Violation of law

A violation of law is any act (or, less commonly, failure to act) that fails to abide by existing law. Violations generally include both crimes and civil wrongs. Some acts, such as fraud, can violate both civil and criminal laws.

Civil law violations usually lead to civil penalties like fines, criminal offenses to more severe punishments.

The severity of the punishment should reflect the severity of the violation (retributive justice).[1] In realistic situations and for minor violations, however, altruistic punishment was shown not 'to fit the crime'.[2]This subdivision is similar to the distinction between misdemeanours, and felonies.[3]

Other examples of violations of law include:

See also

All pages with titles containing violation

References

  1. ^ https://www.island.is/en/education_and_society/citizens_and_democracy/violation_of_the_law_and_punishment/
  2. ^ Balafoutas, Loukas; Nikiforakis, Nikos; Rockenbach, Bettina (2016-11-01). "Altruistic punishment does not increase with the severity of norm violations in the field". Nature Communications. 7. doi:10.1038/ncomms13327. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 5097122. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  3. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/crime-law/Classification-of-crimes#ref500371
American Freedom Agenda

The American Freedom Agenda (AFA) is a United States organization established in March 2007 by disaffected libertarian-oriented conservatives demanding that the Republican Party return to its traditional mistrust of concentrated government power. It describes itself as "a coalition established to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the executive branch." It was founded by Bruce Fein (chairman), Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie.The ten points of the American Freedom Agenda pledge are:

No military commissions except on the battlefield.

No evidence extracted by torture or coercion.

No detaining citizens as unlawful enemy combatants.

Restoring habeas corpus for suspected alien enemy combatants.

Prohibiting warrantless spying by the National Security Agency in violation of law.

Renouncing presidential signing statements.

Ending secret government by invoking State Secrets Privilege.

Stopping extraordinary rendition by the U.S.

Stopping threats to prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Ending the listing of individuals or organizations as terrorists based on secret evidence.

Chuadanga District

Chuadanga (Bengali: চুয়াডাঙ্গা;, pron: tʃuaɖaŋga), Chuadanga district or Chuadanga Zila (চুয়াডাঙ্গা জেলা) is a Western district (zila) of Bangladesh. It is a part of the Khulna administrative division that covers most districts in the south-west of the country.

Color (law)

In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law. Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in the US indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power, especially if the acts are unlawful.

Crime in Bahrain

There is a low rate of crime in Bahrain. Incidents of petty crime such as pickpocketing and bag snatching are reported especially in the old market areas (souks). Incidents of violent crime is uncommon, but increasing. Much of the crime in the nation is committed by the large South Asian population of guest workers. Though small in size, there is a growing underground drug market in the country. According to Emile Nakhleh, approximately 65% of violent crime and theft are committed by foreign citizens residing in Bahrain.Charisse Tia Maria Coston and Freda Adler in their book Victimizing Vulnerable Groups analyzed the reasons behind the low crime rate in Bahrain. The society of Bahrain follows the teachings of the Qur'an; the Qur'an influences political, economic and social environment. Islam, which is most important in the structure of Bahraini society, teaches wrongdoings will result in downfall of societies and try to uproot crime by exerting influence upon human conscience. This internalization of the religion of Islam is analyzed as a cause behind law-abiding behavior among Bahraini people where violation of law is considered violation of the principles of God.Bahrain is a destination country for men and women trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude and commercial sexual exploitation. Men and women from Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia migrate voluntarily to Bahrain to work as laborers or domestic servants where some face conditions of involuntary servitude such as unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movements, non-payment of wages, threats and physical or sexual abuse. Women from Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southeast Asian country like Thailand and North African nation like Morocco are trafficked to Bahrain for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation.Threat of terrorist attack is a matter of concern. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of the Government of Australia advised travelers "to exercise a high degree of caution in Bahrain" due to high threat of terrorism. According to the DFAT, terrorists can target shopping areas, supermarkets, embassies, hotels, restaurants, clubs, cinemas and theaters, schools, places of worship, outdoor recreation events and tourist areas.In the Corruption Perceptions Index 2007, Bahrain was ranked 46th out of 179 countries for corruption (least corrupt countries are at the top of the list). On a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 the most corrupt and 10 the most transparent, Transparency International rated Bahrain 5.0.

Delaware v. Prouse

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may not stop motorists without any reasonable suspicion to suspect crime or illegal activity to check their driver's license and auto registration.

Doctrine of necessity

The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extra-legal actions by state actors, which are designed to restore order, are found to be constitutional. It also includes the ability of a private person to violate a law without punishment where the violation of law was necessary to prevent even worse harm. The maxim on which the doctrine is based originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this kind of extra-legal action have been advanced by more recent legal authorities, including William Blackstone.

In modern times, the doctrine was first used in a controversial 1954 judgment in which Pakistani Chief Justice Muhammad Munir validated the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers by Governor General, Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, the Chief Justice cited Bracton's maxim, 'that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity', thereby providing the label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was establishing.

The doctrine of necessity has since been applied in a number of Commonwealth countries, and in 2010 was invoked to justify extra-legal actions in Nigeria.

Edmunds Act

The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor), thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but it also made the offense of unlawful cohabitation much easier to prove than polygamy misdemeanor and made it illegal for polygamists or cohabitants to vote, hold public office, or serve on juries.A claim was made that the law violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; that is, polygamists were charged for polygamist marriages solemnized before passage of the statute. A challenge to the statute was framed on these and other grounds. The Supreme Court ruled, in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885), that the statute was not ex post facto because convicts were charged for their continued cohabitation, not for the prior illegal marriage. Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating. It also provided for a five-man Utah Commission appointed by the president to supervise all aspects of the electoral process in Utah Territory. All elected offices throughout the territory were vacated, the election board issued certificates to those who both denied a belief in polygamy and did not practice it, and new elections were held.

Enforcement of the acts start in July 1887. The issue went to the Supreme Court in the case Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States that upheld the Edmunds–Tucker Act on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the 1890 Manifesto. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."

Election silence

Election silence, pre-election silence, electoral silence, or campaign silence is a ban on political campaigning before, and in some countries during, a presidential or general election. Under this rule, in some jurisdictions, such as Slovenia and Poland, it is forbidden to try to convince people to vote for a specific candidate or political party on the day of election. Some jurisdictions have declared that, legally, election silence is in violation of law regarding freedom of speech. It is however used in some of the world's democracies "in order to balance out the campaigning and maintain a free voting environment".

Frank v. Maryland

Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Frank refused to allow the health inspectors into his home citing the Fourth Amendment. Inspectors were trying to perform an administrative search for code violations, specifically a rat infestation, not a criminal investigation, so they did not believe they were violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court, in an opinion written by Felix Frankfurter, decided in favor of the inspectors claiming that the search would benefit the public more than Frank's interests in privacy.The Supreme Court would reverse this decision eight years later in Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), ruling that the City of San Francisco could not prosecute a person for refusing to consent to a search of their home by a city inspector, and the inspector may only search either by having consent, or must have a search warrant issued based on probable cause of a violation of law.

Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the provisions of section 8H applicable to the FBI, an FBI employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General. Within a 14-day period, the OIG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the Attorney General who then submits the information to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. If the OIG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the Attorney General, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the OIG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:

a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;

A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or

An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern.ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a result of having made a disclosure. In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense, stated before the House Committee on Government Reform that the ICWPA is a 'misnomer' and that more properly the Act protects the communication of classified information to Congress. According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice, the ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which means that there is no right at all."According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one DOJ case. Subsequent investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.Additional protections for national security whistleblowers are provided through Presidential Policy Directive 19 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. For more information about whistleblowers protections that apply to the intelligence community see the "national security protections" subheading under Whistleblower protection in the United States.

Law of Moses

The Law of Moses (Hebrew: תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה Torat Moshe), also called the Mosaic Law, primarily refers to the Torah or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Traditionally believed to have been written by Moses, most academics now believe they had many authors.

Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy in federal territories such as Utah and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.The act targeted the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862, was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act, and then again in 1887 by the Edmunds–Tucker Act.

Enforcement of these acts started in July 1887. The issue went to the Supreme Court in the case Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States that upheld the Edmunds–Tucker Act on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the 1890 Manifesto. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."

Office of Professional Responsibility

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is part of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for investigating attorneys employed by the DOJ who have been accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions.

Prostitution in Croatia

Prostitution in Croatia is illegal but common. Forcible prostitution, any kind of brothels, or procuring are treated as a felony, while voluntary prostitution is considered to be infraction against public order (for prostitutes only; clients are not in violation of law). Like in many other Southeast European countries, the problem of human trafficking for the purposes of sex is big in Croatia.Many women from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Eastern Europe, especially from the Ukraine, work as prostitutes in Croatia. Some prostitutes commute to the island of Hvar, which is a popular tourist destination.

Steele v. United States

Steele v. United States, 113 U.S. 128 (1885), was an appeal of a case which held that a private sale of old material that arose from the breaking up of a vessel of war, made by an officer of the Navy Department to a contractor for repairs of a war vessel and machinery, is a violation of law.The allowance of the estimated value of such material in the settlement of such contractor's accounts is a violation of law.

A settlement of such accounts at the Navy Department and at the Treasury, in which the contractor was debited with the material at the estimated value, does not preclude the United States from showing that the estimates were far below the real value, and from recovering the difference between the amount allowed and the real value.

Delay in enforcing a claim arising out of an illegal sale of property of the United States at a value far below its real worth cannot be set up as a bar to the recovery of its value.

Traffic stop

A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law.

Whistleblower Protection Act

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

Wrongdoing

A wrong (from Old English wrang – crooked) is an act that is illegal or immoral. Legal wrongs are usually quite clearly defined in the law of a state and/or jurisdiction. They can be divided into civil wrongs and crimes (or criminal offences) in common law countries, while civil law countries tend to have some additional categories, such as contraventions.

Moral wrong is an underlying concept for legal wrong. Some moral wrongs are punishable by law, for example, rape or murder. Other moral wrongs have nothing to do with law. On the other hand, some legal wrongs, such as parking offences, could hardly be classified as moral wrongs.

Languages

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.