Answer:
Explanation:
The Sixth Amendment protects criminal defendants' rights, including the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to an unbiased jury, and the right to know who is accusing you and the nature of the allegations and evidence against you.
HELP, WIL MARK BRAINLEST
The answer should be D-Learners license. From what I can tell, this is the Drivers license course. You don't need a high school diploma, you don't need a private pilots license, and I don't know of an ID card course. The Learners license in Florida must be held for 12 months before you can get your license.
I hope I've helped! :)
Trình bày ý nghĩa lịch sử của học thuyết Mác – Lenin về giải thích tính giai cấp, tính xã hội của nhà nước
Explanation:
Học thuyết về Nhà nước của Chủ nghĩa Marx-Lenin hay còn gọi là Lý luận về Nhà nước và Pháp luật của Chủ nghĩa Marx-Lenin là hệ thống những kiến thức của chủ nghĩa Marx-Lenin về những quy luật phát sinh, phát triển đặc thù, những đặc tính chung và biểu hiện quan trọng nhất của nhà nước nói chung và nhà nước Xã hội chủ nghĩa nói riêng.[1] Tập trung vào phân tích nguồn gốc và bản chất của nhà nước, Lý luận của những người Marxist đi sâu nghiên cứu về nhà nước một cách tổng thể những vấn đề chung nhất về bản chất, chức năng, vai trò của nhà nước, hình thức nhà nước, bộ máy nhà nước và làm sáng tỏ mối quan hệ giữa các bộ phận trong thượng tầng kiến trúc chính trị-pháp lý với các tổ chức xã hội, giữa nhà nước với cá nhân.
Can a student in US public schools be punished or expelled for blog posts on their personal blog that were not posted during school hours or on a district provided and owned computer?
Answer:
No, you can not be expelled. But it would result in a consequence. But all in all, it depends on the school you go to. For example, your school could be...
Very strict.I hope this helped at all.List 5 of the rights in the Declaration of Human Rights:
Answer:
Hope my answer helps Mark me brainliest （⌒▽⌒）（⌒▽⌒）Explanation:
Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.Answer:
1. We are all born free and equal.
2. Don't Discriminate.
3. The Right to Life.
4. No Slavery.
5. No Torture.
Explanation:
Please mark me brainliest!!!!
In what ways are the rights of free speech and press limited?
Should Remembrance Day be declared an official statutory holiday? Why or why not.
Answer:
Remembrance Day should be declared as an official statutory holiday.
Explanation:
It should be an official statutory holiday because it is one of the most important holidays for our country. This day recalls the soldiers that have died at the end of the first world war. Thousands of people attended events around the country commemorating the war and military sacrifice. It was still a day to mourn the fallen, but there were intermittent pleas to remember the horrors of war and to embrace peace throughout customary ceremonies.
A defendant runs a red light and causes permanent injuries to a plaintiff. The plaintiff suffers a huge loss,
estimated at $500,000 over the course of the plaintiff's lifetime. Why might the plaintiff settle his or her claim
against the defendant for pennies on the dollar (say $10,000)?
The main reason why the plaintiff might settle his or her claim against the defendant for pennies on the dollar (say $10,000) is that the plaintiff would want to avoid a protracted court case.
What is an Out of Court Settlement?This refers to the formal agreement to resolve a case outside of the court's jurisdiction in order to pay for damages usually and avoid a protracted court case.
Hence, we can note that the estimated damages to the plaintiff which is about $500,000 in the lifetime of the plaintiff is a large sum and might not be paid, which would make the plaintiff want an out-of-court settlement to collect a sum of about $10,000.
Read more about out-of-court settlement here:
https://brainly.com/question/2783258
In January 2001 a New York man attended a family birthday party at a Benihana restaurant, where chefs, while cooking at the table, routinely throw pieces of food for diners to catch with their mouths. The man wrenched his neck while ducking a piece of flying shrimp, requiring treatment by several doctors. By that summer, doctors determined surgery was necessary to treat numbness in his arm. Five months after surgery, he checked into the hospital with a high fever and died. The family sued Benihana for $10 million in damages, claiming that the fever was the result of surgery, which in turn was the result of the chef’s actions in throwing food at diners. Do you believe that Benihana should be liable for the man’s death? Why or why not?
Based on the information given, Benihana should not be liable for the man’s death because he had an underlying disease.
From the information given, Benihana isn't responsible. The man had a high fever. Also, his autopsy showed septicemia which is blood poisoning. He was as well suffering from gout.
The infection that he had could also have been due to exposure to dead animals which made him have septicemia. It should be noted that his death was not because of the neck wrenching that he had. Therefore, Benihana should not be liable for the man’s death.
