close
Jump to content

Portal:Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Portal:Crime)

The Law Portal

Lady Justice, often used as a personification of the law, holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other.

Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and as the art of justice. State-enforced laws can be made by a legislature, resulting in statutes; by the executive through decrees and regulations; or by judges' decisions, which form precedent in common law jurisdictions. An autocrat may exercise those functions within their realm. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history, and society in various ways and also serves as a mediator of relations between people.

Legal systems vary between jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in comparative law. In civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the law. In common law systems, judges may make binding case law through precedent, although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature. Religious law is in use in some religious communities and states, and has historically influenced secular law.

The scope of law can be divided into two domains: public law concerns government and society, including constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law; private law deals with legal disputes between parties in areas such as contracts, property, torts, delicts and commercial law. This distinction is stronger in civil law countries, particularly those with a separate system of administrative courts; by contrast, the public-private law divide is less pronounced in common law jurisdictions. (Full article...)

Selected article

A photograph of Ruto

The International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya or the situation in the Republic of Kenya was an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the responsibility for the 2007–2008 post-election violence in Kenya. The 2007–2008 crisis followed the presidential election that was held on 27 December 2007. The Electoral Commission of Kenya officially declared that the incumbent President Mwai Kibaki was re-elected however supporters of the opposition candidate Raila Odinga accused the government of electoral fraud and rejected the results. A series of protests and demonstrations followed, and fighting—mainly along ethnic lines—led to an estimated 1,200 deaths and more than 500,000 people becoming internally displaced.

After failed attempts to conduct a criminal investigation of the key perpetrators in Kenya, the matter was referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In 2010, the Prosecutor of the ICC Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that he was seeking summonses for six people: Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Industrialisation Minister Henry Kosgey, Education Minister William Ruto, Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura, radio executive Joshua Arap Sang and former police commissioner Mohammed Hussein Ali. The six suspects, known colloquially as the "Ocampo six" were indicted by the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber II on 8 March 2011 on charges of crimes against humanity and summoned to appear before the Court.

On 23 January 2012 Pre-Trial Chamber II confirmed the charges against Kenyatta, Muthaura, Sang and Ruto and dismissed the charges against Kosgey and Ali. The charges against Francis Muthaura and Uhuru Kenyatta were subsequently withdrawn by the prosecution. The trial of William Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang began on 10 September 2013, and ended on 5 April 2016 with the charges being dismissed. During the investigation the ICC prosecutor charged Walter Barasa, Paul Gicheru and Philip Bett with crimes against the administration of justice. (Full article...)

Selected biography

Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was an American attorney and politician who served as the 14th chief justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969 and as the 30th governor of California from 1943 to 1953. The Warren Court presided over a major shift in American constitutional jurisprudence, which has been recognized by many as a "constitutional revolution" in the liberal direction, with Warren writing the majority opinions in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Loving v. Virginia (1967). Warren also led the Warren Commission, a presidential commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Warren is the most recent chief justice to have served in a statewide elected office before nomination to the Supreme Court and is generally considered to be one of the most influential Supreme Court justices and political leaders in the history of the United States.

Warren was Thomas E. Dewey's running mate in the 1948 presidential election, but the ticket lost the election to incumbent president Harry S. Truman and Senator Alben W. Barkley in an election upset. Warren sought the Republican nomination in the 1952 presidential election, but the party nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower. After Eisenhower won election as president, he appointed Warren as chief justice. A series of rulings made by the Warren Court in the 1950s helped lead to the decline of McCarthyism. Warren helped arrange a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. After Brown, the Warren Court continued to issue rulings that helped bring an end to the segregationist Jim Crow laws that were prevalent throughout the Southern United States. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), the Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits racial segregation in public institutions and public accommodations.

In the 1960s, the Warren Court handed down several landmark rulings that significantly transformed criminal procedure, redistricting, and other areas of the law. Many of the Court's decisions incorporated the Bill of Rights, making the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established a criminal defendant's right to an attorney in felony cases, and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required police officers to give what became known as the Miranda warning to suspects taken into police custody that advises them of their constitutional protections. Reynolds v. Sims (1964) established that all state legislative districts must be of roughly equal population size, while the Court's holding in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) required equal populations for congressional districts, thus achieving "one man, one vote" in the United States. Schmerber v. California (1966) established that forced extraction of a blood sample is not compelled testimony, illuminating the limits on the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Warden v. Hayden (1967) dramatically expanded the rights of police to seize evidence with a search warrant, reversing the mere evidence rule. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) established a constitutional right to privacy and struck down a state law that restricted access to contraceptives. Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down state anti-miscegenation laws, which had banned or otherwise regulated interracial marriage. (Full article...)

