17 CFR § 240.10b-5, commonly known as SEC Rule 10b-5, is a regulation established by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Securities Exchange Act is a crucial piece of legislation enacted by the United States Congress in 1934 to regulate the securities industry and protect investors. It established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the primary regulatory body responsible for overseeing the securities markets.
The act introduced a range of provisions aimed at ensuring transparency, fairness, and integrity in the trading of securities. It requires companies that offer and sell securities to the public to provide detailed financial and other information to potential investors. This includes regular financial reporting, disclosure of material events, and insider trading regulations.
To know more about Securities Exchange Act refer to-
brainly.com/question/21093888
#SPJ4
a city council consists of democrats and republicans. if a committee of people is selected, find the probability of selecting democrats and republicans.
The probability of selecting 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans from the city council is approximately 0.476 or 47.6%.
Let's assume that the city council has 10 members, with 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
We can use the idea of combinations to calculate the likelihood of choosing Democrats and Republicans. The binomial coefficient formula can be used to determine how many different ways there are to choose a specific number of Democrats and Republicans.
Probability of selecting 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans:
P(3 Democrats and 2 Republicans) = C(6, 3) × C(4, 2) / C(10, 5)
C(n, k) = the number of combinations of n items taken k at a time.
P(3 Democrats and 2 Republicans) = (6 choose 3) * (4 choose 2) / (10 choose 5)
= (20) × (6) / (252)
= 120 / 252
= 0.476
Learn more about Democrats at:
brainly.com/question/14213873
#SPJ4
In cities and towns which do not have have a mandatory re-cycling laws, why are aluminum cans more likely to be recycled than glass bottles?
In cities and towns without mandatory recycling laws, aluminum cans are more likely to be recycled than glass bottles due to their higher economic value, convenience, environmental benefits and market demand.
Because aluminum has a higher scrap value, recycling businesses find it to be profitable. Additionally lightweight and stackable, aluminum cans are simpler to handle and store. Recycling aluminum also benefits the environment because it uses less energy and emits fewer emissions than manufacturing new cans.
An additional incentive for people and businesses to recycle cans is the high market demand for recycled aluminum. In areas without mandatory recycling laws, aluminum cans are more likely to be recycled than glass bottles due to a combination of these factors.
Learn more about recycling at:
brainly.com/question/30486970
#SPJ4
What conclusion can you draw about why excessive use of force can happen sometimes in the fields of policing and corrections?
Answer:
Especially in the fields of police and corrections, excessive force can happen frequently because of a few things. The first would be bias, when the officer has premonitions about the victim. They act out of fear or on impulsivity. Also, the scenario and circumstances around the officer and victim can contribute to excessive force usage.
Explanation:
Look above :)
According to Section 33 of the Texas Bill of Rights (Article 1 of the Texas Constitution), Texans are guaranteed the right to use and access public beaches. This is not a right that is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Which concept allows Texas to grant its citizens more rights than those listed in the U.S. Constitution?
the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments
Equal Rights Amendment
independent state grounds
According to Section 33 of the Texas Bill of Rights (Article 1 of the Texas Constitution), Texans are guaranteed the right to use and access public beaches.
This is not a right that is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Independent state grounds allow Texas to grant its citizens more rights than those listed in the U.S. Constitution. This concept is the right answer.A state cannot take away rights that are protected under the U.S. Constitution. However, the U.S. Constitution allows the states to grant their citizens more rights than those listed in the federal Constitution. Independent state grounds concept allows states to provide additional rights to their citizens than the ones protected under the U.S. Constitution. This idea permits state courts to interpret their state constitutions and statutes to expand protections beyond those granted by the federal Constitution.
To know more about Constitution , visit ;
https://brainly.com/question/470736
#SPJ11
When the opposing party is to bring documents to a deposition she or he should be served with a: ________
When the opposing party is to bring documents to a deposition, he or she should be served with a subpoena duces tecum.
