document_title: FIFA World Cup

question_text: who has won the most world cups in football

question_tokens: who has won the most world cups in football

text: FIFA World Cup

text: History

text: Previous international competitions

text: The world's first international football match was a challenge match played in Glasgow in 1872 between Scotland and England,[5] which ended in a 0–0 draw. The first international tournament, the inaugural edition of the British Home Championship, took place in 1884.[6] As football grew in popularity in other parts of the world at the turn of the 20th century, it was held as a demonstration sport with no medals awarded at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympics (however, the IOC has retroactively upgraded their status to official events), and at the 1906 Intercalated Games.[7]

text: After FIFA was founded in 1904, it tried to arrange an international football tournament between nations outside the Olympic framework in Switzerland in 1906. These were very early days for international football, and the official history of FIFA describes the competition as having been a failure.[8]

text: At the 1908 Summer Olympics in London, football became an official competition. Planned by The Football Association (FA), England's football governing body, the event was for amateur players only and was regarded suspiciously as a show rather than a competition. Great Britain (represented by the England national amateur football team) won the gold medals. They repeated the feat in 1912 in Stockholm.

text: With the Olympic event continuing to be contested only between amateur teams, Sir Thomas Lipton organised the Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy tournament in Turin in 1909. The Lipton tournament was a championship between individual clubs (not national teams) from different nations, each one of which represented an entire nation. The competition is sometimes described as The First World Cup,[9] and featured the most prestigious professional club sides from Italy, Germany and Switzerland, but the FA of England refused to be associated with the competition and declined the offer to send a professional team. Lipton invited West Auckland, an amateur side from County Durham, to represent England instead. West Auckland won the tournament and returned in 1911 to successfully defend their title.

text: In 1914, FIFA agreed to recognise the Olympic tournament as a "world football championship for amateurs", and took responsibility for managing the event.[10] This paved the way for the world's first intercontinental football competition, at the 1920 Summer Olympics, contested by Egypt and 13 European teams, and won by Belgium.[11] Uruguay won the next two Olympic football tournaments in 1924 and 1928. Those were also the first two open world championships, as 1924 was the start of FIFA's professional era.

text: World Cups before World War II

text: Due to the success of the Olympic football tournaments, FIFA, with President Jules Rimet as the driving force, again started looking at staging its own international tournament outside of the Olympics. On 28 May 1928, the FIFA Congress in Amsterdam decided to stage a world championship itself.[12] With Uruguay now two-time official football world champions and to celebrate their centenary of independence in 1930, FIFA named Uruguay as the host country of the inaugural World Cup tournament.

text: The national associations of selected nations were invited to send a team, but the choice of Uruguay as a venue for the competition meant a long and costly trip across the Atlantic Ocean for European sides. Indeed, no European country pledged to send a team until two months before the start of the competition. Rimet eventually persuaded teams from Belgium, France, Romania, and Yugoslavia to make the trip. In total, 13 nations took part: seven from South America, four from Europe and two from North America.

text: The first two World Cup matches took place simultaneously on 13 July 1930, and were won by France and the USA, who defeated Mexico 4–1 and Belgium 3–0 respectively. The first goal in World Cup history was scored by Lucien Laurent of France.[13] In the final, Uruguay defeated Argentina 4–2 in front of a crowd of 93,000 people in Montevideo, and in doing so became the first nation to win the World Cup.[14]

text: After the creation of the World Cup, FIFA and the IOC disagreed over the status of amateur players, and so football was dropped from the 1932 Summer Olympics.[15] Olympic football returned at the 1936 Summer Olympics, but was now overshadowed by the more prestigious World Cup.

text: The issues facing the early World Cup tournaments were the difficulties of intercontinental travel, and war. Few South American teams were willing to travel to Europe for the 1934 and all North and South American nations except Brazil and Cuba boycotted the 1938 tournament. Brazil were the only South American team to compete in both. The 1942 and 1946 competitions, which Germany and Brazil sought to host,[16] were cancelled due to World War II and its aftermath.

text: World Cups after World War II

text: The 1950 World Cup, held in Brazil, was the first to include British participants. British teams withdrew from FIFA in 1920, partly out of unwillingness to play against the countries they had been at war with, and partly as a protest against foreign influence on football,[17] but rejoined in 1946 following FIFA's invitation.[18] The tournament also saw the return of 1930 champions Uruguay, who had boycotted the previous two World Cups. Uruguay won the tournament again after defeating the host nation Brazil, in the match called "Maracanazo" (Portuguese: Maracanaço).

text: In the tournaments between 1934 and 1978, 16 teams competed in each tournament, except in 1938, when Austria was absorbed into Germany after qualifying, leaving the tournament with 15 teams, and in 1950, when India, Scotland, and Turkey withdrew, leaving the tournament with 13 teams.[19] Most of the participating nations were from Europe and South America, with a small minority from North America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. These teams were usually defeated easily by the European and South American teams. Until 1982, the only teams from outside Europe and South America to advance out of the first round were: USA, semi-finalists in 1930; Cuba, quarter-finalists in 1938; North Korea, quarter-finalists in 1966; and Mexico, quarter-finalists in 1970.

text: Expansion to 32 teams

text: The tournament was expanded to 24 teams in 1982,[20] and then to 32 in 1998,[21] also allowing more teams from Africa, Asia and North America to take part. Since then, teams from these regions have enjoyed more success, with several having reached the quarter-finals: Mexico, quarter-finalists in 1986; Cameroon, quarter-finalists in 1990; South Korea, finishing in fourth place in 2002; Senegal, along with USA, both quarter-finalists in 2002; Ghana, quarter-finalists in 2010; and Costa Rica, quarter-finalists in 2014. Nevertheless, European and South American teams continue to dominate, e.g., the quarter-finalists in 1994, 1998, and 2006 were all from Europe or South America and so were the finalists of all tournaments so far.

text: Two hundred teams entered the 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification rounds; 198 nations attempted to qualify for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, while a record 204 countries entered qualification for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.[22]

text: Expansion to 48 teams

text: In October 2013, Sepp Blatter spoke of guaranteeing the Caribbean Football Union's region a position in the World Cup.[23] In the 25 October 2013 edition of the FIFA Weekly Blatter wrote that: "From a purely sporting perspective, I would like to see globalisation finally taken seriously, and the African and Asian national associations accorded the status they deserve at the FIFA World Cup. It cannot be that the European and South American confederations lay claim to the majority of the berths at the World Cup."[24] Those two remarks suggested to commentators that Blatter could be putting himself forward for re-election to the FIFA Presidency.[25]

text: Following the magazine's publication, Blatter's would-be opponent for the FIFA Presidency, UEFA President Michel Platini responded that he intended to extend the World Cup to 40 national associations, increasing the number of participants by eight. Platini said that he would allocate an additional berth to UEFA, two to Asia Football Confederation and Confederation of African Football, two shared between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL, and a guaranteed place for the Oceania Football Confederation.[26] Platini was clear about why he wanted to expand the World Cup. He said: "[The World Cup is] not based on the quality of the teams because you don't have the best 32 at the World Cup ... but it's a good compromise. ... It's a political matter so why not have more Africans? The competition is to bring all the people of all the world. If you don't give the possibility to participate, they don't improve."[26]

text: In October 2016 FIFA president Gianni Infantino stated his support for a 48-team World Cup in 2026.[27] On 10 January 2017, FIFA confirmed the 2026 World Cup will have 48 finalist teams.[28]

text: 2015 FIFA corruption case

text: By May 2015, the games were under a particularly dark cloud because of the 2015 FIFA corruption case, allegations and criminal charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering to corrupt the issuing of media and marketing rights (rigged bids) for FIFA games,[29] with FIFA officials accused of taking bribes totaling more than $150 million over 24 years. In late May, the U.S. Justice Department announced a 47-count indictment with charges of racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy against 14 people. Arrests of over a dozen FIFA officials were made since that time, particularly on May 29 and December 3.[30] By the end of May 2015, a total of nine FIFA officials and five executives of sports and broadcasting markets had already been charged on corruption. At the time, FIFA president Sepp Blatter announced he would relinquish his position in February 2016.[31]

text: On 4 June 2015 Chuck Blazer while co-operating with the FBI and the Swiss authorities admitted that he and the other members of FIFA's then-executive committee were bribed in order to promote the 1998 and 2010 World Cups.[32] On 10 June 2015 Swiss authorities seized computer data from the offices of Sepp Blatter.[33] The same day, FIFA postponed the bidding process for the 2026 FIFA World Cup in light of the allegations surrounding bribery in the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. Then-secretary general Jérôme Valcke stated, "Due to the situation, I think it's nonsense to start any bidding process for the time being."[34] On 28 October 2015, Blatter and FIFA VP Michel Platini, a potential candidate for presidency, were suspended for 90 days; both maintained their innocence in statements made to the news media.[35]

text: On 3 December 2015 two FIFA vice-presidents were arrested on suspicion of bribery in the same Zurich hotel where seven FIFA officials had been arrested in May.[36] An additional 16 indictments by the U.S. Department of Justice were announced on the same day.[37]

text: Other FIFA tournaments

text: An equivalent tournament for women's football, the FIFA Women's World Cup, was first held in 1991 in China.[38] The women's tournament is smaller in scale and profile than the men's, but is growing; the number of entrants for the 2007 tournament was 120, more than double that of 1991.[39]

text: Men's football has been included in every Summer Olympic Games except 1896 and 1932. Unlike many other sports, the men's football tournament at the Olympics is not a top-level tournament, and since 1992, an under-23 tournament with each team allowed three over-age players.[40] Women's football made its Olympic debut in 1996.

