text:
Pardon

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

Pardons can be granted in many countries when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have "paid their debt to society", or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them. In some jurisdictions of some nations, accepting a pardon may implicitly constitute an admission of guilt; the offer is refused in some cases. Cases of wrongful conviction are in recent times more often dealt with by appeal rather than by pardon; however, a pardon is sometimes offered when innocence is undisputed in order to avoid the costs that are associated with a retrial. Clemency plays a critical role when capital punishment exists in a jurisdiction.

Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone who is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. In extreme cases, some pardons may be seen as acts of corruption by officials in the form of granting effective immunity as political favors.

Australia
In Australia, the pardon power is referred to as the royal prerogative of mercy, an executive power that is vested in the King and may be exercised by the governor-general. The prerogative of mercy is a broad discretionary power that may be exercised by a state governor who is acting on the advice of the state executive council and the state attorney general. Courts in Australia may also exercise their traditional power to exercise mercy when the circumstances of the defendant or offense warrant relief.

In addition to the prerogative of mercy, Australia has passed legislation that creates additional avenues to seek a pardon, exoneration, reduced sentence, or conditional release.

Pardons
The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) is the federal agency responsible for making pardon decisions under the Criminal Records Act (CRA). Under the CRA, the PBC can issue, grant, deny, and revoke pardons.

In 2012, the Parliament of Canada passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which changed many of elements regarding the criminal justice system. The Act replaced the term "pardon" with "record suspension", and the pardon system was similarly changed.

A pardon keeps the police record of a conviction separate and apart from other criminal records, and gives law-abiding citizens an opportunity to reintegrate into Canadian society.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police removes all information about the conviction for which an individual received the pardon from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). Federal agencies cannot give out information about the conviction without approval from the minister of public safety.

A pardon does not, however, erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime. The criminal record is not erased, but it is kept separate and apart from other (non-pardoned) criminal records.

A pardon removes disqualifications caused by a criminal conviction, such as the ability to contract with the federal government, or eligibility for Canadian citizenship.

If an individual in receipt of a pardon is convicted of a new offence, the information may lead to a reactivation of the criminal record for which the pardon was received in CPIC.

A pardon does not guarantee entry or visa privileges to another country. Before travelling to another country, individuals must still contact the authorities of the country in question to find out what the requirements are to enter that country.

Processing of pardons by the Parole Board of Canada generally takes six months for a summary offence and twelve months for an indictable offence. If the Parole Board proposes to deny the application, it can take 24 months to process.

Individuals can apply for a pardon if they were convicted as an adult of a criminal offense in Canada, or of an offense under a federal act or regulation of Canada, or if they were convicted of a crime in another country and were transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act. Non-Canadian citizens are not eligible for a Canadian pardon unless they were convicted of a crime in Canada.

To be eligible for a pardon or record suspension, individuals must have completed all of their sentences and a waiting period.

Individuals are considered to have completed all of their sentences if they have:
 * Paid all fines, surcharges, costs, restitution and compensation orders
 * Served all sentences of imprisonment, conditional sentences, including parole or statutory release
 * Completed their probation order

Prior to 2012, following completion of all of their sentences, individuals must have completed a waiting period, as follows:
 * Three years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
 * Three years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned six months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence
 * Five years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children
 * Five years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act
 * Five years under the National Defence Act, if you were fined more than $2,000, detained or imprisoned more than six months, or dismissed from service
 * Ten years for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children and criminals receiving more than two years of imprisonment time for "serious personal injury offence" such as manslaughter or other designated offence under section 752 of the Criminal Code.

Effective 13 March 2012, the eligibility criteria and waiting periods changed:
 * Five years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
 * Five years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned six months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence
 * Ten years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children
 * Ten years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act
 * Ten years under the National Defence Act, if fined more than $2,000, detained or imprisoned more than six months, or dismissed from service
 * "Not Eligible" for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children (Schedule 1 Offence under CRA)
 * "Not Eligible" for criminals with more than three offences prosecuted by indictment, each with a prison sentence of two or more years.

Applicants for a record suspension must be able to show that they have completed their sentences in full and provide proof of payment.

Individuals can apply for a pardon by filling out the application forms available from the Parole Board and by paying a $50 pardon/record suspension application fee.

Clemency
In Canada, clemency is granted by the governor general of Canada or the Governor in Council (the federal cabinet) under the royal prerogative of mercy. Applications are also made to the National Parole Board, as in pardons, but clemency may involve the commutation of a sentence, or the remission of all or part of the sentence, a respite from the sentence (for a medical condition or a relief from a prohibition, e.g., to allow someone to drive who has been prohibited from driving).

Chile
In Chile, the institution of pardon (indulto) is regulated in the Criminal Code (article 93, Nº 4º), which deals with the extinction of criminal liability. A pardon "only grants the remission or the commutation of the sentence; it does not remove the condition of having been condemned". The pardon may be either general, when it is granted to all those covered by a specific law passed by qualified quorum in National Congress, or particular, when it is granted by Supreme Decree of the president of the republic. In Chile's presidential regime, the president is the head of state; in this capacity, the president has the discretionary power to grant particular pardons and is not obliged to seek opinion or approval from other authorities, although, the granting of pardons is limited by the norms of Law No. 18.050 (1981), and its Regulations (Decree No. 1542 of 1981 on particular pardons), which forbid particular pardons for those convicted of a crime of terrorism.

China
The 1954 Constitution of China made provision for amnesties and pardons, both of which were to be powers of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The amnesty or pardon would then be issued by the president. Chairman Mao Zedong and President Liu Shaoqi released the first-time pardon in 1959.

The later three constitutions promulgated in 1975, 1978, and 1982 all removed provision amnesty and only kept pardons. In China, pardons are decided by the National Standing Committee of the People's Congress and issued by the president.

Egypt
On September 23, 2015, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi issued a pardon freeing 100 activists, including Al Jazeera journalists Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed.

France
Pardons and acts of clemency (grâces) are granted by the president of France, who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the measure. It is a prerogative of the president which is directly inherited from that of the kings of France. The convicted person sends a request for pardon to the president of the republic. The prosecutor of the court that pronounced the verdict reports on the case, and the case goes to the Ministry of Justice's directorate of criminal affairs and pardons for further consideration.

If granted, the decree of pardon is signed by the president, the prime minister, the minister of justice, and possibly other ministers involved in the consideration of the case. It is not published in the Journal Officiel.

The decree may spare the applicant from serving the balance of his or her sentence, or commute the sentence to a lesser one. It does not suppress the right for the victim of the crime to obtain compensation for the damages it suffered, and does not erase the condemnation from the criminal record.

When the death penalty was in force in France, all capital sentences resulted in a presidential review for a possible clemency. Executions were carried out if and only if the president rejected clemency, by signing a document on which it was written: "decides to let justice take its course".

The Parliament of France, on occasions, grants amnesty. This is a different concept and procedure from that described above, although the phrase "presidential amnesty" (amnistie présidentielle) is sometimes pejoratively applied to some acts of parliament traditionally voted upon after a presidential election, granting amnesty for minor crimes.

Germany
Similar to the United States, the right to grant pardon in Germany is divided between the federal and the state level. Federal jurisdiction in matters of criminal law is mostly restricted to appeals against decisions of state courts. Only "political" crimes like treason or terrorism are tried on behalf of the federal government by the highest state courts. Accordingly, the category of persons eligible for a federal pardon is rather narrow. The right to grant a federal pardon lies in the office of the president of Germany, but the president can transfer this power to other persons, such as the chancellor or the minister of justice.

In early 2007, there was a widespread public discussion about the granting of pardons in Germany after convicted Red Army Faction terrorist Christian Klar, who was serving six consecutive sentences of life imprisonment, filed a petition for pardon. President Horst Köhler ultimately denied his request. Following a court decision, Klar was released on parole in December 2008.

