Answers
Answer:
the answer is all of them
Explanation:
Answer:
All :)
Explanation:
I just took the quiz :)
Related Questions
A ________ is a municipal or regional facility that houses pretrial individuals believed to present a risk of danger or flight, those awaiting probation or parole revocation, and those sentenced to less than one year incarceration.
Answers
A correctional facility is a municipal or regional facility that houses pretrial individuals believed to present a risk of danger or flight, those awaiting probation or parole revocation, and those sentenced to less than one year incarceration.
A correctional facility is a place where criminals are kept and punished. Correctional facilities are used as a place of detention for inmates in the legal process. This refers to pre-trial inmates or inmates awaiting sentencing. The goal of the prison is to separate the offenders from the rest of society and rehabilitate them so they can reintegrate and be functional members of society.
Correctional facilities are often operated by the government, with the state or federal government responsible for the majority of them. Private correctional facilities, on the other hand, are managed by for-profit firms that may house inmates for governments. Despite being owned by private corporations, private prisons are still subject to government regulation and must adhere to the same laws as public prisons.
To know more about Correctional facility visit-
brainly.com/question/14666606
#SPJ11
During the course of an audit, an auditor finds evidence that an officer has entered fraudulent transactions in the financial statements. The fraudulent transactions can be adjusted so the statements are not materially misstated. What should the auditor do?
Communicate the matter to those charged with governance.
Answers
The auditor should do to Communicate the matter to those charged with governance.
What is financial statements?The financial actions and position of a company, individual, or other entity are formally recorded in financial statements.A systematic and understandable format is used to show pertinent financial data. The business operations and financial performance of an organization are described in financial statements, which are written records. Financial statements are regularly audited by governmental entities, accountants, firms, etc. to guarantee correctness and for tax, financing, or investing purposes. For the vast majority of users, the income statement—which shows a company's capacity for making a profit—is the most crucial financial statement. A decent level of accuracy is also shown by the fact that the majority of the data on the income statement is presented in relatively current dollars.The financial condition and actions of a corporation are documented in its financial statements throughout a given time period. A company's financial health and success are shown via its financial statements. The income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement are considered to be the three fundamental financial statements.To learn more about financial statements refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/29728490
#SPJ4
What physical property can help characterize fragments of glass at a crime scene?
Answers
Answer:
Here is your answer .
Explanation:
Refractive index is mostly commonly measured property in the forensic examination of glass fragments (koons etal. 2002), because:precise refractive indices can be measured rapidly on the small fragments typically found in casework.
Because exact refractive indices can be determined quickly on the microscopic fragments that are generally discovered in casework, refractive index is the most frequently measured property in the forensic investigation of glass shards (koons etal. 2002).
What is refractive?A material's refractive index serves as a gauge for how light moves through it. Light travels more slowly at higher refractive indices, which results in a proportionally greater change in the direction of the light within the substance.
Smashed glass at a crime scene can be identified by density. Numerous glasses' densities are known [1]. Ordinary window or bottle glass is the most prevalent sort of glass.
Therefore ,Because exact refractive indices can be determined quickly on the microscopic fragments
Learn more about refractive here:
https://brainly.com/question/14760207
#SPJ2
when the executive branch and its agencies translate laws into routine procedures and practices, this is called
Answers
Answer: Federal administrative law
Explanation:
the relationship between rule of law and constitution
Answers
Answer:
The rule of law is the principle that all individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable to the law, and a constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.
Explanation:
The rule of law is the principle that all individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable to the law, which is fairly applied and enforced. A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. In most cases, the rule of law is established and upheld by a country's constitution, which provides the legal framework for the government and its institutions to operate within. The constitution typically includes provisions that outline the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the structure and powers of the government, as well as mechanisms for interpreting and enforcing the law.
The rule of law exists when a state's constitution functions as the supreme law of the land, when the statutes enacted and enforced by the government invariably conform to the constitution.
Long:
The relationship between the rule of law and the constitution is a close one. The rule of law is a principle that ensures that all individuals and organizations, including the government, are subject to and accountable to the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it sets forth the framework for the government and the fundamental principles and rules that govern a society. It establishes the powers and responsibilities of the different branches of government and the rights and duties of citizens.
The rule of law and the constitution are intertwined because the constitution is the basis for the rule of law. It provides the foundation for a legal system that is fair, predictable, and upholds the rights of individuals. In turn, the rule of law ensures that the government and its officials act in accordance with the principles and provisions set forth in the constitution. This helps to protect individual rights and promote stability and order in society.
In short, the rule of law is dependent on the constitution, and the constitution is the foundation for the rule of law. Together, they form the basis for a fair and just legal system.