text: The FIFA Confederations Cup is a tournament held one year before the World Cup at the World Cup host nation(s) as a dress rehearsal for the upcoming World Cup. It is contested by the winners of each of the six FIFA confederation championships, along with the FIFA World Cup champion and the host country.[41]

text: FIFA also organises international tournaments for youth football (FIFA U-20 World Cup, FIFA U-17 World Cup, FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup, FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup), club football (FIFA Club World Cup), and football variants such as futsal (FIFA Futsal World Cup) and beach soccer (FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup). The latter three do not have a women's version, although a FIFA Women's Club World Cup has been proposed.[42]

text: The FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup is held the year before each Women's World Cup and both tournaments are awarded in a single bidding process. The U-20 tournament serves as a dress rehearsal for the larger competition.[43]

text: Trophy

text: From 1930 to 1970, the Jules Rimet Trophy was awarded to the World Cup winning team. It was originally simply known as the World Cup or Coupe du Monde, but in 1946 it was renamed after the FIFA president Jules Rimet who set up the first tournament. In 1970, Brazil's third victory in the tournament entitled them to keep the trophy permanently. However, the trophy was stolen in 1983 and has never been recovered, apparently melted down by the thieves.[44]

text: After 1970, a new trophy, known as the FIFA World Cup Trophy, was designed. The experts of FIFA, coming from seven countries, evaluated the 53 presented models, finally opting for the work of the Italian designer Silvio Gazzaniga. The new trophy is 36 cm (14.2 in) high, made of solid 18 carat (75%) gold and weighs 6.175 kg (13.6 lb). The base contains two layers of semi-precious malachite while the bottom side of the trophy bears the engraved year and name of each FIFA World Cup winner since 1974. The description of the trophy by Gazzaniga was: "The lines spring out from the base, rising in spirals, stretching out to receive the world. From the remarkable dynamic tensions of the compact body of the sculpture rise the figures of two athletes at the stirring moment of victory."[45]

text: This new trophy is not awarded to the winning nation permanently. World Cup winners retain the trophy only until the post-match celebration is finished. They are awarded a gold-plated replica rather than the solid gold original immediately afterwards.[46]

text: Currently, all members (players, coaches, and managers) of the top three teams receive medals with an insignia of the World Cup Trophy; winners' (gold), runners-up' (silver), and third-place (bronze). In the 2002 edition, fourth-place medals were awarded to hosts South Korea. Before the 1978 tournament, medals were only awarded to the eleven players on the pitch at the end of the final and the third-place match. In November 2007, FIFA announced that all members of World Cup-winning squads between 1930 and 1974 were to be retroactively awarded winners' medals.[47][48][49]

text: Format

text: Qualification

text: Since the second World Cup in 1934, qualifying tournaments have been held to thin the field for the final tournament.[50] They are held within the six FIFA continental zones (Africa, Asia, North and Central America and Caribbean, South America, Oceania, and Europe), overseen by their respective confederations. For each tournament, FIFA decides the number of places awarded to each of the continental zones beforehand, generally based on the relative strength of the confederations' teams.

text: The qualification process can start as early as almost three years before the final tournament and last over a two-year period. The formats of the qualification tournaments differ between confederations. Usually, one or two places are awarded to winners of intercontinental play-offs. For example, the winner of the Oceanian zone and the fifth-placed team from the Asian zone entered a play-off for a spot in the 2010 World Cup.[51] From the 1938 World Cup onwards, host nations receive automatic qualification to the final tournament. This right was also granted to the defending champions between 1938 and 2002, but was withdrawn from the 2006 FIFA World Cup onward, requiring the champions to qualify. Brazil, winners in 2002, were the first defending champions to play qualifying matches.[52]

text: Final tournament

text: The current final tournament has been used since 1998 and features 32 national teams competing over the course of a month in the host nation(s). There are two stages: the group stage followed by the knockout stage.[53]

text: In the group stage, teams compete within eight groups of four teams each. Eight teams are seeded, including the hosts, with the other seeded teams selected using a formula based on the FIFA World Rankings and/or performances in recent World Cups, and drawn to separate groups.[54] The other teams are assigned to different "pots", usually based on geographical criteria, and teams in each pot are drawn at random to the eight groups. Since 1998, constraints have been applied to the draw to ensure that no group contains more than two European teams or more than one team from any other confederation.[55]

text: Each group plays a round-robin tournament, in which each team is scheduled for three matches against other teams in the same group. This means that a total of six matches are played within a group. The last round of matches of each group is scheduled at the same time to preserve fairness among all four teams.[56] The top two teams from each group advance to the knockout stage. Points are used to rank the teams within a group. Since 1994, three points have been awarded for a win, one for a draw and none for a loss (before, winners received two points).

text: If one considers all possible outcomes (win, draw, loss) for all six matches in a group, there are 729 (= 36) outcome combinations possible. However, 207 of these combinations lead to ties between the second and third places. In such case, the ranking among these teams is determined as follows:[57]

text:
Greatest combined goal difference in all group matches
Greatest combined number of goals scored in all group matches
If more than one team remain level after applying the above criteria, their ranking will be determined as follows:

Greatest number of points in head-to-head matches among those teams
Greatest goal difference in head-to-head matches among those teams
Greatest number of goals scored in head-to-head matches among those teams

If any of the teams above remain level after applying the above criteria, their ranking will be determined by the drawing of lots

text: The knockout stage is a single-elimination tournament in which teams play each other in one-off matches, with extra time and penalty shootouts used to decide the winner if necessary. It begins with the round of 16 (or the second round) in which the winner of each group plays against the runner-up of another group. This is followed by the quarter-finals, the semi-finals, the third-place match (contested by the losing semi-finalists), and the final.[53]

text: On 10 January 2017, FIFA approved a new format, the 48-team World Cup (to accommodate more teams), which consists of 16 groups of three teams each, with two teams qualifying from each group, to form a round of 32 knockout stage, to be implemented by 2026.[58]

text: Hosts

text: Selection process

text: Early World Cups were given to countries at meetings of FIFA's congress. The locations were controversial because South America and Europe were by far the two centres of strength in football and travel between them required three weeks by boat. The decision to hold the first World Cup in Uruguay, for example, led to only four European nations competing.[59] The next two World Cups were both held in Europe. The decision to hold the second of these in France was disputed, as the South American countries understood that the location would alternate between the two continents. Both Argentina and Uruguay thus boycotted the 1938 FIFA World Cup.[60]

text: Since the 1958 FIFA World Cup, to avoid future boycotts or controversy, FIFA began a pattern of alternating the hosts between the Americas and Europe, which continued until the 1998 FIFA World Cup. The 2002 FIFA World Cup, hosted jointly by South Korea and Japan, was the first one held in Asia, and the only tournament with multiple hosts.[61] South Africa became the first African nation to host the World Cup in 2010. The 2014 FIFA World Cup was hosted by Brazil, the first held in South America since Argentina 1978,[62] and was the first occasion where consecutive World Cups were held outside Europe.

text: The host country is now chosen in a vote by FIFA's Council. This is done under an exhaustive ballot system. The national football association of a country desiring to host the event receives a "Hosting Agreement" from FIFA, which explains the steps and requirements that are expected from a strong bid. The bidding association also receives a form, the submission of which represents the official confirmation of the candidacy. After this, a FIFA designated group of inspectors visit the country to identify that the country meets the requirements needed to host the event and a report on the country is produced. The decision on who will host the World Cup is usually made six or seven years in advance of the tournament. However, there have been occasions where the hosts of multiple future tournaments were announced at the same time, as was the case for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which were awarded to Russia and Qatar, with Qatar becoming the first Middle Eastern country to host the tournament.[63][64]

text: For the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, the final tournament is rotated between confederations, allowing only countries from the chosen confederation (Africa in 2010, South America in 2014) to bid to host the tournament. The rotation policy was introduced after the controversy surrounding Germany's victory over South Africa in the vote to host the 2006 tournament. However, the policy of continental rotation will not continue beyond 2014, so any country, except those belonging to confederations that hosted the two preceding tournaments, can apply as hosts for World Cups starting from 2018.[65] This is partly to avoid a similar scenario to the bidding process for the 2014 tournament, where Brazil was the only official bidder.