For all other (and therefore the vast majority of) convicts, pardons are in the jurisdiction of the states. In some states it is granted by the respective cabinet, but in most states the state constitution vests the authority in the state prime minister. As on the federal level, the authority may be transferred. Amnesty can be granted only by federal law.

Greece
The Constitution of Greece grants the power of pardon to the president of the republic (Art. 47, § 1). The president can pardon, commute or remit punishment imposed by any court, on the proposal of the minister of justice and after receiving the opinion (not the consent necessarily) of the Pardon Committee.

Hong Kong
Prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, the power of pardon was the royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom. This was used and cited the most often in cases of convicts who had been given the death penalty: from 1965 to 1993 (when the death penalty was formally abolished) death sentences were automatically commuted to life imprisonment under the royal prerogative.

Since the transfer, the chief executive of Hong Kong now exercises the power to grant pardons and commute penalties under section 12 of article 48 Basic Law of Hong Kong. "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions ... to pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties".

India
Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the president of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. A similar and parallel power vests in the governors of each state under Article 161.

The Constitution of India vests sovereign power in the president and governors. The governance in the centre and states is carried out in the name of the president and governor respectively. The president is empowered with the power to pardon under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution, which says that the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. The meaning of these terms is as follows:

The pardoning powers of the Indian president are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning which are mandated by law.
 * 1) Pardon: completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be treated like a normal citizen.
 * 2) Commutation: changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence.
 * 3) Reprieve: a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for a presidential pardon or any other legal remedy to prove his innocence or allow for successful rehabilitation.
 * 4) Respite: reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition to name a few.
 * 5) Remission: changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature, for example reducing twenty years worth of rigorous imprisonment to ten years.

Article 72 reads:

"(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or to suspend remit or commute the sentence of any persons convicted of any offence-

(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;

(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

(2) Nothing in sub- clause (a) of clause (1) shall alter the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force."

Similarly, as per article 161, the governor of a state has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends. The president can grant a pardon to a person awarded death sentence; however, the governor of a state does not enjoy this power.

The question is whether this power to grant a pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the president on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The pardoning power of the president is not absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers. This has not been discussed by the constitution but is the practical truth. Further, the constitution does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of the president or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the SC in the Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of the president and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness. The court has earlier held that court has retained the power of judicial review even on a matter which has been vested by the Constitution solely in the executive.

However, it is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law. All crimes are crimes against the Union of India. Therefore, a convention has developed that the governor's powers are exercised for only minor offenses, while requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the union territories are deferred to the president.

Both the president and governor are bound by the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers and hence the exercise of this power is of an executive character. It is therefore subject to judicial review as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of. It was subsequently confirmed by. In the case of, it was held that "clemency is subject to judicial review and that it cannot be dispensed as a privilege or act of grace". The court made these observation while quashing the decision of then Governor of Andhra Pradesh Sushil Kumar Shinde in commuting the sentence of a convicted Congress activist.

Iran
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader has the power to pardon and offer clemency under Article 110, § 1, §§ 11.

Constitutional basis
The Irish constitution states (in Article 13.6) that "The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities."

The power of clemency is nominally exercised by the president. However, the president of Ireland must act "on the advice" of the Government (cabinet), so in practice the clemency decisions are made by the government of the day and the president has no discretion in the matter. The responsibility can also be delegated to people or bodies other than the president.

Amnesty and immunity, on the other hand, are usually dealt with by an Act of the Oireachtas rather than by a general form of pardon or a slate of individual pardons.

There are two methods by which a pardon may proceed:

Method I
In the first procedure, aimed at miscarriages of justice, the minister for justice may recommend to the Government that they formally advise the president to grant a pardon, and any conditions along with it. The 1993 Criminal Procedure Act provides the method by which a person convicted of an offence may apply for a pardon. Under this procedure, the person must:
 * Have already been convicted.
 * Have used up their appeals.
 * Allege a new fact (previously known and believed to be significant, but which he has a reasonable excuse for not having mentioned) or newly discovered fact (including a fact previously known which was not believed to be significant) showing a miscarriage of justice has taken place.

Then they can apply in writing to the minister for justice for a pardon. The minister may then "make or cause to be made such inquiries as they consider necessary" and may refuse to grant the pardon on his/her own initiative, or if they think the person should be pardoned, bring such argument to cabinet.

Method II
Section six of the act allows a minister for justice to seek or receive a pardon request from someone whose case is not a 'miscarriage of justice', but has some other fault, such as an archaic law, a law being misapplied by a rogue judge, a reduction in the harshness of a sentence or a substitution of a sentence, without having to go through the procedure above, gone through appeals, or presented new facts. It also allows the minister to waive the procedure in a case of miscarriage of justice if the specific case warrants it. It may also allow prospective pardons as it allows the minister to pardon someone who has not been convicted yet, which the other procedure requires.

Committee of Inquiry
The government itself may assemble a committee to study the case in more detail on their behalf. This may consist of anyone, and any number, but the chair must be: This special committee may look to any material it sees fit to make its decision, even if it was not, or would not be, available to a jury or trial judge in a normal court. The government do not have to be bound by the committee recommendations.
 * A judge or former judge or
 * A barrister of at least 10 years standing or
 * A solicitor of at least 10 years standing.

Pardons under military law
Under Section 7(5) of the act, the same powers of the minister for justice apply to the minister for defence in the case of military officers and enlisted convicted by courts martial.

Compensation
The minister for justice or defence may also, in their absolute discretion, pay compensation, determined by them alone, to any person given a pardon, if this compensation is applied for. If they think the compensation is too low they may challenge for a higher figure in the High Court.

List of people who have received a presidential pardon since 1938
The power is used very infrequently compared to, for example, pardons in the United States.
 * 1940 – Thomas Quinn, granted by Douglas Hyde
 * 1943 – Walter Brady, granted by Douglas Hyde
 * 1992 – Nicky Kelly, granted by Mary Robinson
 * 1999 – William Geary, granted by Mary McAleese
 * 2018 – Maolra Seoighe, granted by Michael D. Higgins
 * 2021 – John Twiss, granted by Michael D. Higgins

Israel
In Israel the president has the power to pardon criminals or commute their sentences. The president's pardon powers are set out in the Basic Laws of Israel. The pardon is given following a recommendation by the minister of justice.

After the Kav 300 affair, President Chaim Herzog issued a pardon to four members of the Shin Bet prior to them being indicted. This unusual act was the first of its kind in Israel.

Italy
In Italy, the president of the republic may "grant pardons, or commute punishments" according to article 87 of the Italian Constitution. Like other acts of the president, the pardon requires the countersignature of the competent government minister. The Constitutional Court of Italy has ruled that the minister of justice is obliged to sign acts of pardon.

The pardon may remove the punishment altogether or change its form. Unless the decree of pardon states otherwise, the pardon does not remove any incidental effects of a criminal conviction, such as a mention in a certificate of conduct (174 c.p.) or the loss of civil rights.

According to article 79 of the Italian Constitution the Parliament may grant amnesty (article 151 c.p.) and pardon (article 174 c.p.) by law deliberated a majority of two-thirds of the components. The last general pardon, discounting three years from sentences, was approved in 2006.

Poland
In Poland, the president is granted the right of pardon by Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Whether the president may grant relief prior to (final) conviction remains controversial, as the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal have opposing views.

By president:

 * Wojciech Jaruzelski
 * Approved — 607
 * Declined — 119

 * Lech Wałęsa
 * Approved — 3,454
 * Declined — 444
 * Aleksander Kwaśniewski
 * Approved (both terms) — 4,302
 * Declined (both terms) — 2,639
 * Lech Kaczyński
 * Approved — 201
 * Declined — 913
 * Bronisław Komorowski
 * Approved — 360
 * Declined — 1544
 * Andrzej Duda (until 15 June 2020)
 * Approved — 93
 * Declined — 509

Portugal
In Portugal, the heads of state – kings or presidents – have always enjoyed the prerogative of grace, being able to grant pardons, commuting or extinguishing sentences in the context of requests for clemency.

