

The High Court in Windhoek, Namibia, prohibited in mid July 2020 the use of handcuffs under any circumstances, as it violates the constitution.

Use in BDSM
Police handcuffs are sometimes used in sexual bondage and BDSM activities. This is potentially unsafe, because they were not designed for this purpose, and their use can result in nerve injury (handcuff neuropathy) or other tissue damage. Bondage cuffs were designed specifically for this application. They were designed using the same model of soft restraints used on psychiatric patients because they can be worn for long periods of time. Many such models can be fastened shut with padlocks.

Metaphorical uses
Handcuffs are familiar enough for the word to be used in metaphors, e.g.:
 * Golden handcuffs – an incentive given to an employee by a firm, most or all of which must be repaid to the company if the employee leaves the firm within a specified period of time.
 * As a verb, meaning to be kept from doing something by another's action or inaction – "He said that his computer work is handcuffed by his internet provider's refusal to accept .zip files."
 * In fantasy football, one strategy is to have both a star player and his backup, or "handcuff", on a team's roster of players. If the star is injured, the handcuff will be his likely replacement.

Handcuffs gesture
In the 'handcuffs gesture' the arms are crossed at the wrists in front of the chest, to represent being handcuffed. Uses are:
 * By police, to mean "Allow yourself to be handcuffed".
 * It has been known to be used to mean "We support our comrade who has been arrested".
 * By José Mourinho at a football match at F.C. Internazionale Milano.

title: Handcuffs


text:
Talk:Beru Whitesun

In A New Hope, she and Beru were killed by Imperial Stormtroopers.

I know nothing about Star Wars, but I got confused after reading the above sentence. the words she and Beru seem to refer to the same person: Beru Whitesun. Does Beru have to be replaced by Owen? D.D. 20:33 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yep. -- Arteitle 10:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beru Whitesun