text: Performances

text: Six of the eight champions have won one of their titles while playing in their own homeland, the exceptions being Brazil, who finished as runners-up after losing the deciding match on home soil in 1950 and lost their semifinal against Germany in 2014, and Spain, which reached the second round on home soil in 1982. England (1966) and France (1998) won their only titles while playing as host nations. Uruguay (1930), Italy (1934) and Argentina (1978) won their first titles as host nations but have gone on to win again, while Germany (1974) won their second title on home soil.[66]

text: Other nations have also been successful when hosting the tournament. Switzerland (quarter-finals 1954), Sweden (runners-up in 1958), Chile (third place in 1962), South Korea (fourth place in 2002), and Mexico (quarter-finals in 1970 and 1986) all have their best results when serving as hosts. So far, South Africa (2010) has been the only host nation to fail to advance beyond the first round.[67]

text: Attendance

text:
Year
Host country
Venues/
Cities
Total attendance
Matches
Average attendance
Highest attendances

Highest attendance †
Venue of best-attended game(s) †
Best attended game(s) †

1930
 Uruguay
3 / 1
590,549
18
32,808
93,000
Estadio Centenario, Montevideo
Uruguay 6–1 Yugoslavia, Semi-final

1934
 Italy
8 / 8
363,000
17
21,353
55,000
Stadio Nazionale PNF, Rome
Italy 2–1 Czechoslovakia, Final match

1938
 France
10 / 9
375,700
18
20,872
58,455
Olympique de Colombes, Paris
France 1–3 Italy, Quarter-final

1950
 Brazil
6 / 6
1,045,246
22
47,511
171,772
Maracanã Stadium, Rio de Janeiro
Brazil 1–2 Uruguay, Deciding match

1954
  Switzerland
6 / 6
768,607
26
29,562
63,000
Wankdorf Stadium, Bern
West Germany 3–2 Hungary, Final match

1958
 Sweden
12 / 12
819,810
35
23,423
50,928
Ullevi Stadium,
Gothenburg
Brazil 2–0 Soviet Union, Group stage

1962
 Chile
4 / 4
893,172
32
27,912
68,679
Estadio Nacional, Santiago
Brazil 4–2 Chile, Semi-final

1966
 England
8 / 7
1,563,135
32
48,848
98,270
Wembley Stadium, London
England 4–2 West Germany, Final match

1970
 Mexico
5 / 5
1,603,975
32
50,124
108,192
Estadio Azteca, Mexico City
Mexico 1–0 Belgium, Group stage

1974
 West Germany
9 / 9
1,865,753
38
49,099
83,168
Olympiastadion, West Berlin
West Germany 1–0 Chile, Group stage

1978
 Argentina
6 / 5
1,545,791
38
40,679
71,712
River Plate Stadium, Buenos Aires
Italy 1–0 Argentina, Group stage

1982
 Spain
17 / 14
2,109,723
52
40,572
95,500
Camp Nou, Barcelona
Argentina 0–1 Belgium, Opening match

1986
 Mexico
12 / 11
2,394,031
52
46,039
114,600
Estadio Azteca, Mexico City
Mexico 1–1 Paraguay, Group stageArgentina 3–2 West Germany, Final match

1990
 Italy
12 / 12
2,516,215
52
48,389
74,765
San Siro, Milan
West Germany 4–1 Yugoslavia, Group stage

1994
 United States
9 / 9
3,587,538
52
68,991
94,194
Rose Bowl, Pasadena, CA
Brazil 0(3)–(2)0 Italy, Final match

1998
 France
10 / 10
2,785,100
64
43,517
80,000
Stade de France, Saint-Denis
Brazil 0–3 France, Final match

2002
 South Korea
&  Japan
10 / 10
10 / 10
2,705,197
64
42,269
69,029
International Stadium
Yokohama, Japan
Brazil 2–0 Germany, Final match

2006
 Germany
12 / 12
3,359,439
64
52,491
80,000
Olympiastadion, Berlin
Germany 1(4)–(2)1 Argentina, Quarter-final

2010
 South Africa
10 / 9
3,178,856
64
49,670
84,490
Soccer City, Johannesburg
Spain 1–0 Netherlands, Final match

2014
 Brazil
12 / 12
3,429,873
64
53,592
74,738
Maracanã Stadium, Rio de Janeiro
Germany 1–0 Argentina, Final match

2018
 Russia
12 / 11

64

2022
 Qatar
8 / 6

64

Overall
37,500,710
836
44,857
171,772
Maracanã Stadium, Rio (1950)

text: Source: FIFA[68]

text: Broadcasting and promotion

text: The World Cup was first televised in 1954 and is now the most widely viewed and followed sporting event in the world. The cumulative audience of all matches of the 2006 World Cup is estimated to be 26.29 billion.[1] 715.1 million individuals watched the final match of this tournament (a ninth of the entire population of the planet). The 2006 World Cup draw, which decided the distribution of teams into groups, was watched by 300 million viewers.[69] The World Cup attracts many sponsors such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Adidas. For these companies and many more, being a sponsor strongly impacts their global brands. Host countries typically experience a multimillion-dollar revenue increase from the month-long event. The governing body of the sport, FIFA, generated $4.8 billion in revenue from the 2014 tournament.[70]

text: Each FIFA World Cup since 1966 has its own mascot or logo. World Cup Willie, the mascot for the 1966 competition, was the first World Cup mascot.[71] Recent World Cups have also featured official match balls specially designed for each World Cup.

text: The World Cup even has a statistically significant effect on birth rates, the male/female sex ratio of newborns, and heart attacks in nations whose national teams are competing.[72][73][74] Hosting the World Cup or a home team's win tends to increase male births and total birth rate, and heart attacks are more common when home teams are on the field.

text: Results

text:
Year
Hosts

Winners
Score
Runners-up

Third Place
Score
Fourth Place

Number of Teams

1930
Details
 Uruguay

Uruguay
4–2

Argentina

United States
[note 1]

Yugoslavia
13

1934
Details
 Italy

Italy
2–1 (a.e.t.)

Czechoslovakia

Germany
3–2

Austria
16

1938
Details
 France

Italy
4–2

Hungary

Brazil
4–2

Sweden
16/15
[note 2]

1950
Details
 Brazil

Uruguay
[note 3]
2–1

Brazil

Sweden
[note 3]

Spain
16/13
[note 4]

1954
Details
  Switzerland

West Germany
3–2

Hungary

Austria
3–1

Uruguay
16

1958
Details
 Sweden

Brazil
5–2

Sweden

France
6–3

West Germany
16

1962
Details
 Chile

Brazil
3–1

Czechoslovakia

Chile
1–0

Yugoslavia
16

1966
Details
 England

England
4–2 (a.e.t.)

West Germany

Portugal
2–1

Soviet Union
16

1970
Details
 Mexico

Brazil
4–1

Italy

West Germany
1–0

Uruguay
16

1974
Details
 West Germany

West Germany
2–1

Netherlands

Poland
1–0

Brazil
16

1978
Details
 Argentina

Argentina
3–1 (a.e.t.)

Netherlands

Brazil
2–1

Italy
16

1982
Details
 Spain

Italy
3–1

West Germany

Poland
3–2

France
24

1986
Details
 Mexico

Argentina
3–2

West Germany

France
4–2 (a.e.t.)

Belgium
24

1990
Details
 Italy

West Germany
1–0

Argentina

Italy
2–1

England
24

1994
Details
 United States

Brazil
0–0 (a.e.t.)
(3–2 PSO)

Italy

Sweden
4–0

Bulgaria
24

1998
Details
 France

France
3–0

Brazil

Croatia
2–1

Netherlands
32

2002
Details
 South Korea
&  Japan

Brazil
2–0

Germany

Turkey
3–2

South Korea
32

2006
Details
 Germany

Italy
1–1 (a.e.t.)
(5–3 PSO)

France

Germany
3–1

Portugal
32

2010
Details
 South Africa

Spain
1–0 (a.e.t.)

Netherlands

Germany
3–2

Uruguay
32

2014
Details
 Brazil

Germany
1–0 (a.e.t.)