According to the Portuguese Constitution, the president of the Portuguese Republic has the power to pardon and commute sentences, on the proposal of the Government of the Portuguese Republic. This is the exclusive and discretionary competence of the president and is not subject to any conditions beyond the prior hearing of the Government, generally represented by the minister of justice. Requests or proposals for pardons are instructed by the Criminal Execution Court by referral from the Ministry of Justice and subsequently submitted to the president for consideration. The pardon is granted by presidential decree; if the pardon is denied, the president decides by order. Traditionally pardons are granted during the Christmas period. The pardon can be revoked by the president of the republic.

In 2019 the president granted two pardons.

The pardon, as an individual, shall not be confused with amnesty or generic forgiveness, both of a general and abstract nature. Amnesty has retroactive effects, affecting not only the penalty applied but the past criminal act itself, which is forgotten, considered as not practiced (retroactive abolition of crime). Generic forgiveness focuses only on the penalties determined by the sentencing decision and for the future. It is the reserved competence of the Portuguese Parliament to approve generic amnesties and pardons.

Russia
The president of the Russian Federation is granted the right of pardon by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The chain of pardon committees manage lists of people eligible for pardon and directs them to the president for signing. While President Boris Yeltsin frequently used his power of pardon (1998 – 7,000 to 8,000 cases), his successor Vladimir Putin is much more hesitant; he granted five pardons in 2014 and two in 2015. In 2021, Vladimir Putin officially pardoned six convicted offenders.

A pardon can be requested at any time, although a one-year waiting period is required between requests. This right is granted to citizens of the Russian Federation by Article 50 of the constitution.

The Regulation on the Procedure for Considering Requests for Pardon in the Russian Federation, which was approved by Executive Order No.787, states that a pardon may be granted to the following individuals:

 * 1) Individuals convicted by Russian courts and serving their sentences on Russian territory.
 * 2) Individuals convicted by foreign courts and serving their sentences in Russian territory(in accordance with international treaties).
 * 3) Individuals released on parole.
 * 4) Probationers and individuals serving suspended sentences by Russian courts.
 * 5) Individuals who have served their sentences but maintain official convictions on record.

Russia pardoned over 5,000 convicts after they completed contracts with Wagner Group, a mercenary group, in Ukraine. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the group's founder, offered thousands of inmates clemency in exchange for fighting in the most dangerous theaters of the war. The program is no longer in effect.

Rwanda
The prerogative of mercy is a form of pardon that can be exercised by the president of Rwanda. The prerogative is one of the powers of the president defined by the Constitution of Rwanda, which came into effect in 2003 following a national referendum. According to the Constitution of Rwanda, "The President of the Republic has authority to exercise the prerogative of mercy in accordance with the procedure determined by law and after consulting the Supreme Court on the matter."

Republic of South Africa
Under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), the president of the Republic of South Africa is responsible for pardoning or reprieving offenders. This power of the president is only exercised in highly exceptional cases.

To pardon a person is to forgive a person for his/her deeds. The pardon process is therefore not available to persons who maintain their innocence and is not an advanced form of appeal procedure.

Pardon is only granted for minor offences after a period of ten years has elapsed since the relevant conviction.

For many serious offences (for example if the relevant court viewed the offence in such a serious light that direct imprisonment was imposed) pardon will not be granted even if more than ten years have elapsed since the conviction.

Spain
The derecho de gracia ("right of grace") or indulto ("pardon") is acknowledged by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 as a privilege of the king of Spain (article 62.i: "Functions of the King"). Spanish law defines it as a renunciation on the state's part of its own punitive power on behalf of an individual, founded on reasons of equity or public interest. The Constitution subjects royal pardons to the law and forbids general pardons, so they have to be granted individually. Theoretically, a royal pardon can be granted for a general offense or accessory offenses alone; if it is granted for a general offense, the accessory ones it implies are also pardoned, with the exception of punishments involving political rights (i.e., removal of the right to run for a public office as a result of a sentence), which have to be explicitly mentioned in the pardon decree if they are going to be pardoned.

The procedure and requirements for the grant of the pardon are given by the Law of 18 June 1870, modified by Law 1/1988 of 14 January. The application for royal pardon has to be carried out by the convicted person himself, his relatives or any other person in his name. The convicting court will then issue a report of the case, which shall be considered along with the public comments of the prosecutor and the victims of the crime if there were any. All of this is gathered by the minister of justice, who will present the pardon issue to the Cabinet of Ministers. If the Cabinet decides a pardon should be granted, then the minister of justice will recommend as such to the king. Pardons are issued by royal decree and have to be published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado ("Public Journal").

Pardons are not commonly conceded in Spain but for offenders convicted for minor crimes who are about to complete their sentence and have shown good behaviour and repentance. Dating back to medieval times, several organisations and religious brotherhoods still hold the right of granting pardons as part of some privilege or other granted to them by the king of Spain. The scope of this privilege depends on the royal charter received by the organisation when their right to concede pardons was granted, though it usually holds only for minor offenses in very especial conditions; this right is implicitly acknowledged by the public offices nowadays, though it is not exercised but following the usual procedure for royal pardons. Traditionally, they will propose some petty criminal about to end his sentence for pardon being granted to him, and he/she will be released following the tradition to which the pardon holds, usually during the Holy Week. This type of pardons are distinguished from the usual ones in that they only release the prisoner from jail, halting the sentence, but do not pardon the offense itself.

Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, under the Sri Lankan Constitution the president can grant a pardon, respite or substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed to any offender convicted of any offence in any court within the Republic of Sri Lanka. It is generally referred to as a presidential pardon.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, pardons may be granted by the Swiss Federal Assembly for crimes prosecuted by the federal authorities. For crimes under cantonal jurisdiction, cantonal law designates the authority competent to grant pardons (if any). In most cantons, the cantonal parliament may pardon felonies, and the cantonal government may pardon misdemeanors and minor infractions.

Turkey
The president of Turkey is granted the right of pardon under certain circumstances defined in the constitution, article 104. According to the article, the president can "remit, on grounds of chronic illness, disability, or old age, all or part of the sentences imposed on certain individuals". After the convict's or his or her proxy's application, if the Council of Forensic Medicine determines that the convict suffers from chronic illness, disability, or old age, the Ministry of Justice presents the situation to the president, and the president can choose to grant a pardon.

Additionally, the parliament of Turkey has the power to announce general amnesty.

United Kingdom
The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the United Kingdom is known as the royal prerogative of mercy. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon an individual for a crime, whether or not he or she had been convicted, and thereby commute any penalty; the power was then delegated both to the judiciary and the sovereign's ministers. Since the creation of legal rights of appeal, the royal prerogative of mercy is no longer exercised by the person of the sovereign, or by the judiciary, but only by the government.

In constitutional terms, under the doctrine of the rule of law, the power of ministers to overrule the judiciary by commuting criminal sanctions imposed resolves different and sometimes conflicting public interests. In civil matters, only the legislative branch, and not ministers, have the power to override the judiciary.

The Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 was a general pardon for everyone who had committed crimes during the English Civil War and Interregnum with some exceptions for regicides and serious crimes.