When society develops into a modern, urbanized one of the intimacy needed to sustain a common set of norms does which of the following
Answers
When society develops into a modern, urbanized one, the intimacy needed to sustain a common set of norms tends to decrease or weaken.
In close-knit communities, such as small rural villages, people often have strong social connections and shared values. The close proximity and frequent interaction among community members facilitate the development and enforcement of common norms and expectations. This intimacy helps sustain social cohesion and a collective understanding of appropriate behavior.
However, in modern, urbanized societies, people often live in larger and more diverse communities, where social interactions are often more impersonal and less frequent. The increased anonymity and diversity can lead to a greater variety of beliefs, values, and lifestyles, making it challenging to establish and maintain a unified set of norms. In such contexts, individuals may adhere to different sets of norms based on their subcultures, personal preferences, or affiliations.
As a result, the intimacy needed to sustain a common set of norms may diminish in modern, urbanized societies. Instead, diverse subcultures may coexist, each with its own norms and values. This can lead to a more fragmented social landscape, where individuals may align themselves with specific subcultures or communities that share their particular norms and identities.
It is worth noting that while the intimacy needed to sustain a common set of norms may weaken in modern, urbanized societies, these societies often rely on formal legal systems and institutions to establish and enforce a basic framework of rules and regulations that apply to all members of the society.
Learn more about urbanized here:
https://brainly.com/question/29987047
#SPJ11
Discuss how reserve officers could be a benefit to investigative work.
Answers
Answer:
Brainliest please
Explanation:
For police departments that decide to use reserve officers, the added help can condense full- time police officers but also pose arrears. The key is to minimize the pitfalls and duly manage the reserves.
State law extends the authority to use reserve officers to cosmopolises. All of theS.C. Criminal Justice Academy's Reserve Officer Program Norms must first be met.
A reserve police officer is an overdue levy who assists a law enforcement agency in administering the law. The agency head, with the blessing of the governing body or its principal operating officer, appoints reserve officers. Just like their full- time counterparts, reserve officers are concentrated on the weal of the people, the protection of property in their community, and the just and indifferent enforcement of the law.
If a case is affirmed, it
Select one:
a.. means all justices unanimously agree on an opinion.
b. is sent back to the court that heard the case.
c. means the decision is valid and must stand.
d. will result in a new trial for the defendant.
e. is accepted as a case that the Supreme Court will hear.
Answers
If a case is affirmed, it means that the decision made by the lower court has been upheld and is therefore valid and must stand. The correct option is c.
This decision can be made by a variety of means, including a unanimous vote from all the justices or a majority decision. In either case, the decision is final and cannot be appealed.
When a case is affirmed, it can have significant implications for the parties involved. For example, if a defendant has been found guilty and their conviction is affirmed, they may be required to serve their sentence or pay their fines. Alternatively, if a plaintiff has been awarded damages and their award is affirmed, they may be able to collect their payment from the defendant.
It's important to note that an affirmed decision does not necessarily mean that the justices agree with the reasoning or rationale behind the decision. Instead, they may simply agree that the decision made by the lower court was correct based on the facts presented in the case.
Overall, when a case is affirmed, it means that the decision made by the lower court is final and cannot be appealed. This decision can be made by a unanimous vote or a majority decision and can have significant implications for the parties involved.
Therefore, The correct option is c. means the decision is valid and must stand.
To learn more about lower court click here:
https://brainly.com/question/29546808#
#SPJ11
Mrs. Pierce would like to enroll in a Medicare Cost plan that offers Part D prescription drug coverage. She comes to you for advice about when she can enroll in a plan you have previously discussed. What should you tell her?
Answers
Answer:
Enrollment in Cost plans offering Part D coverage is available only during enrollment periods under the Part D program, and Cost plans must accept enrollments during these periods
Explanation:
For what period of time after the events they record is a lawyer required to maintain records of deposits, withdrawals, and disbursements of funds that concern the lawyer’s practice of law?
Answers
According to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is required to maintain records of deposits, withdrawals, and disbursements of funds that relate to the lawyer's practice of law for a minimum of five years after the events they record.
The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct is a model code of ethics for lawyers in the United States that outlines standards of ethical behavior and professional responsibility. The rules are non-binding recommendations intended to promote consistent professional conduct across the legal profession. Many states have adopted the model rules in whole or in part and have incorporated them into their own legal ethics rules.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct cover a wide range of topics, including competence, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and communication. Some of the most critical elements of the model rules include:Competence: A lawyer must possess the legal knowledge and skill necessary to provide adequate representation to their clients. Confidentiality: A lawyer must maintain client confidentiality unless permitted or required by law to disclose information. Conflicts of interest: A lawyer may not represent a client if there is a conflict of interest. Communication: A lawyer must keep their clients reasonably informed about their case and must respond to reasonable requests for information.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct serve several purposes, including: To promote consistent ethical behavior across the legal profession. To protect clients' interests by holding lawyers accountable for their actions. To ensure that the legal profession maintains the public's trust and confidence.