Argentina

Netherlands
3–0

Brazil
32

2018
Details
 Russia

32

2022
Details
 Qatar

32

text:
a.e.t.: after extra time
p: after penalty shoot-out

text:
Jump up ^ There was no official World Cup Third Place match in 1930; The United States and Yugoslavia lost in the semi-finals. FIFA now recognises the United States as the third-placed team and Yugoslavia as the fourth-placed team, using the overall records of the teams in the tournament.[75]
Jump up ^ Austria withdrew after the draw as a result of the Anschluss with Germany: some Austrian players subsequently joined the German squad, leaving the tournament with 15 teams.
^ Jump up to: a b There was no official World Cup final match in 1950.[76] The tournament winner was decided by a final round-robin group contested by four teams (Uruguay, Brazil, Sweden, and Spain). Coincidentally, one of the last two matches of the tournament pitted the two top ranked teams against each other, with Uruguay's 2–1 victory over Brazil thus often being considered as the de facto final of the 1950 World Cup.[77] Likewise, the game between the lowest ranked teams, played at the same time as Uruguay vs Brazil, can be considered equal to a Third Place match, with Sweden's 3–1 victory over Spain ensuring that they finished third.
Jump up ^ Only 13 teams played the 1950 FIFA World Cup.[76] 16 teams entered the seeding groups draw. However, Turkey and Scotland both withdrew before the draw; France (eliminated in qualifying) was invited as a replacement, leaving the tournament to be held with 15 teams. After the draw, India and France both withdrew, so only 13 teams participated in the tournament.

text: In all, 77 nations have played in at least one World Cup.[78] Of these, eight national teams have won the World Cup, and they have added stars to their badges, with each star representing a World Cup victory. (Uruguay, however, choose to display four stars on their badge, representing their two gold medals at the 1924 and 1928 Summer Olympics and their two World Cup titles in 1930 and 1950).

text: With five titles, Brazil are the most successful World Cup team and also the only nation to have played in every World Cup (20) to date.[79] Brazil were also the first team to win the World Cup for the third (1970), fourth (1994) and fifth (2002) time. Italy (1934 and 1938) and Brazil (1958 and 1962) are the only nations to have won consecutive titles. West Germany (1982–1990) and Brazil (1994–2002) are the only nations to appear in three consecutive World Cup finals. Germany has made the most top-four finishes (13), medals (12), as well as the most finals (8).

text: Teams reaching the top four

text:
Team
Titles
Runners-up
Third Place
Fourth Place
Top 4
Finishes
Top 3
Finishes
Top 2
Finishes

 Brazil
5 (1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002)
2 (1950*, 1998)
2 (1938, 1978)
2 (1974, 2014*)
11
9
7

 Germany^
4 (1954, 1974*, 1990, 2014)
4 (1966, 1982, 1986, 2002)
4 (1934, 1970, 2006*, 2010)
1 (1958)
13
12
8

 Italy
4 (1934*, 1938, 1982, 2006)
2 (1970, 1994)
1 (1990*)
1 (1978)
8
7
6

 Argentina
2 (1978*, 1986)
3 (1930, 1990, 2014)
&
—

&
—

5
5
5

 Uruguay
2 (1930*, 1950)
&
—

&
—

3 (1954, 1970, 2010)
5
2
2

 France
1 (1998*)
1 (2006)
2 (1958, 1986)
1 (1982)
5
4
2

 England
1 (1966*)
&
—

&
—

1 (1990)
2
1
1

 Spain
1 (2010)
&
—

&
—

1 (1950)
2
1
1

 Netherlands
&
—

3 (1974, 1978, 2010)
1 (2014)
1 (1998)
5
4
3

 Hungary
&
—

2 (1938, 1954)
&
—

&
—

2
2
2

 Czechoslovakia#
&
—

2 (1934, 1962)
&
—

&
—

2
2
2

 Sweden
&
—

1 (1958*)
2 (1950, 1994)
1 (1938)
4
3
1

 Poland
&
—

&
—

2 (1974, 1982)
&
—

2
2
&
—

 Austria
&
—

&
—

1 (1954)
1 (1934)
2
1
&
—

 Portugal
&
—

&
—

1 (1966)
1 (2006)
2
1
&
—

 United States
&
—

&
—

1 (1930)
&
—

1
1
&
—

 Chile
&
—

&
—

1 (1962*)
&
—

1
1
&
—

 Croatia
&
—

&
—

1 (1998)
&
—

1
1
&
—

 Turkey
&
—

&
—

1 (2002)
&
—

1
1
&
—

 Yugoslavia#
&
—

&
—

&
—

2 (1930, 1962)
2
&
—

&
—

 Soviet Union#
&
—

&
—

&
—

1 (1966)
1
&
—

&
—

 Belgium
&
—

&
—

&
—

1 (1986)
1
&
—

&
—

 Bulgaria
&
—

&
—

&
—

1 (1994)
1
&
—

&
—

 South Korea
&
—

&
—

&
—

1 (2002*)
1
&
—

&
—

text: Best performances by continental zones

text: To date, the final of the World Cup has only been contested by teams from the UEFA (Europe) and CONMEBOL (South America) confederations. European nations have won eleven titles, while South American have won nine. Only two teams from outside these two continents have ever reached the semi-finals of the competition: USA (North, Central America and Caribbean) in 1930 and South Korea (Asia) in 2002. The best result of an African team is reaching the quarter-finals: Cameroon in 1990, Senegal in 2002 and Ghana in 2010. Only one Oceanian qualifier, Australia in 2006, has advanced to the second round.[80]

text: Brazil, Argentina, Spain and Germany are the only teams to win a World Cup outside their continental confederation; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002), Argentina won a World Cup in North America in 1986, while Spain won a World Cup in Africa in 2010. Germany was the first European team to win in South America in 2014. Only on four occasions have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent, and currently it is the first time with three champions in a row from the same continental confederation. Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively, while Italy's triumph in 2006 has been followed by Spain's in 2010 and Germany's in 2014. Currently, it is also the first time that one of the currently winning continents (Europe) is ahead of the other (South America) by two championships.

text:
Total times teams qualified by confederation

AFC
CAF
CONCACAF
CONMEBOL
OFC
UEFA
Total

Teams
32
39
39
80
4
231
425

Top 16
5
9
13
31
1
81
140[81]

Top 8
2
3
5
32
0
94
136[81]

Top 4
1
0
1
22
0
56
80

Top 2
0
0
0
14
0
26
40

1st
0
0
0
9
0
11
20

2nd
0
0
0
5
0
15
20

3rd
0
0
1
3
0
16
20

4th
1
0
0
5
0
14
20

text: Awards

text: At the end of each World Cup, awards are presented to the players and teams for accomplishments other than their final team positions in the tournament. There are currently six awards:[82]

text:
The Golden Ball for the best player, determined by a vote of media members (first awarded in 1982); the Silver Ball and the Bronze Ball are awarded to the players finishing second and third in the voting respectively;[83]
The Golden Boot (sometimes called the Golden Shoe) for the top goalscorer (first awarded in 1982, but retrospectively applied to all tournaments from 1930); most recently, the Silver Boot and the Bronze Boot have been awarded to the second and third top goalscorers respectively;[84]
The Golden Glove Award (formerly the Yashin Award) for the best goalkeeper, decided by the FIFA Technical Study Group (first awarded in 1994);[85]
The Best Young Player Award for the best player aged 21 or younger at the start of the calendar year, decided by the FIFA Technical Study Group (first awarded in 2006);[86]
The FIFA Fair Play Trophy for the team with the best record of fair play, according to the points system and criteria established by the FIFA Fair Play Committee (first awarded in 1978);[86]
The Most Entertaining Team for the team that has entertained the public the most during the World Cup, determined by a poll of the general public (first awarded in 1994);[86]

text: An All-Star Team consisting of the best players of the tournament has also been announced for each tournament since 1998.

text: Records and statistics

text: Two players share the record for playing in the most World Cups; Mexico's Antonio Carbajal (1950–1966) and Germany's Lothar Matthäus (1982–1998) both played in five tournaments.[87] Matthäus has played the most World Cup matches overall, with 25 appearances.[88] Brazil's Djalma Santos (1954–1962), West Germany's Franz Beckenbauer (1966–1974) and Germany's Philipp Lahm (2006–2014) are the only players to be named to three Finals All-Star Teams.[89]

text: Miroslav Klose of Germany (2002–2014) is the all-time top scorer at the finals, with 16 goals. He broke Ronaldo of Brazil's record of 15 goals (1998–2006) during 2014 semi-final match against Brazil. West Germany's Gerd Müller (1970–1974) is third, with 14 goals.[90] The fourth placed goalscorer, France's Just Fontaine, holds the record for the most goals scored in a single World Cup; all his 13 goals were scored in the 1958 tournament.[91]

text: In November 2007, FIFA announced that all members of World Cup-winning squads between 1930 and 1974 were to be retroactively awarded winners' medals.[47] This made Brazil's Pelé the only player to have won three World Cup winners' medals (1958, 1962, and 1970, although he did not play in the 1962 final due to injury),[92] with 20 other players who have won two winners' medals. Seven players have collected all three types of World Cup medals (winners', runner- ups', and third-place); five players were from West Germany's squad of 1966–1974 including Franz Beckenbauer, Jürgen Grabowski, Horst-Dieter Höttges, Sepp Maier and Wolfgang Overath (1966–1974), Italy's Franco Baresi (1982, 1990, 1994) and the most recent has been Miroslav Klose of Germany (2002–2014) with four consecutive medals.