Until the nineteenth century, for many crimes the sentence was mandatory and was formally pronounced in court immediately upon conviction, but judges and ministers were given powers to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy out of court, in order to mitigate the rigour of the law. Before there was any general form of criminal appeal, a judge might grant a pardon either by way of clemency, because he felt in his opinion that the law was unduly harsh (for example, in the case of convictions of minors), that the verdict was dubious, to seek public approval, or it was otherwise in the public interest. Capital sentences imposed by the assizes were generally executed when the assize was concluded and as the circuit judge left the town, so there was a limited window of time to apply to a judge or directly to the Crown for a pardon. Especially for assizes that were far away from the then capital and major cities of London, York, Durham, Edinburgh, or Dublin, a pardon might well arrive too late. Perhaps as a form of temporary punishment, to give solace, to avoid public disorder, to consult or obtain further evidence, or to maximise the public approval of the King's mercy, judges often did not grant their pardons until their departures; the convict often hoped until his last moments that the sentence of death would not actually be executed, and it was generally popular for a reprieve to arrive at the scaffold at the very moment of the execution.

Conditional pardons were granted to many in the 18th century, in return for transportation to British colonies overseas for life in lieu, especially to the Australian colonies.

The first known general pardon in post-Conquest England was issued during the celebrations at the coronation of King Edward III in 1327. In 2006, all British Armed Forces soldiers who were executed for cowardice during the First World War were given a statutory pardon by an Act of Parliament (the Armed Forces Act 2006), following a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions.

Today the sovereign only grants pardons upon the advice of his ministers: currently they are the Lord Chancellor, for England and Wales; the First Minister of Scotland; or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for military cases. It is the standard policy of the government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law. Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to a conviction, but only after the conviction. The use of the royal prerogative of mercy is now a rare occurrence, given that the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission are now avenues to statutory remedies against miscarriages of justice.

Therefore, the grant of pardons is now very rare occurrence indeed, and the vast majority of acknowledged miscarriages of justice were decided upon by the courts. During the Birmingham Six case, Home Secretary Douglas Hurd stressed that he could only make the decision for a pardon if he was "convinced of [their] innocence", which at the time he was not.

One recent case was that of two drug smugglers, John Haase and Paul Bennett. They were pardoned in July 1996 from their sentences of imprisonment both of 18 years, having served some ten months, on the advice of Home Secretary Michael Howard. This was intended as a reward for their information given to the authorities, but there were speculations as to the motives of the Home Secretary. In 2008 they were sentenced to imprisonment for 20 and 22 years, respectively, after subsequent discovery that the information they gave was unreliable.

In 1980, after the courts had dismissed their appeals, the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, used the royal prerogative of mercy to free David Cooper and Michael McMahon from their imprisonment, both having been convicted of murder on poor evidence.

Under the Act of Settlement 1701, a pardon cannot prevent a person from being impeached by Parliament, but a pardon may commute any penalties imposed for the conviction. In England and Wales no person may be pardoned for an offence under Section 11 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales).

U.S. Constitution
In the United States, the pardon power for offenses against the United States is granted to the president of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant many different forms of clemency (generally less sweeping than a full pardon), including not only pardons, but also conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines, forfeitures and other criminal financial penalties, respites and reprieves, and amnesties.

The pardon power of the president applies only to convictions under federal law. Additionally, the power extends to military court-martial cases as well as convictions in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Almost all pardon petitions are addressed to the president, who grants or denies the request. In some cases, the president will, of their own accord, issue a pardon. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice.

State law
The governors of most U.S. states have the power to grant pardons, reprieves and other forms of clemency for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement (in some states the agency is merged with that of the parole board, as in the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board).

Nine states in the United States have boards of pardons and paroles that exclusively grant all state pardons. These states are: Alabama (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Connecticut (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Idaho (Commission of Pardons and Paroles), Minnesota (Board of Pardons), Nebraska (Board of Pardons), Nevada (Board of Pardon Commissioners), South Carolina (Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon), and Utah (Utah Board of Pardons and Parole).

On at least four occasions, state governors – Toney Anaya of New Mexico in 1986, George Ryan of Illinois in 2003, Martin O'Malley of Maryland in 2014, and Kate Brown of Oregon in 2022 – have commuted all death sentences in their respective states prior to leaving office.

Related concepts
These terms differ subtly from country to country, but generally:
 * Clemency is a general concept of amelioration of penalties, especially by action of executive officials; the forms it may take include the following:
 * Amnesty: A pardon applied to a group of people rather than an individual. President Jimmy Carter offered amnesty to anyone who had evaded the draft. Weapon amnesties are often granted so that people can hand in weapons to the police without any legal questions being asked as to where they obtained them, why they had them, etc. After a civil war a mass amnesty may be granted to absolve all participants of guilt and "move on". Amnesties are typically applied in advance of any prosecution for the crime.
 * Commutation: Substituting the imposed penalty for a crime with a lesser penalty, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime (e.g., someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence commuted to life imprisonment rather than death, or the term of imprisonment may be reduced).
 * Remission: Complete or partial cancellation of the penalty, whilst still being considered guilty of said crime (i.e., reduced penalty). (This should not be confused with what is known in the United States as remission of remand, in which a case is sent back to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be held.)
 * Reprieve: Temporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the accused can mount an appeal (especially if he or she has been sentenced to death).
 * Respite: The delay of an ordered sentence, or the act of temporarily imposing a lesser sentence upon the convicted, whilst further investigation, action, or appeals can be conducted.
 * Parole is the provisional early release of a prisoner who agrees to abide by imposed behavioral conditions, generally including periodic check-ins with parole officers. Failure to comply with the terms of early release may result in reincarcertion.
 * Expungement: The process by which the record of a criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the official repository, thus removing any traces of guilt or conviction.
 * Immunity from prosecution: A prosecutor may grant immunity, usually to a witness, in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. The prosecutor (conditionally) agrees not to prosecute a crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence. For example, a car thief who witnesses a murder might be granted immunity for his crime as an inducement to identify, and perhaps to truthfully testify against the murderer. Some criminals who testify for the prosecution may be offered immunity from prosecution for their own crimes.

title: Pardon


text:
4000-series integrated circuits

The 4000 series is a CMOS logic family of integrated circuits (ICs) first introduced in 1968 by RCA. It was slowly migrated into the 4000B buffered series after about 1975. It had a much wider supply voltage range than any contemporary logic family (3V to 18V recommended range for "B" series). Almost all IC manufacturers active during this initial era fabricated models for this series. Its naming convention is still in use today.

History
The 4000 series was introduced as the CD4000 COS/MOS series in 1968 by RCA as a lower power and more versatile alternative to the 7400 series of transistor-transistor logic (TTL) chips. The logic functions were implemented with the newly introduced Complementary Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor (CMOS) technology. While initially marketed with "COS/MOS" labeling by RCA (which stood for Complementary Symmetry Metal-Oxide Semiconductor), the shorter CMOS terminology emerged as the industry preference to refer to the technology. The first chips in the series were designed by a group led by Albert Medwin.

Wide adoption was initially hindered by the comparatively lower speeds of the designs compared to TTL based designs. Speed limitations were eventually overcome with newer fabrication methods (such as self aligned gates of polysilicon instead of metal). These CMOS variants performed on par with contemporary TTL. The series was extended in the late 1970s and 1980s with new models that were given 45xx and 45xxx designations, but are usually still regarded by engineers as part of the 4000 series. In the 1990s, some manufacturers (e.g. Texas Instruments) ported the 4000 series to newer HCMOS based designs to provide greater speeds.

Design considerations
The 4000 series facilitates simpler circuit design through relatively low power consumption, a wide range of supply voltages, and vastly increased load-driving capability (fanout) compared to TTL. This makes the series ideal for use in prototyping LSI designs. While TTL ICs are similarly modular, these usually lack the symmetrical drive strength of CMOS and may therefore require more consideration of the loads applied on its outputs. Just like with TTL, buffered models can drive higher electrical current (mainly available for I/O-devices like octal latches and three-state drivers) but have a slightly higher risk of introducing ringing (transient oscillations) unless correctly damped or terminated. Many models contain a high level of integration, including fully integrated 7-segment display counters, walking ring counters, and full adders.