A subpoena duces tecum is a legal order requiring the recipient to appear and bring certain specified documents or pieces of evidence to a court hearing or deposition. In other words, it is a type of subpoena that requires the recipient to provide certain documents, materials, or objects in their possession or control at a deposition.A subpoena duces tecum is a useful legal tool to obtain evidence for use in legal proceedings. If a party refuses to comply with a subpoena duces tecum, he or she may face legal sanctions such as fines or contempt of court charges.
To know more about evidence , visit ;
https://brainly.com/question/375033
#SPJ11
Can someone please answer this
Answer:
B) by lending money at interest
Explanation:
Question 9 (1 point)
Which of the following is not a power of the judicial branch?
to resolve disputes
to make laws
to decide if a law is unconstitutional
d
to review laws
Answer:
to make laws
Explanation:
The legislative branch makes laws.
networks
Guided Reading Activity
Economic Systems
Lesson 1 Scarcity and the Science of Economics
Review Questions
Answer:
Explanation:
networks
Guided Reading Activity
Economic Systems
Lesson 1 Scarcity and the Science of Economics
Review Questions
what is the relationship between law and morality with regard to euthanasia?
Answer:
please give me brainlist and follow
Explanation:
The law plays no role in euthanasia if good fortune or good medicine allows such a death. Today, however, euthanasia all too often attracts a second meaning1, an act or omission designed to hasten death and thus relieve the suffering of a dying or incurably sick patient.
who are the stakeholders that are affected by anticybersquatting legislation?
The stakeholders that are affected by anticybersquatting legislation are the companies, consumers, and individuals or organizations who hold intellectual property rights over domain names, trademarks, and online brand identities.What is Anticybersquatting.
Anticybersquatting refers to the practice of registering domain names that are identical or similar to a company or brand's registered trademark with the intention of profiting from their sale back to the legitimate owner. It is a violation of intellectual property rights and can cause significant damage to a company's brand image.Anticybersquatting LegislationThe United States Congress enacted the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in 1999, which amended the Federal Trademark Act to address the issue of cybersquatting. The ACPA provides legal remedies to trademark owners who are victims of cybersquatting. It allows them to bring a civil action against cybersquatters who register, traffic, or use a domain name in bad faith with the intent to profit from the trademark owner’s goodwill and reputation.Stakeholders affected by Anticybersquatting LegislationStakeholders affected by anticybersquatting legislation include:Trademark holders: They are the ones who have the most direct stake in anticybersquatting legislation. They are affected by the practice of cybersquatting, which can cause significant harm to their brands and intellectual property rights.Domain name registrants: They are the people who register and purchase domain names, and they can also be affected by anticybersquatting legislation. If they register a domain name that infringes on a trademark owner’s rights, they could face legal action. Consumers: They are also stakeholders affected by anticybersquatting legislation. Cybersquatters often use deceptive tactics to lure consumers into purchasing counterfeit products or services that can cause financial harm.
To know more about legislation , visit ;
https://brainly.com/question/27893557
#SPJ11
outline the four major sources that may provide probable cause.
The four major sources that may provide probable cause are as observation, information, evidence and expertise.
Probable cause can be derived from firsthand observations made by law enforcement officers. This includes what they see, hear, or otherwise perceive through their senses. Information received from reliable sources, such as informants or tipsters, can contribute to establishing probable cause. This may include tips about criminal activities, specific individuals involved, or locations where illegal actions are taking place. Physical evidence that is found or collected during an investigation can provide probable cause. Law enforcement officers with specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular area can use their training and experience to establish probable cause.
It's important to note that these sources must be evaluated within the context of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
To know more about Probable cause, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/29617865
#SPJ11
what other countries might be likely candidates for adopting federal systems in the future? why do you think these countries are particularly good candidates?
Myanmar, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Iraq are potential candidates for adopting federal systems in the future.
The populations of these nations are diverse, and there are ethnic tensions, regional inequalities, and historical conflicts. By establishing mechanisms for power-sharing, regional autonomy and group representation, a federal system may be able to address these issues.
