New Jersey Section 2C:21-11 – Rigging publicly exhibited contest
Contents
New Jersey Section 2C:21-11 – Rigging Publicly Exhibited Contests
New Jersey has a law, Section 2C:21-11 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, that makes it a crime to rig or fix the outcome of certain publicly exhibited contests. This law is intended to protect the integrity of contests and competitions that are open to public participation.
Overview of the Law
Section 2C:21-11 states that a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if they purposefully rig or fix the outcome of a “publicly exhibited contest” to prevent the contest from being conducted fairly. The law defines a publicly exhibited contest as any contest, competition, game, or event that is open to participation by the public or advertised to the public in newspapers, on posters, television, radio, or any other public medium.
Some examples of contests covered by this law include:
- Raffles, drawings, and lotteries
- Talent competitions, beauty pageants, or performing arts contests
- Athletic competitions like races or tournaments
- Game shows or contests conducted on television, radio, or the internet
- Academic or scientific competitions like spelling bees or science fairs
The law prohibits any kind of tampering or interference to predetermine or fix the outcome. This includes activities like:
- Bribing or paying off judges, referees, or voting panelists
- Blackmailing or extorting contestants to underperform or withdraw
- Sabotaging other contestants by harming, threatening, or distracting them
- Manipulating equipment, documents, or scoring systems to alter results
- Colluding with other contestants to pre-determine the finishing order or outcome
Penalties and Enforcement
Rigging a publicly exhibited contest is a crime of the fourth degree under New Jersey law. Fourth degree crimes are the lowest level of felony criminal offenses. Potential penalties can include:
- Up to 18 months in prison
- Fines up to $10,000
- Probation up to 5 years
- Community service or restitution
Prosecutions under this statute are handled by county prosecutors in the New Jersey Superior Court system. Investigations are typically conducted by local police departments.
Contest organizers or participants who suspect rigging or manipulation can file complaints with law enforcement to prompt an investigation. Circumstantial evidence like unusual betting patterns, rule violations, or tampering with equipment may warrant opening a case.
Prosecutors have discretion on bringing charges and must prove intent to rig the contest “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defenses can include arguing the tampering was accidental or that the defendant lacked specific intent to alter the contest’s results.
Policy Purpose of the Law
Laws like Section 2C:21-11 serve an important public policy purpose. Fair contests with honest outcomes encourage public participation and foster community engagement. Rigging undermines public trust and hurts the reputation of contest organizers.
This law deters cheating and manipulation to ensure a level playing field for all contestants. It upholds principles of meritocracy, impartiality, and fairness in competitive events. The law recognizes that rigging contests for financial gain, publicity, or other unfair advantage should be punished as a crime.
By promoting integrity in contests, Section 2C:21-11 aims to protect both participants who invest time and resources preparing to compete as well as audience members who pay attention to contests in good faith. Maintaining high standards and fair rules for competitions is important to New Jersey residents and helps attract events that provide economic benefits.
Comparison to Other States
Most states have laws similar to New Jersey’s Section 2C:21-11 prohibiting contest rigging as a form of fraud, larceny, or tampering. Nearby states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware all categorize rigging publicly exhibited contests as a felony offense.
However, states take different approaches to the scope, penalties, and classification of these laws. Some states may only prohibit rigging contests that involve betting or gambling. Others may have harsher penalties depending on the size of the contest or amount of money involved. A few states still treat contest rigging as a misdemeanor offense.
New Jersey’s law is considered relatively broad in scope by banning rigging for any publicly exhibited contest, regardless of whether gambling is involved. But its fourth degree felony classification is on the lower end of punishments compared to neighboring states. The law aims to deter rigging through criminal penalties but takes a measured approach in its sentencing guidelines.
Real World Examples
There have been a few high-profile examples of contest rigging prosecuted under laws like New Jersey’s Section 2C:21-11:
- In 1980, Benny Binion was convicted of rigging a horse race by drugging a competitor’s horse. He served two years in prison.
- In 1994, the president of the United States Figure Skating Association resigned for colluding with judges to fix the Olympic ice skating competition.
- In 2006, a tobacco company was sued for rigging a promotional contest to distribute free cigarettes at youth events. The company paid $2 million in penalties.
- In 2015, a radio station fired multiple employees for rigging call-in contests by providing answers to preferred listeners. The FCC fined the station over $400,000.
These examples illustrate the range of contests impacted by rigging and manipulation. Laws like Section 2C:21-11 aim to preserve fairness in all types of competitions that offer prizes, publicity, or other advantages.
Conclusion
New Jersey’s Section 2C:21-11 makes rigging or fixing publicly exhibited contests a fourth degree felony offense. This law serves the important public purpose of protecting the integrity of competitions that rely on impartial judging and honest participation. While enforcement is challenging, the statute sets standards for fair play and deters misconduct through criminal penalties. Going forward, promoting awareness of anti-rigging laws will be key to realizing their policy aims.