Common chips

 * Logic gates

 * Flip-flops
 * 4013 – Dual D-type flip-flop. Each flip-flop has independent data, Q, /Q, clock, reset, set.
 * 40174 – Hex D-type flip-flop. Each flip-flop has independent data and Q. All share clock and reset.
 * 40175 – Quad D-type flip-flop. Each flip-flop has independent data, Q, /Q. All share clock and reset.

 * Counters
 * 4017 – Decade counter with 10-output decoder.
 * 4026 – Decade counter with 7-segment digit decoded output.
 * 40110 – Up/down decade counter with 7-segment display decoder with 25 mA output drivers.
 * 40192 – Up/down decade counter with 4-bit BCD preset.
 * 40193 – Up/down binary counter with 4-bit binary preset.

 * Decoders
 * 4028 – 4-bit BCD to 10-output decoder (can be used as 3-bit binary to 8-output decoder)
 * 4511 – 4-bit BCD to 7-segment display decoder with 25 mA output drivers.

 * Timers
 * 4047 – Monostable/astable multivibrator with external RC oscillator.
 * 4060 – 14-bit ripple counter with external RC or crystal oscillator (long duration) (schmitt-trigger inputs) (can be used with 32.768 kHz crystal)
 * 4541 – 16-bit ripple counter with external RC oscillator (long duration).

 * Analog
 * 4051 – Single 8-channel analog mux.
 * 4066 – Quad SPST analog switch.

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

title: 4000-series integrated circuits


text:
Dobby

Dobby may refer to:

People

 * Dobby Dobson (1942–2020), Jamaican reggae singer and record producer
 * Dobby Gibson (born 1970), American poet
 * Dobby Walker (1919–2009), American labor lawyer
 * Dobby (musician), an Australian Aboriginal musician
 * Anton Khudobin (born 1986), Russian goaltender of the Dallas Stars

Textiles

 * Dobby loom, a mechanical device that simplifies the weaving of intricate patterns
 * Dobby (cloth), fabric made on the loom

Other uses

 * Dobby (Harry Potter), a character in the Harry Potter franchise
 * Dobby, a character in the Peep Show TV series
 * Dobby, a type of mischievous hobgoblin in English folklore

title: Dobby


text:
User talk:Synthetix

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 06:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

title: User talk:Synthetix


text:
Talk:Pardon

In the United States
Mention pardons at state level by individual governors in the US. Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes, I believe. --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 5 August 2003

 * It states in two places that pardons are at federal and state levels in the US is it not clear enough? Alex756 06:53, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * In some US states (e.g. Georgia) the pardon power is held not by the governor but by a state board. I don't have a source but I believe that in at least one case this was done to prevent the sale of pardons and/or clemency, whether in reaction to a specific scandal I don't know. 209.149.235.254 22:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * In Nebraska the Board of Pardons consists of the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The governor alone cannot pardon anybody. 98.19.47.73 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon v. amnesty
Removed:

 * "Pardon is different from amnesty, in that pardoning does not cancel the legal guilt of the criminal, but merely the completion of the sentence, while amnesty removes all legal effects of the conviction."

This is definitely not true of the Presidential pardon under U.S. law; there has been considerable litigation resulting in case law stating that a pardon not only nullifies the conviction but also prevents the imposition of any civil sanctions for the underlying conduct. This amnesty distinction needs to be made jurisdiction-specific. Ellsworth 00:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UK situation
I think what it says here is pretty confused. There is such a thing as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, but surely this is something completely different from a royal pardon. It would be worth saying something about the judge's summing up in R. v Waddell, related to the Paddy Meehan case. PatGallacher 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree entirely with Pat Gallacher. Whoever wrote this is simply wrong Jezzabr 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

'There are significant procedural differences in the royal pardon's use today, however.'

Yes, how are they used nowadays...Not very encyclopaedic if you don't actually say how it is used! The UK section of the article is tiny! And what about all the people who fought/still fight for a pardon for family members who deserted during wartime? Ben davison 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is incorrect and incomplete. It says only the Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Scottish First Minister can recommend a pardon - yet the High Court ruled last year that the *Justice Secretary* has the right to recommend a pardon for someone who was convicted abroad and brought back to the UK to finish his sentence.

Because of this, and also the other inconsitincies mentioned above, it would be very useful if someone could re-write the whole UK section. Preferably someone from the UK, with proper knowledge on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.117.237 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordering non-NPOV
The sections on national pardons should be sorted alphabetically (or by some other criteria) not in the order they are added. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree Ossie 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reprieve
Is there a difference between a pardon and a reprieve? Fishal 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes there is a difference. A pardon is to completely forgive someone for their crime and a reprieve is the act of lessening the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.48.247 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That's a commutation. A reprieve is actually to delay the beginning of the punishment. Look it up in any dictionary. 72.75.91.17 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
Any idea why this redirects here? The "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974" is a UK Law that dictates when criminal convictions are considered "spent" and no longer need to be reported to the public. It is not in any sense a pardon. --Kitsonk 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirza Tahir Hussain
President Musharraff of Pakistan has just lifted the death penalty on Mirza Tahir Hussain. I was wondering if there should be an entry on Pakistan here, as Musharaff's overturning of the Sharia courts may turn out to be historically significant? In any event, pardons in Islamic countries under Islamic law should be discussed, I feel, as this subject is quite relevant and, I am sure, would be of interest to many. abdullahazzam — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 18 November 2006

Needs help
I need help!! I'm trying to figure out how the pardon process works and I'm trying to do it myself without paying attorney fees to have it done. If anyone has any information regarding this situation please give me some feedback. Thank You--[user: stinkyporter]3:54, 27 December 2006

Christianity
I don't think the religious aspect is appropriate for this article. Maybe its own article or under some other, related Christian article, but given that this is under the criminal procedure banner... Well, just my thoughts. Mkilly 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (again)
As mentioned above, this piece of UK law should not redirect here. It badly needs its own article - can anyone sufficiently knowledgeable reading this write one? Apart from anything else, it should be pointed out that the RoO Act does not apply when a British citizen travels to the US - meaning that even a "spent" conviction disqualifies one from being eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. This is somewhat controversial in the UK, though not half as much so as the fact that people who have been arrested even if released without charge are also ineligible. As far as I know the UK does not discriminate in this last way against US citizens travelling here. 86.143.52.79 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The RoO Act already has its own article, at Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I have adjusted the redirect from "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" to point to it.--George Burgess 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardoning: Christianity versus Feudal societies?
Does anybody know whether the idea of pardoning springs from the christian roots of the countries mentioned in the article or whether it springs from the feudal/aristocratic heritage of the states in discussion.

Does it exist in Arab, Asian, African societies as well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.61.134.136 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Pardoning dead deserters
'A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed.'

This is inconsistent with pardoning dead deserters. Maybe someone can clarify the correct situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.181.39.143 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can...
the president pardon himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.64.146 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems so: Mdiamante (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't believe so, or Richard Nixon would have. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon; one of the first things he did in office.70.162.46.94 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

was Libby pardoned? how controversial?
first, was he really pardoned? is a pardon the same as a commutation of sentence? Second, how can it be 'controversial' when the news is barely out? you need at least a day or two, don't you, to get sources that support the statement that it is controversial.142.68.47.29 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Category changes
Since the article does not mention christianity or other theology except for the word church, I removed the categories theology and christian theology. I am sure they could be added back if they did reflect any theology in later revisions. I'll leave the tags alone on this talk page however. Sultec (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excessive linking to columnist's blog -- September 2010
I have removed edits made by one of a number of blocked sockpuppets that have been spamming Wikipedia with Jacob M Appel-related links or references. The article already contains two references to Appel's Huffington Post column, and adding his name and quote to the article gives Appel and his views a prominence or recognized expertise that doesn't appear to exist -- he's not widely mentioned in mainstream media or other reliable sources on this or any other subject that I can find. I'm not opposed to Appel's views being included in the article, but without any third-party verification, the content and links seem excessive. Flowanda | Talk 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The point is to showcase diverse ideas, I believe HOLLgu (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How can accepting a pardon imply guilt?
First of all, prisoners who exhaust their appeals have an executive pardon as a last resort. Presumably if a state governor issues a pardon at that point (say to a death row inmate), it implies he/she doesn't believe the convict is guilty.