Federalism enables the decentralization of power, encouraging local decision making and meeting the unique requirements of various geographical areas.
Federal systems can assist in managing conflicts, fostering stability, and guaranteeing inclusivity in diverse societies by granting greater autonomy and self governance. Taking into account these elements, these nations are thought to be excellent candidates for implementing federal systems as a way to address their particular problems and support efficient governance.
Learn more about federal systems at:
brainly.com/question/14409369
#SPJ4
why had the twelfth district been created by the state legislature?
State legislatures create districts for various reasons, typically related to political representation. One primary purpose is to ensure fair and equitable representation of the population within a state.
Legislatures are governing bodies responsible for creating, amending, and repealing laws within a specific jurisdiction. They serve as the cornerstone of representative democracy, where elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the citizens they represent. Legislatures exist at various levels, including national, state, provincial, and local levels.
The primary function of legislatures is to debate, deliberate, and enact laws that govern society. Members of the legislature, often called lawmakers or legislators, propose bills, discuss their merits, and vote on their passage. These laws cover a wide range of issues, including governance, public policies, finance, social matters, and more. Legislatures also play a crucial role in overseeing the executive branch of government, ensuring accountability and transparency.
To know more about Legislatures refer to-
brainly.com/question/31788503
#SPJ4
I need help please.
Answer:
Lower courts are much less formal than are courts of general jurisdiction. ... An appeal by a convicted defendant asks that a higher court review the actions of a lower court. -Courts within the appellate division, once they accept an appeal, do not conduct a new trial. Instead, they review the case on the record.
Explanation:
true
One significant difference between the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act is:
Select one:
a. NEPA had fines for non-compliance
b. Ontario’s process led to enforceable decisions
c. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act came into effect 15 years after NEPA
d. NEPA required assessment documents to be subject to public review
One significant difference between the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act is NEPA required assessment documents to be subject to public review. The correct answer is d.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the United States and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act differ significantly in that NEPA calls for the public review of assessment documents. By allowing the public to review environmental assessments and related documents and offer feedback, NEPA mandates a transparent and inclusive process. By doing this it is made possible for the general public to access information and actively participate in the decision making process.
Even though it's possible that the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act also results in decisions that are enforceable, this is not a clear distinction from NEPA, as the statement implies. There aren't many differences between the two acts, except for discussion of penalties for non compliance and discussion of the timing of the acts implementation. The correct answer is d.
Learn more about National Environmental Policy Act at:
brainly.com/question/4433750
#SPJ4
Question 5 (1 point)
How many Supreme Court justices are there currently?
Оа.
Ob
nine (9)
eleven (11)
thirteen (13)
seven (7)
Od
Answer:
if i am not wrong there are 9 supreme court justices.
1.What conclusion can you draw about why excessive use of force can happen sometimes in the fields of policing and corrections?
Don't send me links!
Answer:
Answer Below:
Explanation:
With everything happening I am going to answer carefully; The use of excessive force may be the surroundings of the cop(A place where the cop could easily be hurt), the way the person being arrested acts, and if it happens the cop being corrupt.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees in Guantanamo:____.
a. deserved some due process and that the military commissions created at the time were not sufficient.
b. did not deserve some due process and that the military commissions created at the time were sufficient.
c. did not deserve some due process and the military commissions created at the time were not sufficient.
d. deserved some due process and that the military commissions created at the time were sufficient.
Answer:
c
Explanation:
Specifically what cases did United States v. Jones overturn, either entirely or in part? Please explain
In the case of United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the issue of whether the government's attachment of a GPS tracking device to a suspect's vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment's safeguard against arbitrary searches and seizures was broken, the Court found, by installing and using the GPS device without a valid warrant.
The ruling in United States v. Jones did not expressly reverse any earlier decisions. The Court's earlier decisions in United States v. Knotts (1983) and United States v. Karo (1984), which dealt with electronic surveillance and the use of tracking devices, were clarified and significantly expanded upon. According to United States v. Jones even when GPS tracking takes place in public areas, it still counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment and needs a warrant.