Selected statute

A statute is a law or formal written enactment of a legislature. Statutes typically declare, command or prohibit something. Statutes are distinguished from court law and unwritten law (also known as common law) in that they are the expressed will of a legislative body, whether that be on the behalf of a country, state or province, county, municipality, or so on. They are also distinguished from secondary legislation, or regulations, that are issued by an executive body under authority granted by a statute. Depending on the legal system, a statute may also be referred to as an "act." (Full article...)


The first page of the Accurate News and Information Act

The Accurate News and Information Act (complete title: An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information) was a statute passed by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada, in 1937, at the instigation of William Aberhart's Social Credit government. It would have required newspapers to print "clarifications" of stories that a committee of Social Credit legislators deemed inaccurate, and to reveal their sources on demand.

The act was a result of the stormy relationship between Aberhart and the press, dating to before the 1935 election, in which the Social Credit League was elected to government. Virtually all of Alberta's newspapers—especially the Calgary Herald—were critical of Social Credit, as were a number of publications from elsewhere in Canada. Even the American media had greeted Aberhart's election with derision.

Though the bill won easy passage through the Social Credit-dominated legislative assembly, the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, John C. Bowen, reserved royal assent until the Supreme Court of Canada evaluated the act's legality. In 1938's Reference re Alberta Statutes, the court found that it was unconstitutional, and it never became law. (Full article...)

Did you know...

Selected images

Selected case

Case law is a law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions. The term is often used interchangeably with common law. (Full article...)


Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established that a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.

Until the 5–2 opinion of Dietrich v The Queen, it was customary for those unable to afford legal representation to be forced to represent themselves at trial, even when facing serious criminal charges. Previous High Court rulings found representation preferable but not a requisite for a fair trial.

The case originated in the County Court of Victoria, where Olaf Dietrich, later known as Hugo Rich, had been convicted of importing a trafficable quantity of heroin. Prior to trial, Dietrich had applied for legal assistance through several avenues, all of which were rejected. The Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the appeal and the matter was escalated to the High Court of Australia. Counsel for Dietrich applied for appeal on one ground; Dietrich's lack of legal representation meant the trial in the County Court of Victoria was quashed and a new trial ordered. (Full article...)

More Did you know (auto-generated)

28 August 2026 – Sudanese civil war
Emergency Lawyers reports that eight civilians have been killed in drone strikes in North Kordofan including Sowdari. (AP) (Asharq Al Awsat)
26 August 2026 – Lawsuits involving Meta Platforms
Meta Platforms agrees to pay up to $16.7 billion to settle claims by 29 U.S. states over alleged harms to young users and to impose new usage limits and safeguards for teenagers on its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram. (AFP via ABS-CBN News)
25 August 2026 – Israel and the United Nations, Israeli occupation of the West Bank
The Israel Defense Forces take control of the UNRWA's vocational training centre in Qalandia, East Jerusalem, West Bank, and begin removing the United Nations agency under legislation banning its operations in Israel. (AFP via France 24)
25 August 2026 – Lawsuits involving TikTok
Brazil's national data protection authority fines TikTok R$153.7 million (US$29.9 million) for inadequate child-safety measures and orders its developer, ByteDance, to delete improperly collected data and strengthen protections for users under 16. (AFP via France 24)
24 August 2026 – War crimes in the Syrian civil war
Syria's Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun is found guilty of committing war crimes spanning nearly 14 years of civil war under Bashar al-Assad's former regime and is sentenced to life in prison. (AP) (Al Jazeera) (DW)

General images

The following are images from various law-related articles on Wikipedia.

Topics

Quality content

Subcategories

WikiProjects

Associated Wikimedia

The following Wikimedia Foundation sister projects provide more on this subject:

Discover Wikipedia using portals