For more such questions on American Bar Association
https://brainly.com/question/13988924
#SPJ11
what would happen if we lost the freedom of press?
Answers
Answer:
A free press helps maintain the balance of power in government, the loss of that press would result in a chaotic and biased government
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believed that "the triumph of advertising . . . Is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them." What might you conclude if this is all you know about Adorno and Horkheimer?
Answers
Answer:
believe in the hypodermic needle theory.
Explanation:
The hypodermic needle theory may be defined as the method of communication which suggest that intended messages and communication are directly received by the people and they are fully accepted.
It means that media messages are directly given to the passive audiences and inserted into their brains.
In the context, Theodor and Max Horkheimer believes that by advertising, the customers are compelled to buy the products. They believed in the hypodermic needle theory.
HELP! ILL NAME YOU AS BRAINLIEST!!!!
Using this graph and your knowledge of U.S. government, which statement is MOST correct?
A)
People are more dissatisfied with their Senator than their Representative.
B)
The downward opinion of incumbent has not usually been echoed in the
voting booth.
C)The downward trend for incumbents reflects the movement caused by the
Trump campaign.
D)
Political Action Committees are losing the influence over the electoral
process they enjoyed.
Answers
Answer:
I'm pretty sure it is B ....
Can someone help me with this?
Case Description: You are a legal assistant who has been given the following paternity cases to review. It is your job to screen each case to see it there is any validity to the claim of an
"illegitimate" child and them make your recommendations to the lawyers for whom you work for. Proceed with your recommendations, indicating a "yes" or "no" result on the Case Analysis form for each potential case. Also, write out the genetic make-up. (letter combinations) for each case indicating why you choose "yes" or "no"
Answers
Answer & Explanation:
Case 1: No. The child's blood type is O, which cannot be produced from the combination of B and O. The possible blood types for the father would be B or AB.
Case 2: Yes. The child's blood type is O, which is possible with the combination of A and B blood types from the parents.
Case 3: No. The child's blood type is B, which cannot be produced from the combination of two B parents. The possible blood types for the father would be B or AB.
Case 4: Yes. The child's blood type is O, which is possible with the combination of O and O blood types from the parents.
Case 5: No. The child's blood type is A, which cannot be produced from the combination of B and A blood types from the parents. The possible blood types for the father would be A or AB.
Case 6: No. The child's blood type is A, which cannot be produced from the combination of O and O blood types from the parents. The possible blood types for the father would be A, B, or AB.
Case 7: Yes. The child's blood type is A, which is possible with the combination of A and B blood types from the parents. The genetic make-up for the child in question would be AO, which can be produced from the combination of AB and B blood types from the parents.
Is anyone else just realizing that Dungeons and Dragons is a real game?
A. yes
B. no
Answers
Answer:yes
Explanation:
A benefit to society of the patent and copyright laws is that those lawsa.help to keep prices down.b.help to prevent a single firm from acquiring ownership of a key resource.c.encourage creative activity.d.discourage excessive amounts of output of certain products.
Answers
A benefit to society of the patent and copyright laws is that those laws discourage excessive amounts of output of certain products. Option d)
Who creates the copyright and patent laws?
Although the federal government and the several states previously shared copyright and patent authority, the Copyright Act of 1976 clearly retained this authority for the federal government. Thus, states are prohibited from enacting their own copyright and patent laws.
What are some instances of patents and copyrights?Here is a brief introduction to patents and copyrights before we continue: Whereas unique artistic and literary works, such as music or novels, are protected by copyrights, innovations and designs, such as engines or phone casings, are protected by patents.
learn more about patent and copyright laws
https://brainly.com/question/29738132
#SPJ4
Full Question: A benefit to society of the patent and copyright laws is that those laws
a.help to keep prices down.
b.help to prevent a single firm from acquiring ownership of a key resource
c.encourage creative activity.
d.discourage excessive amounts of output of certain products.
In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gender-based peremptory challenges in civil cases violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Group of answer choices true false
Answers
In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gender-based peremptory challenges in civil cases violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The statement is false.