Learn more about Fourth Amendment at:
brainly.com/question/7955252
#SPJ4
The defendant's vehicle matched the description of a vehicle seen in the vicinity of a
burglary before the burglary, during the burglary, and after the burglary. The
defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accomplice
to the burglary. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of accomplice act,
accomplice intent, or both?
Answer:
Often more than one criminal defendant participates in the commission of a crime. Defendants working together with a common criminal purpose are acting with complicity and are responsible for the same crimes, to the same degree.
Explanation:At early common law, there were four parties to a crime. A principal in the first degree actually committed the crime. A principal in the second degree was present at the crime scene and assisted in the crime’s commission. An accessory before the fact was not present at the crime scene but helped prepare for the crime’s commission. An accessory after the fact helped a party after he or she committed a crime by providing aid in escaping or avoiding arrest and prosecution or conviction. In modern times, there are only two parties to a crime: a principal, who is in the same category with his or her accomplice(s), and accessory(ies). Principals actually commit the crime, and they and their accomplices are criminally responsible for it. Accessories play the same role as accessories after the fact at common law.
The criminal act element required to be an accomplice in most jurisdictions is assistance in the commission of a crime. Words are enough to constitute the accomplice criminal act. Mere presence at the scene, even presence at the scene combined with flight after the crime’s commission, is not enough to constitute the accomplice criminal act unless there is a legal duty to act.
The criminal intent element required for accomplice liability in many jurisdictions is specific intent or purposely to commit the crime at issue. In some states, general intent or knowingly that the principal will commit the crime creates an inference of intent if the offense is serious. In a minority of jurisdictions, general intent or knowingly that the principal will commit the crime is sufficient.
The natural and probable consequences doctrine holds accomplices criminally responsible for all crimes the principal commits that are reasonably foreseeable. In many jurisdictions an accomplice can be prosecuted for a crime the principal commits even if the principal is not prosecuted or acquitted.
Vicarious liability transfers criminal responsibility from one party to another because of a special relationship. Vicarious liability is common between employers and employees and is the basis for corporate criminal liability. Pursuant to modern corporate criminal liability, a corporation can be fined for a crime(s) a corporate agent or employee commits during the scope of employment. The corporate agent or employee also is criminally responsible for his or her conduct. In general, the law disfavors individual criminal vicarious liability. The law in this area is evolving as the incidence of juveniles committing crimes increases.
In modern times, an accessory is the equivalent of an accessory after the fact at common law. The criminal act element required for an accessory is providing assistance to a principal in escape, avoiding detection, or arrest and prosecution, or conviction for the commission of a felony, high-level misdemeanor, or any crime, depending on the jurisdiction. Words are enough to constitute the accessory criminal act. Several jurisdictions exempt family members from criminal responsibility for acting as an accessory.
The criminal intent element required for an accessory in most jurisdictions is general intent or knowingly that the principal committed a crime, and specific intent or purposely that the principal escape, avoid detection, or arrest and prosecution, or conviction for the offense. Accessory is a separate crime that is usually graded as a misdemeanor, although some jurisdictions grade accessory as a felony.
This case illustrates the legal concept of an accomplice act, as the defendant's vehicle matching the burglary description indicates participation in the crime.
The defendant's vehicle matching the description of a vehicle seen before, during, and after the burglary serves as evidence linking the defendant to the crime.
The consistent presence of the defendant's vehicle at different stages of the burglary raises reasonable suspicion of their direct involvement.
The focus in this case is on the defendant's actions, specifically having a vehicle that matches the description related to the crime, rather than their intent.
Accomplice act does not require proving the defendant's intent or knowledge of the specific crime being committed.
Thus, it focuses on their direct participation or contribution to the criminal activity, as demonstrated by the matching vehicle in this instance.
Learn more about the accomplice act here:
https://brainly.com/question/15189112
#SPJ4
walker suggests that most of the time, the system operates in a chaotic and arbitrary manner.
