Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

criminal sanction

Read a random definition: cheze

A quick definition of criminal sanction:

A criminal sanction is a punishment given to someone who breaks the law. This can include things like fines or restitution. It is only given after a person has been found guilty in a criminal trial. Sanctions are meant to make people follow the law and can be very serious, like going to jail. Sometimes, a court may also order a "shame sanction" which is meant to publicly embarrass someone who has been convicted of a crime.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: A penalty or coercive measure that results from failure to comply with a law, rule, or order. It is a legally authorized post-conviction deprivation suffered by a human being through governmental action.

Examples:

  • Penal Sanction: A fine or restitution attached to a criminal conviction.
  • Death-Penalty Sanction: A court's order dismissing the suit or entering a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff because of extreme discovery abuses by a party or because of a party's action or inaction that shows an unwillingness to participate in the case.
  • Shame Sanction: A criminal sanction designed to stigmatize or disgrace a convicted offender, and often to alert the public about the offender's conviction. An example is being required to post a sign in one's yard stating, “Convicted Child Molester Lives Here.”

The examples illustrate how criminal sanctions are imposed on individuals who fail to comply with the law or commit a crime. These sanctions can range from fines to more severe punishments like the death penalty. Shame sanctions are designed to publicly shame and stigmatize the offender, serving as a warning to others and alerting the public about the offender's conviction.

criminal responsibility | criminal science

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.