Second of all, even if you were innocent, refusal of the pardon means you stay in jail right? So pardoned people have an incentive to accept the pardon regardless. Actually, I can't imagine someone refusing a pardon unless they were guilty, never asked for a pardon, and thought they deserved their sentence. 169.231.52.208 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Posthumous Pardon
Would it be appropriate for a blurb about posthumous pardons in the article? It would seem those are notable enough maybe even for a stand alone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Annulling the conviction
This article says
 * a pardon does not set aside the conviction

But at dictionary.law.com it says
 * A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent.

The latter had been my understanding. Can someone cite a source for assertions made here? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Grace
Isn't another name for this concept "grace"? If so, it should be added to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon between states / regimes e.g. for crimes committed by a coloniser during the colonial era
Examples:
 * 1) UN Decades of observation on Colonialism - https://www.un.org/en/sections/observances/international-decades/index.html - when reading the documents there is mention about inter state/government pardon and what this concists of. I started an article about it here on the wikipedia, but that has been destroyed by some wikipedian people with responsibility over the quality of articles etc.
 * 2) VIDEO. En Algérie, Macron s'excuse pour la colonisation, une ... Feb 15, 2017 - En déplacement en Algérie, le candidat à la présidentielle Emmanuel Macron a estimé mardi que la colonisation par la France avait été un ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume there must be a list somewhere, but I don't see it on the wikipedia and we must certainly interlink. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
The article begins "Pardon is the postponement of punishment, often with a view to a pardon or other review of the sentence (such as when the reprieving authority has no power to grant an immediate pardon)." Defining a pardon as the thing you do before a pardon seems circular and absurd. den dodge 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (yet again)
It would be helpful to have some cross-country correspondence addressed at the beginning of the article, as well as some mention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK section. It is relevant to this article, even if the distinction is clear in the UK, because if you read the Canada section for example you will wonder whether a "pardon" in Canada (which the article notes has been renamed) is more akin to a "spent" conviction in the UK. It may also be important to note that in the UK "offence" and "crime" are (almost?) synonymous, whereas in Canada again, a large number of offences are in provincial law and are not crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.171 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Expungement In South Africa
I find it difficult to accept that in South Africa, If you were sentenced for a year or maybe six months and get direct imprisonment for a common robbery, they give you a criminal record forever. The jobs are scarce, its even worse when you have a criminal record, you can't even get a security job. How are you going to survive then...If your life is like that you will always do wrong things over and over to survive because you know that you will never get a decent job. I am so disappointed about this.@simthelegendary@Gmail.com97 41.114.197.177 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe
— Assignment last updated by SPIAAZ (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pardon


text:
Bludger

Bludger may refer to:

 * Bludger (fish), a tropical to subtropical fish
 * Bludger (Quidditch), a type of ball used in the game Quidditch in the fictional Harry Potter universe
 * Bludger, Australian slang for a lazy person

title: Bludger


text:
Sandra Lee-Vercoe

Sandra Rose Te Hakamatua Lee-Vercoe (born 8 August 1952) is a former New Zealand politician and diplomat. She served as deputy leader (and briefly leader) of the Alliance party and was later High Commissioner to Niue.

Early life
Lee was born in Wellington to an English Romani father and a Māori mother, and grew up in a two bedroom Māori Affairs house with her parents, grandfather and great grandfather. She was educated at Onslow College. Lee later moved to Auckland, settling on Waiheke Island. Her involvement in politics began with the foundation of Mana Motuhake, a Māori issues party, in 1979. Her political career, however, did not begin until 1983, with her election to the Waiheke County Council. She became chairperson of the Council in 1989. When Waiheke was amalgamated into Auckland proper, Lee became a member of the Auckland City Council.

Lee connects to Poutini Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Toa.

Member of Parliament
In 1991, Lee became president of Mana Motuhake. Shortly after this, Mana Motuhake agreed to become a founding member of the Alliance, a coalition of minor parties. At the 1992 Alliance party conference Lee was elected the co-leader of the party alongside Jeanette Fitzsimons.

In the 1993 election, Lee became the first Māori woman to win a general seat (James Carroll being the first man in 1893) when she successfully contested the electorate as an Alliance candidate, defeating the incumbent Richard Prebble. Upon the retirement of Mana Motuhake founder Matiu Rata in 1994, Lee became Mana Motuhake's political leader. In November 1994, when Jim Anderton stepped down as leader of the Alliance for personal reasons, Lee took his place but Lee persuaded Anderton to return to the leadership in May 1995. Lee lost her Auckland Central seat to Labour's Judith Tizard at the 1996 election.

Cabinet member
When a Labour-Alliance coalition government was formed after the 1999 election, Lee became Minister of Local Government, Minister of Conservation, and Associate Minister of Māori Affairs. She was ranked seventh in Cabinet. During her time as Minister of Conservation Lee was known as an outspoken opponent of commercial whaling.

As Minister of Local Government, Lee oversaw significant reform including the development and passage of the Local Electoral Act 2001, and the development and introduction of the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

She lost the position as Mana Motuhake leader in 2001, after a leadership challenge by Willie Jackson. Lee believed that personal matters pertaining to her, such as her relationship with Te Puni Kōkiri staffer Anaru Vercoe, were used to discredit her as leader of Mana Motuhake. Commentators also noted there was an element of revenge by Jackson, as he had been demoted in the 1996 party list in order to make room for Alamein Kopu, who had been elevated in the party list upon Lee's persuasion.

Retirement
By the end of her term in parliament, the Alliance began to divide between Jim Anderton's moderate faction (including Lee) that held most of the parliamentary power, and the strongly left-wing faction, represented by most rank-and-file members and party president Matt McCarten and four of the Alliance MPs (including Laila Harré). The latter accused Anderton (and by extension, Lee) of moving the Alliance too close to Labour and not being distinct enough. The Alliance had fallen below the 5% threshold in polls. By March 2002, tensions had gotten so bad that McCarten and Lee had a 'swearing match' at a meeting in the Alliance's Wellington premises.

On 3 April 2002, both Anderton and Lee announced their refusal to stand under the Alliance banner at the 2002 election. Anderton went on to form the Progressive Coalition while Harré led the Alliance into the election (which saw them knocked out of parliament), but Lee did not stand and retired from politics that year.

Lee-Vercoe has continued to be politically active by being a guest commentator on issues affecting Māori and New Zealand on Te Karere, Breakfast, Native Affairs and Radio Waatea. Her career as a parliamentarian was honoured and highlighted in the Matangireia documentary series, released in 2019, that documented former Māori politicians and their legacy.

Diplomat
Lee was High Commissioner to Niue, representing the New Zealand and UK governments, from 12 February 2003 to 3 October 2005.

Board member
In September 2006 Lee was appointed to the board of Housing New Zealand. In July 2007 she was appointed to the board of Te Papa Tongarewa.

Political offices

 * 1983–1989: Member, Waiheke County Council
 * 1989: Chair, Waiheke County Council
 * 1989–1994 (January): Councillor, Auckland City Council
 * 1993–1996: Member of Parliament (Alliance), Auckland Central
 * 1996–2002: Member of Parliament (List) (Alliance)
 * 1999 (December) – 2002: Minister of the Crown (Local Government, Conservation, Associate Māori Affairs), Labour-Alliance government

Personal life
At age 16, Lee married Mike Lee, giving birth to their elder daughter at age 17. They separated in 1992. She has been married to Anaru Vercoe since 2002.

New Zealand journalist and television producer, Annabelle Lee-Mather, is Lee's daughter.

title: Sandra Lee-Vercoe


text:
Council of Nicaea

Council of Nicaea can refer to:

 * First Council of Nicaea in AD 325
 * Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787
 * The Council of Nicaea (audio drama)
 * The Council of Nicaea (painting)

title: Council of Nicaea


text:
Louison Bobet

Louis "Louison" Bobet (12 March 1925 – 13 March 1983 ) was a French professional road racing cyclist. He was the first great French rider of the post-war period and the first rider to win the Tour de France in three successive years, from 1953 to 1955. His career included the national road championship (1950 and 1951), Milan–San Remo (1951), Giro di Lombardia (1951), Critérium International (1951 & 52), Paris–Nice (1952), Grand Prix des Nations (1952), world road championship (1954), Tour of Flanders (1955), Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré (1955), Tour de Luxembourg (1955), Paris–Roubaix (1956) and Bordeaux–Paris (1959).

Origins
Louis Bobet was born one of three children above his father's baker's shop in the rue de Montfort, Saint-Méen-le-Grand, near Rennes. His father gave him a bicycle when he was two and after six months he could ride it 6 km. Bobet's father was also called Louis and the son was called Louison – little Louis – to avoid confusion The ending -on is a diminutive in French but outside Brittany Louison refers more usually to a girl. He was known as Louis in his early years as a rider, even as a professional, until the diminutive Louison gained in popularity.

His sister played table tennis, his brother Jean football, although he also became a professional cyclist. Louison played both table tennis and football and became Brittany champion at table tennis. It was his uncle, Raymond, who was president of a cycling club in Paris who persuaded him to concentrate on cycling.

Bobet's first race was a 30 km event when he was 13. He came second in a sprint finish. He raced in his local area and won four events for unlicensed riders in 1941. He qualified for the final of the unofficial youth championship, the Premier Pas Dunlop in 1943 at Montluçon and came sixth. The winner was Raphaël Géminiani, who would become a professional team-mate and rival.

Bobet is said to have carried messages for the Resistance during the Second World War. After D-Day he joined the army and served in eastern France. He was demobilised in December 1945.

Racing career
Bobet applied for racing licence on leaving the army and by error was sent one for an independent, or semi-professional. He benefited from the right to compete against professionals as well as amateurs. He came second in the Brittany championship and rode the national championship in Paris. There he came up against a veteran professional, Marcel Bidot, who on retirement became Bobet's manager in the national team. Bobet left the field to catch two riders who had broken clear. He dropped one and outsprinted the other to become national champion. He turned fully professional for Stella, a bicycle factory in Nantes.

Tour de France 1947
Stella was a small team that rode mainly in Brittany. In May 1947, however, two from the team rode the Boucles de la Seine race in Paris. He won alone by six minutes. It brought him an invitation to ride the Tour de France, at that time disputed by national and regional teams. The unexpected toughness of the race forced him to go home on the ninth day, in the Alps and to cry when the going got hard. It brought him the nickname "cry-baby" in the bunch and René Vietto referred to him as La Bobette, a mock feminisation of his name, for his tears and complaining. The historian Dick Yates wrote:

 * He brought down the scorn of the press and everyone quickly wrote off this 'cry-baby'. René Vietto was in the yellow jersey as leader of the general classification and he looked like he was going to win – he was a real man. As France forgot about him, Bobet went home to lick his wounds and listen to words of advice from his father.

Tour de France 1948
The former rider, Maurice Archambaud, took over management of the team from Léo Véron and took a chance on Bobet. Much had changed since the previous summer and he took the lead after the third stage, which finished near Stella's factory in Nantes. Bobet lost the yellow jersey the following day but regained it by winning the sixth stage, to Biarritz. He had 20 minutes' lead over the veteran Italian, Gino Bartali as the race entered the Alps. And then happened one of the most outstanding periods in the history of the Tour.

(See Gino Bartali for full story.)

A political crisis in Italy threatened to overthrow the government and bring the country to anarchy. The prime minister asked Bartali to distract Italians by dominating the Tour. Bartali won three stages in a row and the Tour by 14 minutes. Bobet's 20 minutes on Bartali was cut to a 32-minute deficit by the time the race finished in Paris. Bobet had twice worn the yellow jersey and won two stages, however, and with the money he won he moved to Paris and bought a drapery shop for his wife.

Tour de France 1950
Bobet did not finish in 1949, struggling from the start. He dropped out on the first day in the mountains, along with four other members of the national team. In 1950 he won the national championship at Montlhéry south of Paris the week before the Tour and rode in the national team with Géminiani, the rider who had beaten him as a boy in the Premier Pas Dunlop. He and Bobet developed a rocky friendship, Géminiani's rough, instinctive character a contrast to the more thoughtful, quieter Bobet. The two argued frequently but remained friends. Géminiani, following the French habit of creating nicknames by doubling a syllable of a name referred to Bobet as Zonzon, a name that Bobet hated but tolerated. Géminiani had the confidence that Bobet lacked.

Bobet and Géminiani were second and third early in the race. Both hoped to profit from the absence of Fausto Coppi, who was injured, but found themselves instead up against an unbeatable Ferdinand Kübler. Bobet finished third, winning the mountain competition.

Tour de France 1953
Bobet rode the 1951 Tour in the blue-white-red of national champion again but cracked in the mountains. Jean Bidot, the manager, sent riders to help him but in the end abandoned him to concentrate on Géminiani, the best placed. Bobet came 20th, although with a stage win. He lost 40 minutes on the last day in the mountains even though the race was taking it easy, Hugo Koblet already being unbeatable. Dick Yates said:

"It was a terrible performance for a man of his class, but although he had suffered and suffered he had not given up the struggle. While this showed character, nobody was prepared to make allowances for it. 'He is just not a stage rider,' they said. 'He'll never win the Tour. No matter how brilliant you may be, if you're not consistent you haven't got a chance.' The sensitive Bobet was stung by this criticism. He had given his all for the Tour but everyone had turned against him. Even Jean Robic, who was not really in Bobet's class, was now more popular and it really hurt."

And then in 1953, after a year without the Tour, Bobet left the field behind on a stage that crossed the Vars. He climbed the Col d'Izoard alone on roads still rutted and strewn with stones and when the gearing on his bicycle forced him to fight to keep it moving. The historian Bill McGann wrote: "Stage 18 is etched in the history of the Tour. It was 165km from Gap to Briançon... Bobet knew this was the time to strike. One of Bobet's team-mates, Adolphe Deledda, went clear on the Vars with two other riders. Bobet stayed with the other leading climbers as they ascended the Vars. Spanish rider Jesús Loroño attacked. The alert and very capable Bobet jumped on his wheel and the pair disappeared up the mountain. Bobet was a good descender and dropped Lorono on the way down the Vars. Meanwhile, Deledda, upon being told that Bobet was on his way, eased up and waited for his captain. The two hooked up and took off across the 20km valley floor leading to the Izoard. In doing so they caught and then dispatched Deledda's two original breakaway companions. Bobet and Deledda, knowing the importance of the moment, were men on a mission. Deledda, fulfilling the team contract in both letter and especially in spirit, buried himself towing Bobet to the great mountain. Bobet flew up the Izoard as if he had wings. Bobet had finally arrived as the premier stage racer in the world. As he crested the Izoard there was a very well known cycling fan by the side of the road. Fausto Coppi with his mistress, Giulia Locatelli (the 'woman in white'), was watching the race. As he rode past the great man, Bobet shouted thanks to Coppi for coming."

He won that day by more than five minutes in Briançon, took the yellow jersey as leader of the general classification, then won the time trial and finished the Tour with 14 minutes' lead. He was greeted in Paris by Maurice Garin, winner of the first Tour in 1903, celebrating the Tour's 50th anniversary. He had, however, won a Tour without stars. Kübler was not riding and nor was Coppi, who was standing on the Izoard to watch Bobet pass. Koblet was riding badly and dropped out after a crash. Bartali was too old. Yates' assessment is that "Bobet had won the Tour and won it well but the opposition was hardly top drawer.

Tour de France 1954
The 1954 race was different, without Italians but with a strong team from Belgium. The race started fast and didn't ease up. Bobet took the lead after four days, then lost it on day eight. The jersey changed hands until Bobet again dominated on the Izoard. Winning the time-trial cemented his lead and he got to Paris 15 minutes before Kübler A few weeks later he became world champion in Germany. He left Stella after eight years to ride for Mercier, the team riding bicycles carrying Bobet's name and sold by him but made in the Mercier factory in St-Étienne.

Tour de France 1955
Bobet completed his hat-trick of successive wins in 1955, having that year won the Tour of Flanders and Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré. The strongest French rider at first was Antonin Rolland and the manager, Marcel Bidot, asked the team to ride for him. Rolland, however, grew weaker as the race approached the Pyrenees. Bobet won the Tour but with a saddle boil that needed surgery. "His flesh was full of holes", said a report. "Dead tissue had to be removed to within several millimetres of vital organs. Nobody dared speak the word 'cancer'" Bobet believed that enduring the sores during the Tour made him a lesser rider for the rest of his life.

He learned to fly a plane while forced not to ride.

Tour de France 1958
The 1958 was the last that Bobet finished. One account said:

"He has 400,000 kilometres in his legs. He has conquered glory and fortune but he is badly ill. Despite the formal advice of his doctor, he has decided to ride the 1958 Tour de France. He will suffer. He knows that. In the heart of the gigantic rocks of the Cassé Déserte, Bob is arced on his bicycle, his kidneys crushed by the effort and his head, like a heavy, painful balance, oscillates above his handlebars. The sun beats down on him. Around him, the whole mountain smokes like a giant witch's cauldron. As he breathes, what burns his throat and his lungs is the dust that rises around him... Abandoned, alone, without help, streaming with sweat, he has no other weapon against his adversaries but the mountain, the bad weather and his crazy willpower."

He came seventh.

Personality
The most striking feature of Bobet the man rather than rider was his ambition to behave like a Hollywood matinée idol, a sort of David Niven character in a dinner suit tuxedo. It brought him much ribbing from other French riders. Géminiani says Bobet's diffident and elegant manner made him less popular even in his own Brittany than the more rustic, forthright manners of other Breton people such as Jean Robic. The British professional Brian Robinson called Bobet "a private man and a little moody" and said he would sulk if things went wrong. The French journalist René de Latour said of Bobet in Sporting Cyclist that "he didn't look good on a bike" and that he had "the legs of a football [soccer] player".

Bobet spoke out against French involvement in a war against communists in Indo-China. He said he wasn't a Marxist but a pacifist. Géminiani said Bobet lacked humility. "He really thought that, after him, there'd be no more cycling in France", he said. Bobet occasionally talked of himself in the third person.

Bobet was driven by personal hygiene and refused to accept his first yellow jersey because it had not been made with the pure wool he believed the only healthy material for a sweating and dusty rider. Synthetic thread or blends were added in 1947 following the arrival of Sofil as a sponsor. Sofil made artificial yarn. The race organiser, Jacques Goddet wrote: "It produced a real drama. Our contract with Sofil was crumbling away. If the news had got out, the commercial effect would have been disastrous for the manufacturer. I remember debating it with him a good part of the night. Louison was always exquisitely courteous but his principles were as hard as the granite blocks of his native Brittany coast."

Goddet had to get Sofil to produce another jersey overnight, its logo still visible but artificial fabric absent. Bobet's concern with hygiene and clothing was accentuated by frequent problems with saddle sores.

Raymond Le Bert
Bobet was one of the first riders to employ a personal soigneur, taking his lead from Coppi. He took on Raymond Le Bert, a physiotherapist from St-Brieuc, as well as a secretary and a driver. Le Bert booked him hotel rooms between half-stages of the Tour, against the Tour's rules. Riders were supposed to use a dormitory provided for them. When the Tour insisted riders carry spare tyres, usually round their shoulders, Le Bert gave Bobet tubulars with the inner tubes taken out, useless to ride on but lighter to carry if that's what the rules insisted.

Le Bert said he had met Coppi, whom Bobet admired for his "modern" techniques but refused to have anything to do with the Italian's suitcase of drugs. Bobet insisted he never took drugs. But the journalist and race organiser, Jean Leulliot, remembered a dinner organised by Jacques Goddet and Félix Lévitan, the organisers of the Tour de France, for the race's former winners. Leulliot wrote:

"One table attracted particular attention. Around it were Anquetil, Merckx and Bobet, 13 victories in the Tour between them. The conversation at the table was particularly lively and Louison Bobet was being challenged for saying that he had never taken the slightest drug or stimulant. He was obliged to admit that he had drunk the small bottles prepared for him by his soigneur at the time without knowing exactly what they contained. Which produced laughter from Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx."

Bobet and Britain
Bobet presented prizes at the annual presentation of the British Best All-Rounder time-trial competition at the Royal Albert Hall, London, in 1954. He gave a yellow jersey to a veteran competitor, Vic Gibbons. Bobet flew from Paris to London in a de Havilland Dove chartered by a London timber-merchant and cycling enthusiast, Vic Jenner. Jock Wadley, the editor of Sporting Cyclist was with Jenner. He remember that the two Britons arrived at Le Bourget airport without having brought passports – but that immigration staff gave them no attention because they were too busy trying to get an autograph from Bobet.

Retirement and death
Bobet's career effectively ended when the car carrying him and his brother Jean crashed outside Paris in the autumn of 1960.

Louison Bobet had a succession of businesses after he stopped racing, including a clothes shop, but he became best known for investing in and developing the seawater health treatment of thalassotherapy. He had used it when recovering from his car crash. He opened the Louison Bobet centre beside the sea at Quiberon. The Quiberon centre was purchased by Accor in 1984 and became the flagship of its Thalassa Sea & Spa brand. He fell ill, however, and died of cancer the day after his 58th birthday. Cancer had been speculated during the operation for his saddle boils. Bobet is interred in the cemetery of Saint-Méen-le-Grand, and there is a museum to his memory in the town, the idea of village postmaster Raymond Quérat.

Major results

 * Tour de France
 * 4th overall and 2 stage wins (1948)
 * 3rd overall, 1 stage win and Winner mountains classification (1950)
 * 20th overall and 1 stage win (1951)
 * Jersey yellow.svg1st overall and 2 stage wins (1953)
 * Jersey yellow.svg1st overall and 3 stage wins (1954)
 * Jersey yellow.svg1st overall and 2 stage wins (1955)
 * 7th overall (1958)

 * Giro d'Italia
 * 2nd overall, 1 stage win and leading the general classification for 9 stages (1957)
 * 7th overall, 1 stage win and winner Mountains classification (1951)

 * Other races
 * World Road Race Championship (1954)
 * National Road Championship (1950, 1951)
 * Milan–San Remo (1951)
 * Giro di Lombardia (1951)
 * Critérium International (1951, 1952)
 * Desgrange-Colombo Trophy (1951)
 * Paris–Nice (1952)
 * Grand Prix des Nations (1952)
 * Tour of Flanders (1955)
 * Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré (1955)
 * Tour de Luxembourg (1955)
 * Paris–Roubaix (1956)
 * Bordeaux–Paris (1959)
 * Critérium des As (1949, 1950, 1953, 1954)

title: Louison Bobet