text: Brazil's Mário Zagallo and West Germany's Franz Beckenbauer are the only people to date to win the World Cup as both player and head coach. Zagallo won in 1958 and 1962 as a player and in 1970 as head coach.[93] Beckenbauer won in 1974 as captain and in 1990 as head coach.[94] Italy's Vittorio Pozzo is the only head coach to ever win two World Cups (1934 and 1938).[95] All World Cup winning head coaches were natives of the country they coached to victory.

text: Among the national teams, Germany has played the most World Cup matches (106) and appeared in the most finals (8), semi-finals (13), quarter-finals (16) as well as scoring the most World Cup goals (224), while Brazil has appeared in the most World Cups (20).[96] The two teams have played each other twice in the World Cup, in the 2002 final and in the 2014 semi-final.

text: Top goalscorers

text:
Players with more than 10 goals at World Cup tournaments

Rank
Nation
Player
Goals scored

1

Miroslav Klose
16

2

Ronaldo
15

3

Gerd Müller
14

4

Just Fontaine
13

5

Pelé
12

6

Jürgen Klinsmann
11

Sándor Kocsis
11

text: All-time table for champions

text:
Position
Name of Team
Participations
Pld
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
Avg
Pts
Trophies

1
 Brazil
20
104
70
17
17
221
102
119
227
2.18
5

2
 Germany[97]
18
106
66
20
20
224
121
103
218
2.06
4

3
 Italy
18
83
45
21
17
128
77
51
156
1.88
4

4
 Argentina
16
77
42
14
21
131
84
47
140
1.82
2

5
 Spain
14
59
29
12
18
92
66
26
99
1.68
1

6
 England
14
62
26
20
16
79
56
23
98
1.58
1

7
 France
14
59
28
12
19
106
71
35
96
1.63
1

8
 Uruguay
12
51
20
12
19
80
71
9
72
1.41
2


document_title: American juvenile justice system

question_text: who advocated for a separate juvenile court in chicago

root

text: American juvenile justice system

text: History and background[edit]

text: Juvenile delinquency punishments trace back to the Middle Ages when crimes were severely punished by the Church. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, few legal differences existed between children and adults.[1][2] Children as young as six and seven years were considered productive members of the family and their labor contributed to family income. In court, children as young as seven were treated as adults and could receive the death penalty.[1] Early debates questioned whether there should be a separate legal system for punishing juveniles, or if juveniles should be sentenced in the same manner as adults[3]

tag: p

text: With the changing demographic, social, and economic context of the 19th century resulting largely from industrialization, “the social construction of childhood...as a period of dependency and exclusion from the adult world” was institutionalized.[4] This century saw the opening of the first programs targeting juvenile delinquency. Barry Krisberg and James F. Austin note that the first ever institution dedicated to juvenile delinquency was the New York House of Refuge in 1825.[5] Other programs, described by Finley, included: “houses of refuge”, which emphasized moral rehabilitation; “reform schools”, which had widespread reputations for mistreatment of the children living there; and “child saving organizations”, social charity agencies dedicated to reforming poor and delinquent children.[3] These ‘child-saving efforts’ were early attempts at differentiating between delinquents and abandoned youth.

text: Prior to this ideological shift, the application of parens patrea was restricted to protecting the interests of children, deciding guardianship and commitment of the mentally ill. In the 1839 landmark case Ex parte Crouse, the court allowed use of parens patrea to detain young people for non-criminal acts in the name of rehabilitation.[6][7] Since these decisions were carried out “in the best interest of the child,” the due process protections afforded adult criminals were not extended to juveniles.

text: Early 1900s[edit]

text: The nation's first juvenile court was formed in Illinois in 1899 and provided a legal distinction between juvenile abandonment and crime.[8] The law that established the court, the Illinois Juvenile Court Law of 1899, was created largely because of the advocacy of women such as Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Bowen, Lucy Flower and Julia Lathrop, who were members of the influential Chicago Woman's Club.[9][10] The Chicago court opened on July 1, 1899 with Judge Tuthill presiding, along with several members of the Chicago Woman's Club who acted as advisors about the juvenile offender's backgrounds.[11] Establishing a juvenile court helped reframe cultural and legal interpretations of “the best interests of the child.” “The underlying assumption of the original juvenile system, and one that continues to prevail, was that juveniles were generally more amenable to rehabilitation than adult criminals.[12] This new application of parens patrea and the development of a separate juvenile court formed the foundation for the modern juvenile justice system.

text: 1960s to 1980s[edit]

text: Debate about morality and effectiveness surrounded juvenile courts until the 1950s. The 1960s through the 1980s saw a rise in attention to and speculation about juvenile delinquency, as well as concern about the court system as a social issue. This era was characterized by distinctly harsh punishments for youths.[3] There was also a new focus on providing minors with due process and legal counsel in court. Criticism in this era focused on racial discrimination, gender disparities, and discrimination towards children with mental health problems or learning disabilities.[3] While still recommending harsher punishments for serious crimes,[13] “community-based programs, diversion, and deinstitutionalization became the banners of juvenile justice policy in the 1970’s”.[14] However, these alternative approaches were short lived. The rising crime rates of the 1960s and media misrepresentation of this crime throughout the 1970s and 80s, paved the way for Reagan’s War on Drugs and subsequent “tough-on-crime” policies.[14][15] Heightened fears of a ‘youth problem’ “revealed white, middle- and upper-class anxieties about growing social unrest and the potential volatility stemming from social and economic inequality”.[16] Public perception of juvenile deviance was such that at the 1999 Juvenile Justice Hearings, Bill McCollum claimed “simply and sadly put: Today in America no population poses a larger threat to public safety than juvenile offenders”.[17] In the late 1980s, the United States experienced a large increase in crime, and juvenile crime was brought into public view (Juvenile delinquency in the United States). Americans feared a "juvenile super-predator", and this fear was met by the government with harsher policies for juvenile crime.[18]

text: 1990s to present day[edit]

text: In the 1990s, juvenile crime – especially violent crime – decreased, although policies remained the same.[3] Schools and politicians adopted zero tolerance policies with regard to crime, and argued that rehabilitative approaches were less effective than strict punishment.[3] The increased ease in trying juveniles as adults became a defining feature of “tough-on-crime” policies in the 1990s. As Loyola law professor Sacha Coupet argues, “[o]ne way in which "get tough" advocates have supported a merger between the adult criminal and juvenile systems is by expanding the scope of transfer provisions or waivers that bring children under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal system”.[19] Some states moved specific classes of crimes from the juvenile court to adult criminal court while others gave this power to judges or prosecutors on a case-by-case basis. Still others require the courts to treat offending youth like adults, but within the juvenile system. In some states, adjudicated offenders face mandatory sentences.[14] By 1997, all but three states had passed a combination of laws that eased use of transfer provisions, provided courts with expanded sentencing options and removed the confidentiality tradition of the juvenile court.[14] Juvenile courts were transformed to more easily allow for prosecution of juveniles as adults at the same time the adult system was re-defining which acts constituted a “serious crime.” The “three strikes laws” that began in 1993 fundamentally altered the criminal offenses that resulted in detention, imprisonment and even a life sentence, for both youth and adults.[3] “Three strikes laws” were not specific to juvenile offenders, but they were enacted during a period when the lines between juvenile and adult court were becoming increasingly blurred. The War on Drugs and “tough-on-crime” policies like Three Strikes resulted in an explosion in the number of incarcerated individuals.[20]

text: Implementation of the Gun Free School Act (GFSA) in 1994 is one example of a "tough on crime" policy that has contributed to increased numbers of young people being arrested and detained.[21] It was intended to prosecute young offenders for serious crimes like gun possession on school property, but many states interpreted this law to include less dangerous weapons and drug possession.[21] Many schools even interpreted GFSA to include “infractions that pose no safety concern, such as ‘disobeying [school] rules, ‘insubordination,’ and ‘disruption”.[22] These offenses can now warrant suspension, expulsion and involvement with juvenile justice courts.[5] Schools have become the primary stage for juvenile arrest and the charges brought against them and punishments they face are increasing in severity. Today this is frequently referred to as the School to prison pipeline.