In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gender-based peremptory challenges in civil cases violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.It is not about gender-based peremptory challenges, but about race-based peremptory challenges that violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Batson v. Kentucky was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court found that the use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Court held that when a defendant shows that the prosecutor has used peremptory challenges to exclude a potential juror based solely on race, the trial court must determine whether the prosecutor has a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory strike. In conclusion, the case was not about gender-based peremptory challenges, but race-based ones, thus the statement is false.
Learn more about gender-based peremptory challenges here https://brainly.com/question/25391704
#SPJ11
President Ronald Reagan's Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 is considered by liberals
to have set back prison issues by decades.
False
True
Help I’m taking a test
Answers
Do defense teams have the ability to mount a defense against evidence? What affects their ability?
Answers
Answer:
Here's a sample answer:)
No, defense teams do not have the ability to defend against evidence. Usually, this is because there is not enough money or resources for them to use. This can also be affected by the type and/or amount of evidence presented. If there is undeniable evidence or an overwhelming amount of evidence it is very difficult to defend against such. Typically in this situation,the legal strategy to undermine the prosecution’s case is used.
Should the federal judiciary limit the scope of the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech clause, such that 'hate speech', as defined by the federal and/or state sovereigns, would be illegal, with criminal penalties attached? Provide arguments in support of your answer, and you may cite external sources.
Answers
The federal judiciary should limit the scope of the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause to criminalize "hate speech" is a complex and debated topic.
Here are two arguments that provide different perspectives on the matter:
Argument in favor of limiting the scope:
Proponents argue that limiting freedom of speech to criminalize hate speech would help protect vulnerable individuals and foster a more inclusive society. They argue that hate speech can perpetuate discrimination, incite violence, and create a hostile environment.
By imposing criminal penalties, it sends a strong message that such speech is not acceptable and helps maintain social harmony. They may cite examples of countries that have implemented hate speech laws and argue that such laws have proven effective in curbing the spread of hate speech and reducing harm.
Argument against limiting the scope:
Opponents argue that protecting freedom of speech, even when it includes hate speech, is essential for a robust democracy. They contend that allowing the government to restrict speech based on its content opens the door to potential abuse and encroachment on other forms of expression.
They argue that hate speech is subjective and its definition can vary across individuals and cultures, which raises concerns about potential censorship of unpopular or dissenting viewpoints. They emphasize the importance of countering hate speech through counter-speech, education, and promoting tolerance rather than relying on legal restrictions.
Learn more about criminalize here
https://brainly.com/question/32339222
#SPJ11
Myra owns a house which she advertises for sale for $200,000 On May 1 2018 Nicole offers myra $180.000 for the house Nicole files a suit against her alleging breach of contract myra claims that there was no contract. Is there a contract?
Answers
Answer:
no
Explanation:
Glen is a dairy farmer who owns 500 milk cows. His fences are in poor repair, and his cows are often found eating the grass on Hank's land. Hank believes that Glen is responsible for damages to Hank's land on a theory of strict liability. The court will most likely find that Glen is:
Answers
Answer:
I would say that Glen is responsible for all of the damages that are caused to Hank's land because the cows belong Glen and it is Glen's responsibility to fix things that are broken on his land so that way the animals don't escape. There fore I would say that Glen is responsible for the damages because he failed to keep his cows under control.
Explanation:
If Kripto sues Attorney Porquine for breach of the Jones-Porquine contract to recover what he would have received under the will, could Attorney Porquine successfully defend himself due to Kripto not having standing to sue? Why or why not?
Answers
Answer:
Following are the solution to the given question:
Explanation:
No, Sandy Porquine cannot defend himself successfully. This is because Kripto is the designated beneficiary in the contract between Emma Jones and Sandy Porcupine. Beneficiaries intended to seek a court resolution (have a duty to prosecute) if their contract rights are violated. Sandy Porquine also couldn't apply this theory effectively, Kripto had obtained a right.
Rojan (Roy) worked for the Metropolis City Government. One day at work a co-worker approached him and asked whom he planned to vote for as mayor in the next election. Roy told his colleague that he didn't think much of either candidate, and he didn't plan on voting for either one. The next day Roy's boss fired him because he felt that Roy should not have expressed any negative views about elected officials. Roy plans to file a lawsuit against the city based on its violation of his federal constitutional freedom of speech right. If Roy files his lawsuit in federal district court ( Rojan Degoey v. Metropolis City):________
a. The court may hear his case based on federal-question jurisdiction.
b. The court may hear his case based on diversity jurisdiction.
c. The court cannot hear his case because it does not have jurisdiction of this matter.
d. A and B only.
Answers
Answer:
d.
Explanation:
Explanation:
Help!!!!!!!!!!!!