Read related link on:
https://brainly.com/question/25449412
Look at the graphic of the three branches of government. Explain to a sixth grade student what these three branches did for the country at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Your explanation should take no more than 50-75 words.
Answer:
During The Constitutional Convention, James Madison suggested to have three branches. The legislative branch, the Congress, would make laws. The executive branch would carry out the laws. A judicial branch would settle legal arguments. This set up a system of checks and balances where all three branches had a distribution of power so that nothing could become more powerful than them. They were under the Virginia Plan, which provided for a national government for them.
Explanation:
which of the following country is follow presidential dimocracy system a) france b) Senegal c) USA
Answer: The USA
Explanation:
Would you be willing to volunteer on a community reparation board why or why not
Answer:
Explanation:
Yes because volenteering helps us grow as a better community
Answer:
Yes, because I love law in general, and working a job like that would make be tremendous.
If you're wondering, a community reparation board is...
A community restorative board is a small group of people, prepared for this role by intensive training, who participate in public meetings with offenders sentenced by the court to participate in the process.I hope this helped at all.Officer X, a police officer, violated a court order by refusing to arrest Y, a husband against whom a restraining order had been issued by the court. Officer X's refusal resulted in serious injury to Y's wife and daughter. A case is brought against Officer X alleging a violation of Section 1983 and a violation of state tort law.
This police officer is only liable under the state tort law.
Being liable means you are responsible to act in a certain way under a specific law, and therefore, breaking a law has legal consequences for you.
In countries, such as the United States where there are federal and state laws, liability for each of these might vary.
In the case presented the officer is liable under the Kansas state tort law but not under the federal law. Here are the reasons:
Kansas state tort law: This law states government entities and their employees are responsible for omission or wrongful acts. This applies to the police officer because as an employee of the Kansas police he did not act based on protocols and this caused damage.Section 1983: This allows individuals to sue employees from government entities in cases these employees went beyond the boundaries of their authority. This does not apply to the officer because the problem was omission rather than going beyond his authority.Note: This question is incomplete; here is the missing section.
A case is brought against Officer X alleging a violation of Section 1983 (federal law) and a violation of Kansas state tort law. Will Officer X be liable under one or both of these laws?
Learn more in: https://brainly.com/question/22979337
học phí cao làm hàng rào cản trở sinh viên bước vào các trường Đại học
Answer:
mera nam dipti hai
Explanation:
The action of police going through a person's home upon lawful entry to see if there is someone that may pose a threat to the officers is called a
Answer: Protective sweeps
Explanation:
Answer:
Protective Sweep.
The action of police going through a person's home upon lawful entry to see if there is someone that may pose a threat to the officers is called a protective sweep.
I hope this helped at all.if you get stopped by a cop when you are walking on the sidewalk do you have to identify yourself?
Promulgation and passing of statute
Answer:
Promulgation is the formal proclamation or the declaration that a new statutory or administrative law is enacted after its final approval.
Explanation:
what is a public opinion poll
Answer:
It's a survey.
Explanation:
Public opinion poll is a humane research survey of public from a particular sample.
Answer:
It is a survey used for human research.
I hope this helped at all.
8. The Bankruptcy Code is found in which title of the United States code?
a. Title 10
b. Title 12
c. Title 11
d. Title 13
Answer:
The Bankruptcy Code is found in which title of the United States code?
-Title 11
Title 11 of the United States Code.
Title 11, also known as the United States Bankruptcy Code, is the main source of bankruptcy law in the United States.
I hope this helps! :)
What is the difference between precedent and law
Answer:
Precedent is only constitutive. A judge is bound by the precedent of the higher courts and the enacted law. If a precedent checks the operation of a rule it is only on the ground that it is not law. But, when a rule is established as law, a precedent cannot abrogate it.
Explanation:
Which of the following is true of "three strikes" laws?
An offender with three qualifying convictions (misdemeanors or
felonies) is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison.
An offender with three qualifying felonies is sentenced to a
minimum of 25 years in prison.
An offender with three qualifying felonies is no longer eligible for
probation supervision.
An offender with three qualifying convictions (misdemeanors or
felonies) is no longer eligible for probation supervision.
Answer:
An offender with three qualifying felonies is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison.
Explanation:
Which of the following is true of "three strikes" laws?
An offender with three qualifying convictions (misdemeanors or felonies) is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison.
An offender with three qualifying felonies is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison.
An offender with three qualifying felonies is no longer eligible for probation supervision.
An offender with three qualifying convictions (misdemeanors or felonies) is no longer eligible for probation supervision.
An offender with three qualifying felonies is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison is true about the three strikes laws. Thus, option B is correct.
What is a law?Law and be defined as a set of rules and regulations that the person needs to follow at all over. Different country or Nation has different laws which are set by the state or the court.
If the person does not obey the law or breaks one of them, then he is considered an offender and is punished according.
If a person is doing a mistake by breaking the law then the person is given three strikes and after that harsh punishment is given to that person for Breaking the law Multiple Times.
We can be sentenced to prison for a minimum of 25 years which is not only applicable to the young or the adult but also to children, but the punishment may differ. Therefore, option B is the correct option.
Learn more about three strikes laws, here
https://brainly.com/question/9040163
#SPJ2
According to Goldstein, what is the proper role of politics in policing, and what is an improper role?
Criminal justice masterworks : a history of ideas about crime, law, police, and corrections
According to Herman Goldstein, the proper role of politics in policing is allocating resources to ensure adequate problem-oriented policing followed by close monitoring of police activities.
Political influences should not have a place in policing a society. According to Goldstein, policing is itself an aberration in a free society. Adding politics to the activities of the police department will decrease society's freedom and individual liberty and complicate societal relationships.
In dealing with crime and law enforcement, police should be mindful of social and physical disorders and help the government curtail such occurrences. The improper role of politics in policing occurs when policing is used by politicians to subject opposition members to oppression or harassment.
Thus, the proper role of politics in policing is to ensure that there are adequate resources for policing, monitoring the outcome of policing in the society, and not intervening in policing based on political affiliations.
Learn more: https://brainly.com/question/22808563
"According to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, prosecutors have a duty to"
Answer:
They are obligated to act with diligence, litigate, promptness to investigate, and get rid of charges.
Explanation:
They must act diligently, litigate, launch investigations right away, and drop accusations.
What is investigated?A detective's work is investigation. Private investigators conduct investigations. A criminal investigation is the study of facts needed to identify, locate, and prove the guilt of an accused criminal. An investigation is a thorough search for facts, particularly those that are hidden or must be.
In the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, prosecutors have a duty to"They must act diligently, litigate, launch investigations right away, and drop accusations.
Establishing pertinent data to support or refute claims of fraud and corruption is the goal of an inquiry. It is a legally mandated fact-finding process that is carried out in an objective, impartial way with the goal of establishing the pertinent facts and making suggestions in this regard.
Therefore, Investigations right away, and drop accusations.
Learn more about investigatory here:
https://brainly.com/question/1191670
#SPJ2
Badger Bank and Trust (Badger) is a community bank in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Badger loaned $5,000 to Plessy and charged him an interest rate that was five (5) percent higher than the statutorily- allowed maximum. This loan would be considered____.
a. usurious
b. fraudulent
c. valid, since Badger can determine what potential profit is necessary to compensated it and its owners for the assumed risk
d. voidable at the election of Badger
e. void at the election of Plessy
Based on the rate charged to Plessy, we can determine that this loan is a. usurious.
When a loan is usurious:
It means that the interest charged is exorbitant It is considered immoral It can be considered illegal if it is above the rate required by law for such loans.The interest charged is 5% higher than what the law allows here which means that the rate must be quite high.
We can therefore conclude that this loan is usurious and action can be taken against it.
Find out more at https://brainly.com/question/6668760.
Cases about issues that come up in cities and towns (like traffic violations or landlord-tenant issues) are heard in:
Federal Courts
State Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court
thành viên hopej danh có thể là cá nhân hoặc tổ chức có tư cách pháp nhân là đúng hay sai
Thật. Một cá nhân hoặc tổ chức sở hữu các quyền pháp lý riêng biệt và riêng biệt, chẳng hạn như cá nhân, công ty hợp danh hoặc công ty. Một thực thể, trong số những thứ khác, có thể sở hữu tài sản, tham gia kinh doanh, ký kết hợp đồng, nộp thuế, khởi kiện và bị kiện
1. Explain the relationship between the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and the Sixth Amendment.
2. Do you think the Criminal Justice System does a good job at protecting the defendant's Sixth Amendment Right? Why or why not? Give evidence to support your answer.
The Speedy Trial Act of 74' states that a trial shall not be delayed more than 100 days, the Sixth Amendment states that you have the right to a speedy trial, they are basically the same thing the 74' Speedy Trial Act just puts a number to the Amendment.
The Criminal Justice system does a terrible job at providing speedy trials, some suspects spend years waiting for their trial, and get partial or biased jury members. The Criminal Justice system in general needs reformed but especially when it comes to speedy trials.