text: Demographics[edit]

text: Demographic information for youth involved in the Juvenile Justice system is somewhat difficult to collect, as most data is collected at state, county, and city levels. Although the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention publishes national numbers that breakdown the racial make-up of youth involved in the juvenile justice system, this data provides an incomplete picture, as it excludes Hispanic youth in its demographic calculations.

text: According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in 2011 there were a total of 1,236,200 cases handled by the juvenile courts. 891,100 cases dealt with males, compared with 345,100 for females. The most prominent age group represented in the courts is 13 to 15 years, which make up 552,000 of the total cases. 410,900 of the cases involved Black adolescents, which represents about one-third of the total court cases.[23]

text: The number of cases handled by the juvenile courts in the United States was 1,159,000 in 1985, and increased steadily until 1998, reaching a high point of 1,872,700. After this point, the number of cases steadily declined until 2011.[23]

text: In the 1,236,200 cases settled in 2011, 60% of the juveniles had a previous background of criminal history in their families and 96% of the juveniles had substance abuse problems, often related to parental/guardian substance abuse. In 1999, juveniles accounted for 16% of all violent crime arrests, and 32% of all property crime. They also accounted for 54% of all arson arrests, 42% of vandalism arrests, 31% of larceny-theft arrests, and 33% of burglary arrests.[24]

text: Racial discrepancies

text: Since 1995, the rate of confinement has dropped by 41%, and the rate has decreased among all major racial groups in the US. However, disparities by race remain apparent: in 2010, 225 youths per 100,000 were in confinement. When separated by race, there were 605 African-Americans, 127 Non-Hispanic Whites, 229 Hispanics, 367 Native Americans, and 47 Asian/Pacific Islanders in confinement per 100,000. African-Americans are close to five times more likely to be confined than white youths, while Latino and Native Americans are two to three times more likely to be confined than white youths.[25] Racial disparities in confinement are relatively constant across states.

text: According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, females constitute 14% of juveniles in residential placement in 2011. Of these females, 61% belong to racial minority groups.[26]

text: The Annie E. Casey Foundation provides additional information about the demographics of the juvenile justice system.

text: Juveniles in residential placement[edit]

text: Residential placement refers to any facility in which an adolescent remains on-site 24 hours a day. These facilities include detention centers, group homes, shelters, correctional facilities, or reform schools.[27] According to census data of Juveniles in residential placement and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the number of youths in juvenile detention centers in the United States has declined in the past two decades.[25] The number of adolescents incarcerated peaked in 1995, with 107,637 in confinement in a single day. In contrast, there were fewer than 62,000 adolescents in residential placement in October 2011.[26] Juvenile offenders are placed either in public facilities operated by the State or local government, or private, for-profit facilities operated by separate corporations and organizations. Private facilities are smaller than public facilities. Half of all juvenile placement facilities in the US are privately operated, and these facilities hold nearly one-third of juvenile offenders.[26]

text: Since 1997, 44 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a decrease in incarceration of adolescents. As of 2010, only 1 in 4 juveniles in confinement were incarcerated as a result of a violent crime (homicide, robbery, sexual assault, aggravated assault). Additionally, 40% of juvenile delinquency cases and detentions are a result of offenses that are not considered threats to public safety. These include underage possession of alcohol, truancy, drug possession, low-level property offenses, and probation violations.[25] The most common age of offenders was 17 years old, with 17,500 in placement in 2011. Juveniles aged 12 and under accounted for 1% of all youth in placement.[26]

text: Criticisms[edit]

text: The current debate on juvenile justice reform in the United States focuses on the root of racial and economic discrepancies in the incarcerated youth population. The school to prison pipeline has been described as one mechanism that targets young people in schools and funnels them into the juvenile justice system. Zero tolerance policies in schools have increased the numbers of young people facing detention. Low-income youth, youth of color and youth with learning and cognitive disabilities are over-represented in the justice system and disproportionately targeted by zero tolerance policies.[28]

text: Much of the criticism about the American juvenile justice system revolves around its effectiveness in rehabilitating juvenile delinquents.[3] Research on juvenile incarceration and prosecution indicates that criminal activity is influenced by positive and negative life transitions regarding the completion of education, entering the workforce, and marrying and beginning families.[29] According to certain developmental theories, adolescents who are involved in the court system are more likely to experience disruption in their life transitions, leading them to engage in delinquent behavior as adults.[29]

text: Lois M. Davis et al. argue that adolescents are affected by a juvenile system that does not have effective public policies. Currently the juvenile system has failed to ensure that all youth in the system with learning disabilities or mental health issues, and from lower-class individuals and racial minorities are provided with the benefits for a productive life once out of the system. In 2013 30% of youth in system have a learning disability and nearly 50% test below grade level.[30] They argue that the juvenile justice system should be restructured to more effectively lower the chances of future crime among youth, and advocate for increased educational programs for incarcerated youth as the most important method to reduce recidivism.[31]

text: A 2015 report from The Council of State Governments Justice Center showed only 13 states provide incarcerated youth with the same educational services as the general student population in the United States. The report recommended juvenile detention facilities should be held to the same academic standards as other public schools.[32]

text: Proposed reforms[edit]

text: Many scholars stress the importance of reforming the juvenile justice system to increase its effectiveness and avoid discrimination. Finley argues for early intervention in juvenile delinquency, and advocates for the development of programs that are more centered on rehabilitation rather than punishment.[3] James C. Howell et al. argue that zero tolerance policies overwhelm the juvenile justice system with low risk offenders and should be eliminated. They also argue that the most effective ways to reform the juvenile justice system would be to reduce the overrepresentation of minorites and eliminate the transfer of juveniles to the criminal justice system.[33] Zimring and Tannenhaus also discuss the future of the juvenile justice system in the United States. They argue that educational reentry programs should be developed and given high importance alongside policies of dropout prevention. Reentry programs focus on providing care and support to juveniles after being released from detention facilities, and encouraging family support to help adolescents during this adjustment period.[34] They also argue for the elimination of juvenile sex offender registration requirements, and the reform of criminal record information for juvenile offenders.[5]

text: Some popular suggested reforms to juvenile detention programs include changing policies regarding incarceration and funding. One recommendation from the Annie E. Casey Foundation is restricting the offenses that are punishable by incarceration, so that only youth who present a threat to public safety are confined. Other suggestions include investing in alternatives to incarceration, changing economic incentives that favor incarceration, and establishing smaller, more humane and treatment-oriented detention centers for the small number who are confined.[25]

text: Positive Youth Development and the juvenile justice system

text: Positive Youth Development (PYD) encompasses the intentional efforts of other youth, adults, communities, government agencies and schools to provide opportunities for youth to enhance their interests, skills, and abilities.

text: The justice system offers specific services to youth facing significant mental health and substance use challenges, but the majority of youth do not qualify for these targeted programs and interventions. Butts, et al. suggest that the integration of positive youth development into the juvenile justice system would benefit youth charged with nonviolent, less serious offenses.[35]

text: Widespread implementation of PYD approaches in the juvenile justice system faces many challenges. Philosophically however, the PYD framework resembles the progressive era ideals that informed the creation of the first juvenile court. As Butts, Mayer and Ruther describe, "The concepts underlying PYD resemble those that led to the founding of the american juvenile justice system more than a century ago. [...] Organizers of the first juvenile courts saw the solution to delinquency in better schools, community organizations, public health measures, and family supports. They believed an improved social environmental would encourage youth to embrace pro-social norms." [36]

text: Integration of PYD into the juvenile justice system is informed by social learning theory and social control theory. Taken together, these theories suggest that “youth are less attracted to criminal behavior when they are involved with others, learning useful skills, being rewarded for using those skills, enjoying strong relationships and forming attachments, and earning the respect of their communities”.[37] This is in stark contrast to the theories of deterrence and retributive justice espoused by the current justice system.

text: Youth court

text: Youth courts are programs in which youth sentence their peers for minor delinquent and status offenses and other problem behaviors. The program philosophy is to hold youth responsible for problem behavior, educate youth about the legal and judicial systems, and empower youth to be active in solving problems in their community. Youth courts function to determine fair and restorative sentences or dispositions for the youth respondent. Youth court programs can be administered by juvenile courts, juvenile probation departments, law enforcement, private nonprofit organizations, and schools. Youth court programs operate under four primary models: Adult Judge, Youth Judge, Peer Jury, and Youth Tribunal Models. Under the adult judge model, an adult volunteer serves as the judge while youth volunteers serve as prosecuting and defense attorneys, jurors, clerks, and bailiffs. Under the youth judge model, youth volunteers fill all roles, including judge. Under a peer jury model, youth jurors question the respondents and make sentencing determinations. Under a youth tribunal model, youth serve as prosecuting and defense attorneys, and present their cases to a panel of youth judges, who then make a sentencing determination. To date, there are no comprehensive national guidelines for youth courts, but rather, courts operate under and are tailored to their local jurisdictions. To date, there are more than 675 youth courts in the United States.[38]

text: East Palo Alto and Boston have both implemented youth courts. The East Palo Alto youth court is based on restorative justice principles. Eligible youth must admit the facts of the case, after which youth attorneys explain the facts of the case to a youth jury.[39] In Boston, youth court is available to first time, low level offenders. It is based on a restorative justice framework.[40]

text: Restorative Justice

text: Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, and the involved community, rather than punishing the offender. Victims and offenders both take an active role in the process, with the latter being encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. Doing so is an attempt by offenders to repair the harm they've done and also provides help for the offender in order to prevent future offenses. Restorative justice is based on a theory of justice that views crime to be an offense against an individual and/or a community, versus the state. Programs that promote dialogue between victim and offender demonstrate the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[41]

text: Raise the age

text: Many advocates argue that the juvenile system should extend to include youth older than 18 (the age that most systems use as a cut-off). Research in neurobiology and developmental psychology show that young adults' brains do not finish developing until their mid-20s, well beyond the age of criminal responsibility in most states.[42] Other non-criminal justice systems acknowledge these differences between adults and young people with laws about drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, etc.

text: New York and North Carolina remain the only states to prosecute all youth as adults when they turn 16 years of age.[43] Connecticut Governor, Danell Mallor just proposed raising the age in his state to 20.[44]


document_title: Mystery Road (TV series)

question_text: where is the new series mystery road filmed

text: Mystery Road (TV series)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Mystery Road tells the story of Detective Jay Swan (Aaron Pedersen), assigned to investigate the mysterious disappearance of two young farmhands on an outback cattle station, one a local indigenous football hero and the other a backpacker. Working together with local cop Emma James (Judy Davis), the investigation uncovers a past injustice that threatens the fabric of the whole community.[2]

text: Production[edit]

text: The six-part series is directed by Rachel Perkins and produced by David Jowsey and Greer Simpkin. The script is produced by Michaeley O'Brien and written by Michaeley O'Brien, Steven McGregor, Kodie Bedford, Jon Bell and Tim Lee, with Ivan Sen and the ABC's Sally Riley and Kym Goldsworthy as executive producers.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Aaron Pedersen as Jay Swan
Judy Davis as Emma James
Deborah Mailman as Kerry Thompson
Wayne Blair as Larry Dime
Aaron McGrath as Marley Thompson
Tasma Walton as Mary Swan
Madeleine Madden as Crystal Swan
Meyne Wyatt as Cedric Thompson
Colin Friels as Tony Ballantyne
Rohan Mirchandaney as David Sharma
Anthony Hayes as Ryan Muller
Ernie Dingo as Keith Groves
John Waters as Travis James
Kris McQuade as Liz Rutherford
Tasia Zalar as Shevorne Shields
Ningali Lawford Wolf as Dot
Connor Van Vuuren as Reece Dale
Ben Oxenbould as Vince Pearce
Benjamin Hoetjes as Eric Hoffman
Jessica Falkholt as Genevieve Leclaire

tag: ul

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.Title [3]Directed by [3]Written byOriginal air date [3]Australia viewers(millions)1"Gone"Rachel PerkinsMichaeley O'Brien3 June 2018 (2018-06-03)N/A
2"Blood Ties"Rachel PerkinsKodie Bedford3 June 2018 (2018-06-03)N/A
3"Chasing Ghosts"Rachel PerkinsMichaeley O'Brien10 June 2018 (2018-06-10)600,000[4]
4"Silence"Rachel PerkinsSteven McGregor17 June 2018 (2018-06-17)604,000[5]
5"The Waterhole"Rachel PerkinsTimothy Lee24 June 2018 (2018-06-24)525,000[6]
6"The Truth"Rachel PerkinsSteven McGregor1 July 2018 (2018-07-01)572,000[7]

tag: table

text: Locations[edit]

text: The series was filmed on Miriuwung, Gajerrong and Balanggarra Aboriginal land, in The Kimberley.[8]


document_title: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film)

question_text: pavel the boy in the striped pajamas actor

text: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: The film opens with the quote, "Childhood is measured out by sounds and smells and sights, before the dark hour of reason grows," by John Betjeman. A young boy named Bruno lives with his family in Berlin, in Nazi Germany during the period of the Holocaust. He learns that his father Ralf has been promoted, due to which their family, including Bruno's mother Elsa and sister Gretel, relocate to the countryside. Bruno hates his new home as there is no one to play with and very little to explore. After commenting that he has spotted people working on what he thinks is a farm in the distance (but, unbeknownst to the innocent Bruno, is actually a concentration camp), he is also forbidden from playing in the back garden.

text: Bruno and Gretel get a private tutor, Herr Liszt, who pushes an agenda of antisemitism and nationalist propaganda. As a result, Gretel becomes extremely fanatical in her support for the Third Reich, to the point of covering her bedroom wall with Nazi propaganda posters and portraits of Adolf Hitler. Bruno is confused as the Jews he has seen, in particular the family's Jewish servant Pavel, do not resemble the caricatures in Liszt's teachings.

text: One day, Bruno disobeys his parents and sneaks off into the woods, eventually arriving at an electric barbed wire fence surrounding a camp. He befriends a boy his own age named Shmuel. The pair's lack of knowledge on the true nature of the camp is revealed: Bruno thinks that the striped uniforms that Shmuel, Pavel, and the other prisoners wear are pyjamas and Shmuel believes his grandparents died from an illness during their journey to the camp. Bruno starts meeting Shmuel regularly, sneaking him food and playing board games with him. He eventually learns that Shmuel is a Jew and was brought to the camp with his father and mother.

text: One day, Elsa discovers the reality of Ralf's assignment after Lieutenant Kurt Kotler lets slip that the black smoke coming from the camp's chimneys is due to the burning corpses of Jews. She confronts Ralf, disgusted and heartbroken. At dinner that night, Kotler admits that his father had left his family and moved to Switzerland. Upon hearing this, Ralf tells Kotler that he should have informed the authorities of his father's disagreement with the current political regime as it was his duty. The embarrassed Kotler then becomes infuriated with Pavel for accidentally spilling a glass of wine and violently beats him. The next morning the maid, Maria, is seen scrubbing the blood stains.

text: Later that day, Bruno sees Shmuel working in his home. Shmuel is there to clean wine glasses because they needed someone with small hands to do it. Bruno offers him some cake and willingly Shmuel accepts it. Unfortunately, Kotler happens to walk into the room where Bruno and Shmuel are socialising. Kotler is furious and yells at Shmuel for talking to Bruno. In the midst of his scolding, Kotler notices Shmuel chewing the food Bruno gave him. When Kotler asks Shmuel where he got the food, he says Bruno offered the cake, but Bruno, fearful of Kotler, denies this. Believing Bruno, Kotler tells Shmuel that they will have a "little chat" later. Distraught, Bruno goes to apologise to Shmuel, but finds him gone. Every day, Bruno returns to the same spot by the camp but does not see Shmuel. Eventually, Shmuel reappears behind the fence, sporting a black eye. Bruno apologises and Shmuel forgives him, renewing the friendship.

text: After the funeral of his grandmother who was killed in Berlin by an enemy bombing, Ralf tells Bruno and Gretel that Elsa, their mother, suggests that they go to live with a relative because it is not safe there. In truth, Elsa suggests this because she does not want her children living with their murderous father. Shmuel has problems of his own; his father has gone missing after those with whom he participated in a march did not return to the camp. Bruno decides to redeem himself by helping Shmuel find his father. The next day, Bruno, who is due to leave that afternoon, dons a striped prisoners' outfit and a cap to cover his unshaven head, and digs under the fence to join Shmuel in the search. Bruno soon discovers the true nature of the camp after seeing the many sick and weak-looking Jews, much to his shock. While searching, the boys are taken on a march with other inmates by Sonderkommandos.

text: At the house, Gretel and Elsa discover Bruno's disappearance. After they discover the open window he went through, Elsa bursts into Ralf's meeting to alert him that Bruno is missing. Ralf and his men mount a search. Led by a dog tracking Bruno's scent they find his discarded clothing outside the fence. Elsa and Gretel are following along behind. They enter the camp, looking for him; Bruno, Shmuel and the other inmates are stopped inside a changing room and are told to remove their clothes for a "shower". They are packed into a gas chamber, where Bruno and Shmuel hold each other's hands. A Schutzstaffel soldier pours some Zyklon B pellets inside, and the prisoners start panicking, yelling and banging on the metal door. When Ralf realises that a gassing is taking place, he cries out his son's name, and Elsa and Gretel fall to their knees in despair and mourn Bruno. The film ends by showing the closed door of the now-silent gas chamber, indicating that all prisoners, including Bruno and Shmuel, are dead.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Asa Butterfield as Bruno
Jack Scanlon as Shmuel, a young Jew sent to a concentration camp
Vera Farmiga as Elsa, Bruno's mother
David Thewlis as Ralf, Bruno's father
Amber Beattie as Gretel, Bruno's older sister
Rupert Friend as Lieutenant Kurt Kotler
David Hayman as Pavel
Sheila Hancock as Natalie, Bruno's grandmother
Richard Johnson as Matthias, Bruno's grandfather
Cara Horgan as Maria
Jim Norton as Herr Liszt

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas has a 63% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 135 reviews, with an average rating of 6.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "A touching and haunting family film that deals with the Holocaust in an arresting and unusual manner, and packs a brutal final punch of a twist."[5] On Metacritic, the film has a normalized score of 55 out of 100, based on 28 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[6]

text: James Christopher, of The Times, referred to the film as "a hugely affecting film. Important, too."[7] Manohla Dargis, of The New York Times said the film "trivialized, glossed over, kitsched up, commercially exploited and hijacked [the Holocaust] for a tragedy about a Nazi family."[8]

text: In the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert said the film is not a reconstruction of Germany during the war, but is "about a value system that survives like a virus."[9]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Year

Award

Category

Recipient(s)

Results

2008

British Independent Film[10]

Best Actress

Vera Farmiga

Nominated

Best Director

Mark Herman

Won

Most Promising Newcomer

Asa Butterfield

Nominated

2009

Premio Goya

Best European Film

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

Nominated

Irish Film and Television Awards[11]

Best International Film

Nominated

Young Artist Awards[12]

Best Leading Performance (International Feature Film)

Asa Butterfield & Jack Scanlon

Nominated


document_title: Preamble to the Constitution of India

question_text: the preamble of the constitution of india is based on the model of

text: Preamble to the Constitution of India

text: Historic background[edit]

text: The preamble is based on the Objectives which was drafted and moved in the Constituent Assembly by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946.[2] B. R. Ambedkar said about the preamble:

text: It was, indeed, a way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life and which cannot be divorced from each other: Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.[3]

text: The Supreme Court of India originally stated in the BeruBari case presidential reference [4] that the preamble is not an integral part of the Indian constitution, and therefore it is not enforceable in a court of law. However, the same court, in the 1973 Kesavananda case, overruled earlier decisions and recognised that the preamble may be used to interpret ambiguous areas of the constitution where differing interpretations present themselves. In the 1995 case of Union Government Vs LIC of India, the Supreme Court once again held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution.

text: As originally enacted the preamble described the state as a "sovereign democratic republic", to which the terms "Secular" and "Socialist" were later added by the 42nd Amendment.[5]

text: The preamble-page, along with other pages of the original Constitution of India, was designed and decorated by the renowned painter Beohar Rammanohar Sinha of Jabalpur who was at Shantiniketan with acharya Nandalal Bose at that time. Nandalal Bose endorsed Beohar Rammanohar Sinha's artwork without any alteration whatsoever. As such, the page bears Beohar Rammanohar Sinha's short signature Ram in Devanagari lower-right corner. The calligraphy was done by Prem Behari Narain Raizada.

text: Preamble[edit]

text:
“
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

”

text: Sovereign[edit]

text: India is a sovereign state in the sense that she is internally supreme and externally independent. Internally supreme in the sense that the Central government or the Indian Constitution controls all other states and she is externally independent in the sense that India is not under the control of an other foreign countries.She is free to conduct external relations with other countries of the world. [7]

text: Socialist[edit]

text: Before the term was added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the Constitution had a socialist content in the form of certain Directive Principles of State Policy. The term socialist here means democratic socialism i.e. achievement of socialistic goals through democratic, evolutionary and non-violent means.Socialist state basically means that wealth is generated socially and should be shared equally by society through distributive justice.It shall not be concentrated in the hands of few. Government should regulate the ownership of land and industry to reduce socio-economic inequalities. [8]

text: Secular[edit]

text: Secular means the relationship within between the government and the people which is determined according to constitution and law. By the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the term "Secular" was also incorporated in the Preamble. There is no difference of religion i.e. all religion are equally respected and moreover there is no state religion. All the citizens of India are allowed to profess, practise and propagate any religion. Explaining the meaning of secularism as adopted by India, Alexander Owics has written, "Secularism is a part of the basic of the Indian Constitution and it means equal freedom and respect for all religions. [9]

text: Democratic[edit]

text: The people of India elect their governments at l) by a system of universal adult franchise; popularly known as "one man one vote". Every citizen of India, 18 years of age and above and not otherwise debarred by law, is entitled to vote.The word 'democratic' not only refers to political but also to social & economic democracy.

text: Republic[edit]

text: In a republic form of government, the head of the state is an elected person and not a heredity monarch . This word denotes a government where no one holds a public power as proprietary right . As opposed to a monarchy, in which the head of state is appointed on hereditary basis for a lifetime or until he abdicates from the throne, a democratic republic is an entity in which the head of state is elected, directly or indirectly, for a fixed tenure. [11]

text: Justice[edit]

text: India seeks to secure social, economic and political justice for its people.

text: (i) Social Justice:

text: Social Justice means the absence of socially privileged classes in the society and no discrimination against any citizen on grounds of caste, creed, colour, religion, sex or place of birth. India stands for eliminating all forms of exploitations from the society.

text: (ii) Economic Justice:

text: Economic Justice means no discrimination between man and woman on the basis of income, wealth and economic status. It stands for equitable distribution of wealth, economic equality, end of monopolistic control over means of production and distribution, decentralisation of economic resources, and securing of adequate opportunities to all for earning their living.

text: (iii) Political Justice:

text: Political Justice means equal, free and fair opportunities to the people for participation in the political process. It stands for the grant of equal political rights to all the people without any discrimination. The Constitution of India provides for a liberal democracy in which all the people have the right and freedom to participate. [12]

text: Liberty[edit]

text: The idea of Liberty refers to the freedom on the activities of Indian nationals. This establishes that there are no unreasonable restrictions on Indian citizens in term of what they think, their manner of expressions and the way they wish to follow up their thoughts in action. This is found to be an important tool in ensuring democratic framework. However, liberty does not mean freedom to do anything, and it must be exercised within the constitutional limits.This is second provision.

text: Equality[edit]

text: This envisages that no section of the society enjoys special privileges and individuals are provided with adequate opportunities without any discrimination.All are equal in front of law. Again, there are three dimensions of Equality - Political, Economic & Civic.

text: Fraternity[edit]

text: This refers to a feeling of brotherhood and a sense of belonging with the country among its people. It embraces psychological as well as territorial dimensions of National Integration. It leaves no room for regionalism, communalism, casteism etc,which hinders the Unity of the State.The inclusion of the word "Fraternity" is proposed by Dr. B.R Ambedkar.

text: Amendability[edit]

text: In Berubari Case (1960), The amendability & the Significance of the same came to the force. An important & very interesting question was raised relating to the powers of the Parliament to cede Indian territory to a foreign country, as an interpretation of the Article 3. Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state as guaranteed in article 3 of the Constitution does not cover cession of the Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence, Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign country only by means of amendment of the Constitution under the Article 368. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960 was enacted to transfer the Berubari Union to Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan). Supreme Court also held the view that Preamble can not be a part of the constitution but later in Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the Supreme Court gave a comprehensive verdict. It said that Preamble is Part of Constitution and is subject to the amending power of the parliament as any other provisions of the Constitution, provided the basic structure of the constitution is not destroyed.

text: It has been clarified by the Supreme Court of India that being a part of Constitution, the Preamble can be subjected to Constitutional Amendments exercised under article 368, however, the basic structure cannot be altered.

text: Forty-second Amendment[edit]

text: The preamble has been amended only once so far. On 18 December 1976, during the Emergency in India, the Indira Gandhi government pushed through several changes in the Forty-second Amendment of the constitution. A committee under the chairmanship of Sardar Swaran Singh recommended that this amendment be enacted after being constituted to study the question of amending the constitution in the light of past experience. Through this amendment the words "socialist" and "secular" were added between the words "Sovereign" and "democratic" and the words "unity of the Nation" were changed to "unity and integrity of the Nation".[5]