A woman with a prior history of drunk driving was involved in a hit and run of a three-year-old girl. The jury found her guilty of manslaughter, acknowledging that she didn’t know the girl and didn’t plan to hit her. The judge sentenced her to 10 years in prison, citing that her careless and illegal behavior cost a young life and caused pain to a family. What goal of law enforcement does the judge’s reason cover?
general deterrence
incapacitation
punishment
rehabilitation
Answers
Answer: i think it's C, they want her to deal with the consequences
Answer:
general deterrence
Explanation:
it occurred accidentally it wasn't intentional
Rawls and Nozick both agree that
Answers
Answer:
they both agreed that such practices are inherently unfair. nozick does not say that wealth is perfect indicator of one's value in society, but it is hard to understand the power of this narrative in American life.
What is the difference between sedition and treason.
Answers
Treason: It is a crime that is committed by someone who betrays their country, for instance, by giving secret information to its enemies or overthrowing the government. It is considered a heinous crime.
A person found guilty of treason can face serious punishment including imprisonment, and in some cases, death.
Sedition: Sedition, on the other hand, refers to a revolt or an incitement of resistance against lawful authority.
It is non-violent conduct or speech that incites public disturbance or uprising against the government or a constitutionally constituted authority.
Unlike treason, sedition is not violent, it is the act of conspiring to cause a public disturbance by speaking out against the government. Sedition is punishable, but the punishment is not as severe as treason, as the consequences of sedition are not as dire as those of treason.
It is also not considered a crime if it does not lead to violence. The punishment for sedition is imprisonment, fines, or both.
Learn more about Sedition from the given link
https://brainly.com/question/12939625
#SPJ11
g 17.Authority of the court to hear a case: a.Judicial authority b.Jurisdiction c.Legal Authority
Answers
The correct option is (b). Jurisdiction is the Authority of the court to hear a case.
What Is Jurisdiction?The legal word for the power given to a legal institution to administer justice is jurisdiction. Areas of jurisdiction are applicable at the municipal, state, and federal levels in federations like the United States.
court jurisdiction. 1. Inauguration The term "jurisdiction" refers to the power granted by the law to a court, tribunal, or judge to resolve any difference between the parties, provide a decision, or impose an order.
The ability to exercise authority over people and things inside of a region is known as jurisdiction. It grants a court the authority to hear a case or lawsuit and make a decision legally. The term "jurisdiction" can also refer to a region of land where political power is acknowledged.
Learn more about Jurisdiction here:
https://brainly.com/question/14179714
#SPJ4
In no fewer than 250-words, write an editorial either supporting the military's decision to try Sergeant Hennis for murder, despite his previous
acquittal in civilian court or calling for a review of the conviction by the Supreme Court, citing specific violations of the sergeant's rights.
Answers
Answer: I fortify the Armys decision for trialing and ultimately sentencing Timothy Hennis to death as in 1986 DNA testing was still an adolescent science and the semen extracted from Katie Eastburn’s poor body could not be tested but still subsisted as evidence. In 2006, the DNA was tested and found to be a match for Hennis. But the Double Jeopardy clause of the Constitution of the United States verbalizes that a person cannot be tired twice for the same crime. That’s where the comely Army came in.
While his rights seem like to they were infringed upon they weren't. The legal system is fortuitous the civilian and military sectors are different and endeavored him with a loophole. The United States Constitution's dual sovereignty doctrine sanctions a defendant endeavored and acquitted in a state court to be retried at a federal court. In integration, the Uniform Code of Military Equity sanctions military personnel endeavored in a civilian court to be court-martialed. At the request of the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, the commanding officer at Fort Bragg, concurred to recall the retired Hennis back into accommodation as a pretext for charging him with the murders of his wife and two children predicated on the incipient DNA evidence. While it's unusual for the military to reactivate a soldier in order to try them, it's applied in unusual circumstances, and in this case the unusual circumstance was new evidence coming to light that made it worthwhile for the military to prosecute. Having not immediately tried him after he was acquitted at the state level they were able to bring a stronger case two decades later. As far as the legal system is concerned, the military simply waited until they had a strong enough case to prosecute, equivalent to a local prosecutor declining to prosecute a weak case and then changing his mind when new evidence arises years later. Grey area licitness but If you ask me, he should've endeavored taking a plea deal, instead he doubled down and lost despite fresh evidence.
Explanation: boss baby approved
George owns 300 shares of preferred stock in a company. By owning preferred stock, George has:
Answers
Answer:
Trey owns 250 shares of common stock in a toy-store company. This means that he owns a percentage of the company based on the proportion of shares he owns out of the total shares issued by the company. With this ownership he also acquires rights to: vote. George owns 300 shares of preferred stock in a company.
Explanation: