Fine (penalty)

A fine or mulct is money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offence. The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance.[1]

Wheel Clamp warning sign Singapore
A warning sign in Singapore that states the fee for releasing vehicles that are immobilized with wheel clamps by private security in a non-public area.

The most usual use of the term is for financial punishments for the commission of crimes, especially minor crimes, or as the settlement of a claim. A synonym, typically used in civil law actions, is mulct.

One common example of a fine is money paid for violations of traffic laws. Currently in English common law, relatively small fines are used either in place of or alongside community service orders for low-level criminal offences. Larger fines are also given independently or alongside shorter prison sentences when the judge or magistrate considers a considerable amount of retribution is necessary, but there is unlikely to be significant danger to the public. For instance, fraud is often punished by very large fines since fraudsters are typically banned from the position or profession they abused to commit their crimes.

Fines can also be used as a form of tax. Money for bail may be applied toward a fine.

A day-fine is a fine that, above a minimum, is based on personal income[2].

Some fines are small, such as for loitering, for which fines range from about $25 to $100. In some areas of the United States (for example California, New York, Texas, and Washington D.C.), fines for petty crimes, such as criminal mischief (shouting in public places, projecting an object at a police car) range from $2500 to $5000.

Fines by country

England and Wales

In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "fine", except for the purposes of any enactment imposing a limit on the amount of any fine, includes any pecuniary penalty or pecuniary forfeiture or pecuniary compensation payable under a conviction.[3]

In section 32 of that Act, the expression "fine" includes a pecuniary penalty but does not include a pecuniary forfeiture or pecuniary compensation.[4]

In sections 15 to 32 and 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the expression "fine" includes any pecuniary penalty.[5]

In England, there is now a system whereby the court gives the offender a 'fine card' which is somewhat like a credit card; at any shop that has a paying-in machine he pays the value of the fine to the shop, which then uses the fine card to pass that money on to the court's bank account.

A related concept is the fixed penalty notice, a pecuniary penalty for some minor crimes that can be either accepted (instead of prosecution, thus saving time and paperwork, or taken to court for normal proceedings for that crime. While technically not a fine, which, under the Bill of Rights 1689, may be levied only following a conviction, it serves the same purpose of punishment.

Early examples of fines include the weregild or blood money payable under Anglo-Saxon common law for causing a death. The murderer would be expected to pay a sum of money or goods dependent on the social status of the victim.

See also English criminal law#General power to impose a fine on indictment.

The Netherlands

General information

The Dutch Criminal Code (Dutch: Wetboek van Strafrecht (WvSr)) doesn't contain specific amounts for fines for every violation of the law. Instead of that the Criminal Code provides six fine categories. Every penalty clause of the Criminal Code contains a fine category. The categories are:

Category Maximum height of the fine
Wetboek van Strafrecht (European Netherlands)[6]
Maximum height of the fine
Wetboek van Strafrecht BES (Caribbean Netherlands)
First €410 $280
Second €4.100 $2.800
Third €8.200 $5.600
Fourth €20.500 $14.000
Fifth €82.000 $56.000
Sixth €820.000 $560.000

These sums are only an upper limit, it's up to the judge or the prosecutor to determine the exact sum of the fine. However, the amount of the fine must be at least €3.[7] The sums of categories are always 1, 10, 20, 50, 200 and 2000 times the amount of the first category. In addition to the fine, the convict also has to pay an administration fee[8] of €9.[9] The amounts are established by the government, via a royal order.[7]

When the judge convicts an individual to a fine, the judge must also set a term of substitute imprisonment.[10] This substitute imprisonment will be executed in the case that the fine remains unpaid. The judge may count one day imprisonment for every unpaid €25,[11] however normally judges reckon one day for every €50 which stays unpaid. Though, the substitute imprisonment must be at least one day (even though the fine was €3) and cannot exceed one year (even though the fine was €100.000).[11]

Execution of a court imposed fine

Once a person is irrevocable convicted to a fine, it's up to the public prosecutor to collect the fine.[7] To do so, the cjib (centraal justiteel incassobureau (English: central judicial collection agency)) is established.

First, the CJIB will send the convict the fine. If the convict pays the fine the case is closed (by paying, the convict loses the right to go into appeal as well), if he doesn't, the case will be continued. The CJIB will then send the convict a reminder, though this reminder will contain an increment of €15.[12] If this doesn't lead to the payment of the fine, the CJIB will send another reminder, now with a raise of 20%, however, the raise must be at least €30.[13] When the fine continues to be unpaid, the CJIB will instruct a bailiff to collect the fine nonetheless. This bailiff may, for example, seize the convict's income and sell his possessions. If these measures do not result in the full collection of the fine, the bailiff will return the case to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will order the police to arrest the convict, in order to execute the earlier written substitute imprisonment. The length of the imprisonment will be percentage-wise reduced if the convict has paid a sum, but not the entire amount of the fine.[14] After the substitute imprisonment the convict will be a free man again. He also won't have to pay the fine anymore and the case will be closed.

Frequently committed traffic violations

Before 1 September 1990, all traffic violations were punished via the criminal law. The suspects were first offered a sort of plea bargain. This mostly contains a fine. If the suspect didn't pay the fine of this plea bargain, the public prosecutor had to open a criminal case, otherwise he wasn't authorized to collect the fine through force. The case had to be withdrawn when the capacity of the courts or the prosecutor's office didn't allow the start of a criminal case for a traffic violation. This was the case very often. This situation led to a negative spiral, because traffic offenders hoped and expected their case to be withdrawn, and didn't pay the plea bargain fine. This led to a growing pressure on the capacity of the courts, which causes more sepots (decisions not to prosecute). This encouraged more offenders not to pay, etc.

In order to stop this spiral, the secretary general of the justice department (at that time), Dr. Albert Mulder, designed a new system of law enforcement. Under this new system, the government acquired the right of summary foreclosure. The summary foreclosure means that the CJIB can execute the fine directly, unless the fined subject goes to appeal.

The system regarding frequently committed traffic violations is regulated by Administrative Enforcement of traffic Rules Act (Dutch: Wet administratiefrechtelijke handhaving verkeersvoorschriften (WAHV)). According to the WAHV the maximum sum of the administrative fine is the same as the maximum amount of the first category (Art. 2 section 3 WvSr Criminal Code).[15] The exact fine per violation is determined by an annex of the WAHV.[16] In addition to the fine, the fined subject will also have to pay €9[9] administration costs as well.[17] The amount of the administration costs will also be determined by the minister.[18]

Process of the administrative fine

Once a subject has been fined by an officer or photographed by a speed camera, he will receive a decision within four months.[19] This decision will contain a short description of the violation, the place and time the violation was committed and sum of the fine.[20] The subject will have two choices now. He can pay the fine or he can go into appeal. In contrast to the court imposed fine, when the subject has paid the fine, he will keep the right to go into appeal. The subject can go into appeal within six weeks.[21] In the first instance, the subject appeals to the public prosecutor.[22] The prosecutor shall withdraw the fine completely when he thinks the appellant has right. He will lower the sum of the fine if he thinks that the suspect is partially right. If the prosecutor thinks that the suspect isn't right, he will uphold the fine. As long as the prosecutor has not made a decision on the appeal, the suspect does not have to pay the fine yet.

Once the prosecutor has made a decision, the suspect will again have two choices. He can pay or he goes into appeal at the sub-district judge of his arrondissement (or the arrondissement of the place where the disputed violation was committed). But now, the suspect has to pay the fine as a surety.[23] If the suspect doesn't pay the surety, the judge will declare him inadmissible (thus the fine will be upheld).[23] The judge will have the same choices as the prosecutor. He can withdraw the fine, lower the fine, or uphold the fine.

If the (remaining) fine is higher than €70 and the suspect or/nor the prosecutor doesn't agree with the sub-district judge's verdict, the suspect or the prosecutor can go into appeal for the last time.[24] He does that at the court of appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden in Leeuwarden.[25] This appeal will be in writing, unless the appellant, per se, wants to do it orally.[26] If the fine is lower than €70, or the appellant's appeal is rejected in Leeuwarden, there will be no legal remedies anymore and the case will be closed. The appellant's surety will be transformed to a fine.[27]

See also


  1. ^ Bray, Samuel (2012). "Announcing Remedies". Cornell Law Review. 97. SSRN 1967184.
  2. ^ Friedman, GM (1983). "The West German Day-Fine System: A Possibility for the United States?". The University of Chicago Law Review. 50(1): 281.
  3. ^ The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 150(1)
  4. ^ The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 32(9)
  5. ^ The Criminal Law Act 1977, section 65(2) (as amended by paragraph 153 of Schedule 7 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980). This definition previously applied to section 14 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 before it was repealed by the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
  6. ^ Justitie, Ministerie van Veiligheid en. "Besluit van 10 november 2015 tot wijziging van de bedragen van de categorieën, bedoeld in artikel 23, vierde lid, van het Wetboek van Strafrecht".
  7. ^ a b c "Wetboek van Strafrecht, Artikel 23". (in Dutch). Retrieved 2019-07-02.
  8. ^ " - Regeling - Besluit tenuitvoerlegging geldboeten - BWBR0006717".
  9. ^ a b Justitie, Ministerie van Veiligheid en. "Regeling van de Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie van 19 oktober 2015 tot wijziging van de Regeling vaststelling administratiekosten 2012".
  10. ^ " - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854".
  11. ^ a b " - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854".
  12. ^ " - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854".
  13. ^ " - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854".
  14. ^ " - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854".
  15. ^ Art. 2 section 3 WAHV
  16. ^ Art. 2 section 1 WAHV
  17. ^ " - Regeling - Besluit administratiefrechtelijke handhaving verkeersvoorschriften 1994 - BWBR0006847".
  18. ^ Justitie, Ministerie van Veiligheid en. "Regeling van de Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie van 19 oktober 2015 tot wijziging van de Regeling vaststelling administratiekosten 2012".
  19. ^ Art. 4 section 2 Wahv
  20. ^ Art. 4 section 1 Wahv
  21. ^ " - Regeling - Algemene wet bestuursrecht - BWBR0005537".
  22. ^ Art. 6 section 1 Wahv
  23. ^ a b Art. 11 section 3 Wahv
  24. ^ Art. 14 section 1 Wahv
  25. ^ Art. 14 section 1 Wahv
  26. ^ Art. 20a section 1 Wahv
  27. ^ Art. 21 section 2 Wahv
1913 Eastern Suburbs season

The 1913 Eastern Suburbs DRLFC season was the 6th in the club's history. Competing in the New South Wales Rugby Football League's 1913 Premiership and by finishing the season at the top of the ladder, won their 3rd consecutive title. The club was therefore awarded the Royal Agricultural Society Shield permanently.


Barclays plc () is a British multinational investment bank and financial services company, headquartered in London. Apart from investment banking, Barclays is organised into four core businesses: personal banking, corporate banking, wealth management, and investment management.Barclays traces its origins to a goldsmith banking business established in the City of London in 1690. James Barclay became a partner in the business in 1736. In 1896, several banks in London and the English provinces, including Backhouse's Bank and Gurney's Bank, united as a joint-stock bank under the name Barclays and Co. Over the following decades, Barclays expanded to become a nationwide bank. In 1967, Barclays deployed the world's first cash dispenser. Barclays has made numerous corporate acquisitions, including of London, Provincial and South Western Bank in 1918, British Linen Bank in 1919, Mercantile Credit in 1975, the Woolwich in 2000 and the North American operations of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Barclays has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. It has a secondary listing on the New York Stock Exchange. Qatar Holdings, an investment vehicle of the State of Qatar, is the largest shareholder of the company.According to a 2011 paper by Vitali et al., Barclays was the most powerful transnational corporation in terms of ownership and thus corporate control over global financial stability and market competition, with AXA and State Street Corporation taking the 2nd and 3rd positions, respectively.

Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935

The Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935 was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 9 (c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan. The act gave the President authority "to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum... produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted... by any State law." The act was named after Senator Tom Connally.

It revived the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the NIRA and added procedural safeguards, which, the Supreme Court argued, were constitutional. Ostensibly enacted to protect the industry from "contraband oil," it was mainly a way of cartelizing the industry to stabilize falling prices. The new law reestablished the NIRA's original provision that violators would receive a maximum jail sentence of six months but also increased the maximum fine penalty from $1000-which was enacted in the NIRA- to $2000.Though the legislation was intended to expire on June 16, 1937, it was maintained afterwards as a permanent law. There was some debate as to the law's effects on the transport of other fuels such as coal and timber, and many independent oil producers vehemently opposed the government regulations.In 1937, four federal courts upheld the Connally Act, which was later administered by the Federal Petroleum Board, also created by the law, within the Department of the Interior.


At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Rather than being compensatory, at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary.

Direct Revenue

Direct Revenue was a New York City company which distributed software (a downloadable adware client) that displays pop-up advertising on web browsers. It was founded in 2002 and funded by Insight Venture Partners, known for creating adware programs. Direct Revenue included Soho Digital and Soho Digital International. Its competitors included Claria, When-U, and products created by eXact Advertising. The company's major clients included Priceline, Travelocity, American Express, and Ford Motors. Direct Revenue's largest distributors were (acquired by AOL) and 247 Media (acquired by WPP). In October 2007, Direct Revenue closed its doors.


Fines may refer to:

Fines, Andalusia, Spanish municipality

Fine (penalty)

Fines, ore or other products with a small particle size

Foul (sports)

In sports, a foul is an inappropriate or unfair act by a player as deemed by a referee, usually violating the rules of the sport or game. A foul may be intentional or accidental, and often results in a penalty. Even though it may not be intentional fouling can still cause serious harm or injury to opposing players, or even their own players if unaware of their surroundings during particular situations on sports. Often own teammates can clash and foul each other by accident, such as both going for and with eyes on a ball in AFL. Strategical fouls violate the traditional norms of cooperation and agreement to the essential rules and regulations of the game, or are perhaps not part of the games at all.

Individual sports may have different types of fouls. For example, in basketball, a personal foul involves illegal personal contact with an opponent. A technical foul refers to unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior, a more serious infraction than a personal foul. A flagrant foul involves unsportsmanlike contact behavior, considered the most serious foul and often resulting in ejection from the game.In association football, a foul is an unfair act by a player as deemed by the referee. In association football or rugby, a professional foul is a deliberate act of foul play, usually to prevent an opponent scoring.

Kinjite are various fouls that a sumo wrestler might commit that will cause him to lose the bout.

Facial is a term used in some contact sports to refer to a foul that involves one player hitting another in the face.

Penalties awarded against fouls usually affect the outcome of the game immediately, as seen in the examples above. However, in some cases committing a foul may have further repercussions in the form of a fine (penalty), especially in professional competitions. For example, in the National Basketball Association players are given a $2000 fine each technical foul committed for the first five technical fouls committed in the regular season. Players may also receive fines up to $50,000 for committing fighting fouls.

Great athletes push on the rules, norms and boundaries of their games in pursuit for victory/success, although there can be consequences for crossing lines and unwanted outcomes such as suspensions or bans from the games altogether.

Coaches are not exempt from fouls. In some cases, coaches can also receive fouls. For example, in basketball the coach can be given technical fouls or be immediately ejected from the game. Two examples of a technical foul committed by a coach are entering the court without permission from the referee or physically contacting an official. In the event of receiving two technical fouls, the coach will be ejected from the game.An example of when a coach may be immediately ejected from the game is if they commit a punching foul.

Indian Act

The Indian Act (An Act respecting Indians, French: Loi sur les Indiens) is a Canadian act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document which defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history the Act has been an ongoing subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Aboriginal Canadians and non-Aboriginal Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over twenty major changes" made by 2002.The Act is very wide-ranging in scope, covering governance, land use, healthcare, education, and more on Indian reserves. Notably, the original Indian Act does two things affecting all indigenous peoples in Canada:

It says how reserves and bands can operate. The Act sets out rules for governing Indian reserves, defines how bands can be created and spells out the powers of "band councils". Bands do not have to have reserve lands to operate under the act.

It defines who is, and who is not recognized as an "Indian". The Act defines a number of types of Indian people who are not recognized as "registered" or "status" Indians and who are therefore denied membership in bands.The Act's existence is necessitated by the fact that First Nations (historically called "Indians") relate differently to the state because of inherited legal arrangements such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and various treaties, and because Canada's constitution specifically assigns indigenous issues to the federal, rather than provincial, governments, by the terms of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Act replaced any laws on the topic passed by a local legislature before a province joined Canadian Confederation, creating a definitive national policy on the subject. The Act is not a treaty; it is Canada's legal response to the treaties. Nevertheless, its unilateral nature, imposed on indigenous peoples by the Canadian government in contrast to the treaties, is itself a source of discontent among indigenous peoples in Canada.

Judiciary of Germany

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

The German legal system is a civil law mostly based on a comprehensive compendium of statutes, as compared to the common law systems. In criminal and administrative law, Germany uses an inquisitorial system where the judges are actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as compared to an adversarial system where the role of the judge is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecutor or plaintiff and the defendant.

In Germany, the independence of the judiciary is historically older than democracy. The organisation of courts is traditionally strong, and almost all federal and state actions are subject to judicial review.

Judges follow a distinct career path. At the end of their legal education at university, all law students must pass a state examination before they can continue on to an apprenticeship that provides them with broad training in the legal profession over two years. They then must pass a second state examination that qualifies them to practice law. At that point, the individual can choose either to be a lawyer or to enter the judiciary. Judicial candidates start working at courts immediately. However, they are subjected to a probationary period of up to five years before being appointed as judges for life.

The judicial system is established and governed by part IX of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany). Article 92 of the Basic Law establishes the courts, and that states that "the judicial power shall be vested in the judges; it shall be exercised by the Federal Constitutional Court, by the federal courts provided for in this Basic Law, and by the courts of the Länder."

Law of Colorado

The law of Colorado consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory, local, and case law. The Colorado Revised Statutes form the general statutory law.

Malaysian Cantonese

Malaysian Cantonese (Chinese: 馬來西亞廣東話; Cantonese Yale: Máhlòihsāia Gwóngdūng wá) is a local variety of Cantonese spoken in Malaysia. It is the lingua franca among Chinese throughout much of the central portion of Peninsular Malaysia, being spoken in the capital Kuala Lumpur, southern Perak, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, it is also widely understood to varying degrees by many Chinese throughout the country, regardless of their ancestral dialect.

Malaysian Cantonese is not uniform throughout the country, with variation between individuals and areas. It is mutually intelligible with Cantonese spoken in both Hong Kong and Guangzhou in Mainland China but has distinct differences in vocabulary and pronunciation which make it unique.

Nelson v. Colorado

Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a state had no right to keep fines and other money based on an invalid conviction. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Pangalian Balindong

Ali Pangalian M. Balindong (born January 1, 1940) is a Filipino lawyer and politician. He is the current Speaker of the Bangsamoro Parliament. He is also a former Deputy Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives and a member of the 1971 Philippine Constitutional Convention.


Punishment is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behaviour that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable. The reasoning may be to condition a child to avoid self-endangerment, to impose social conformity (in particular, in the contexts of compulsory education or military discipline), to defend norms, to protect against future harms (in particular, those from violent crime), and to maintain the law—and respect for rule of law—under which the social group is governed. Punishment may be self-inflicted as with self-flagellation and mortification of the flesh in the religious setting, but is most often a form of social coercion.

The unpleasant imposition may include a fine, penalty, or confinement, or be the removal or denial of something pleasant or desirable. The individual may be a person, or even an animal. The authority may be either a group or a single person, and punishment may be carried out formally under a system of law or informally in other kinds of social settings such as within a family. Negative consequences that are not authorized or that are administered without a breach of rules are not considered to be punishment as defined here. The study and practice of the punishment of crimes, particularly as it applies to imprisonment, is called penology, or, often in modern texts, corrections; in this context, the punishment process is euphemistically called "correctional process". Research into punishment often includes similar research into prevention.

Justifications for punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. The last could include such measures as isolation, in order to prevent the wrongdoer's having contact with potential victims, or the removal of a hand in order to make theft more difficult. Of the four justifications, only retribution is part of the definition of punishment and none of the other justifications is a guaranteed outcome, aside from obvious exceptions such as an executed man being incapacitated with regard to further crimes.If only some of the conditions included in the definition of punishment are present, descriptions other than "punishment" may be considered more accurate. Inflicting something negative, or unpleasant, on a person or animal, without authority is considered revenge or spite rather than punishment. In addition, the word "punishment" is used as a metaphor, as when a boxer experiences "punishment" during a fight. In other situations, breaking a rule may be rewarded, and so receiving such a reward naturally does not constitute punishment. Finally the condition of breaking (or breaching) the rules must be satisfied for consequences to be considered punishment.Punishments differ in their degree of severity, and may include sanctions such as reprimands, deprivations of privileges or liberty, fines, incarcerations, ostracism, the infliction of pain, amputation and the death penalty.

Corporal punishment refers to punishments in which physical pain is intended to be inflicted upon the transgressor.

Punishments may be judged as fair or unfair in terms of their degree of reciprocity and proportionality to the offense.

Punishment can be an integral part of socialization, and punishing unwanted behaviour is often part of a system of pedagogy or behavioral modification which also includes rewards.

Seat belt laws in the United States

Most seat belt laws in the United States are left to the states and territories. However, the first seat belt law was a federal law, Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions. This law has since been modified to require three-point seat belts in outboard-seating positions, and finally three-point seat belts in all seating positions. Initially, seat belt use was voluntary. New York was the first state to pass a law which required vehicle occupants to wear seat belts, a law that came into effect on December 1, 1984. New Hampshire is the only state that has no enforceable laws for the wearing of seat belts in a vehicle.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

Super Bowl XXXVIII – which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas on the CBS television network in the United States – was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's breast, adorned with a nipple shield, was exposed by Justin Timberlake for about half a second, in what was later referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". The incident, sometimes referred to as Nipplegate, was widely discussed. Along with the rest of the halftime show, it led to an immediate crackdown and widespread debate on perceived indecency in broadcasting. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined CBS a record US$550,000 which was fought in the Supreme Court, but that fine was appealed and ultimately voided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2011 ruling, and a case to reinstate the fine was refused in 2012.The incident was ridiculed both within the United States and abroad with a number of commentators considering it a planned publicity stunt. Some American commentators in particular viewed it as a sign of decreasing morality in American culture while others considered the incident harmless, arguing that it received an undue amount of attention and backlash. The increased regulation of broadcasting raised concerns regarding censorship and free speech in the United States, and the FCC increased the fine per indecency violation from US$27,500 to US$325,000 shortly after the event. The halftime show that year was produced by MTV and was themed around the network's Choose or Lose campaign due to the event occurring during a presidential election year. Following the wardrobe incident, the National Football League (NFL) announced that MTV, which also produced the halftime show for Super Bowl XXXV, would not be involved in any halftime shows in the future. The MTV Chief Executive stated in an interview with Reuters that Jackson engineered the stunt, while Timberlake was informed of it just moments before he took the stage. The exposure was broadcast to a total audience of 143.6 million viewers.YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim claims that this incident was what led to the creation of the video sharing website. The incident also made "Janet Jackson" the most searched term, event, and image in Internet history, as well as the most searched person and term of 2004 and 2005. The incident also broke the record for "most searched event over one day". Jackson was later listed in the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records as "Most Searched in Internet History" and the "Most Searched for News Item". It became the most watched, recorded and replayed television moment in TiVo history and "enticed an estimated 35,000 new [TiVo] subscribers to sign up". The incident also coined the phrase "wardrobe malfunction", which was later added to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.Following the incident, CBS parent company Viacom, and their co-owned subsidiaries MTV and Infinity Broadcasting, enforced a blacklist of Jackson's singles and music videos on many radio formats and music channels worldwide. As of 2018, neither Jackson nor Timberlake are banned from the halftime show. Timberlake later performed at Super Bowl LII on February 4, 2018.

Treason laws in the United States

In the United States, there are both federal and state laws prohibiting treason. It was defined in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Most state constitutions include similar definitions of treason, specifically limited to levying war against the state, "adhering to the enemies" of the state, or aiding the enemies of the state, and requiring two witnesses or a confession in open court. Fewer than thirty people have ever been charged with treason under these laws.Constitutionally, citizens of the United States owe allegiance to at least two sovereigns. One is the United States, and the other is their state. They can therefore potentially commit treason against either, or against both. At least fourteen people have been charged with treason against various states; at least six were convicted, five of whom were executed. Only one person has ever been executed for treason against the federal government: William Bruce Mumford, who was convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War. However, this was under martial law, not Article Three of the United States Constitution.While treason is a criminal matter under federal and state laws, it may be considered a civil matter under tribal law. The Indian Civil Rights Act limits sentences for crimes by tribal courts to no more than one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.


This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.