In his analysis, Walker argues that the criminal justice system often exhibits characteristics of chaos and arbitrariness. He contends that factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and the discretion of key actors within the system contribute to this perception.
Walker highlights that disparities exist in the treatment of individuals based on their background and circumstances. For example, he points to studies showing that people from marginalized communities, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, often face harsher penalties compared to their counterparts from privileged backgrounds. Moreover, the discretion exercised by prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement officials can introduce inconsistency and unpredictability into the system. Additionally, Walker suggests that the sheer volume of cases and limited resources may result in rushed decisions, inadequate legal representation, and a lack of thorough examination of evidence, leading to potential errors and injustices.
While not universally applicable to every jurisdiction or case, Walker's assessment underscores the need for ongoing efforts to address the perceived chaos and arbitrariness within the criminal justice system and to promote fairness, equal treatment, and transparency in its operation.
To know more about Walker, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/31622350
#SPJ11
brad and mariah are partners in doctors for children, a medical clinic. brad’s dissociation from the firm results in
Brad's dissociation from the firm results in the automatic termination of the firm's legal existence.
Other partnership's buyout of Brad's interest in the firm the immediate maturity of all partnership debts the temporary suspension of the partnership's business.
A partnership is a kind of business where a formal agreement between two or more people is made who agree to be the co-owners, distribute responsibilities for running an organization and share the income or losses that the business generates.
Hence, Brad's dissociation will automatic terminate the firm's legal existence.
Learn more about dissociation here:
https://brainly.com/question/32674500
#SPJ1
Why did rogue states become more prominent following the Soviet Union's collapse?
a. The Soviet Union's collapse led to power vacuums in certain regions.
b. Rogue states sought to assert their dominance in the post-Soviet era.
c. The fall of the Soviet Union weakened global security measures.
d. Rogue states were emboldened by the absence of a major superpower.
Rogue states became more prominent following the Soviet Union's collapse because the Soviet Union's collapse led to power vacuums in certain regions. Thus, option (a) is correct.
Since the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, its former client states have been far less isolated internationally. Rogue states' primary source of assistance had been cut off, leaving countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq to fend for themselves.
The collapse of the Soviet Union also compromised international security protocols, which gave rogue regimes additional leeway. In the post-Soviet era, rogue states felt empowered to establish their domination because there was no big superpower.
Therefore, option (a) is correct.
Learn more about on Soviet Union's, here:
https://brainly.com/question/31565617
#SPJ1
Private law pertains to personal rights, such as the right
to protect one’s own property and interests.
Select one:
True
False
The statement "Private law pertains to personal rights, such as the right to protect one’s own property and interests." is true as private laws are for individual liberty.
Private law also referred to as civil law is a subset of the law that addresses the rights and connections between people or entities. It includes individual rights, such as the right to safeguard one's own assets and interests. Numerous facets of daily life are governed by private law including contracts, property ownership, torts, family law and business dealings.
It focuses on resolving conflicts between private parties and offering remedies for any wrongdoing or rights violations. Public law which deals with issues pertaining to the government and the relationship between the state and its citizens is distinct from private law.
Learn more about Private law at:
brainly.com/question/32182909
#SPJ4
Maurice Lamont Davis and Andre Levon Glover "committed a string of gas station robberies in Texas." The federal government charged both of them "with multiple counts of robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act" under 18 U.S.C. §1951(a). They were also charged with "one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery." The jury found the defendants guilty on most of the counts. The federal government also charged the men under §924(c). Section 924(c)(1)(A) states:
. . . [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years; (ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and (iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
. . . [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years; (ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and (iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
Under the section certain weapons also trigger increased penalties. "[T]he government argued that Mr. Davis and Mr. Glover had each committed two separate §924(c) violations by brandishing a short-barreled shotgun in connection with their crimes." The jury agreed with the argument on the additional violations. "Adding the §924(c) mandatory minimums to its discretionary sentences for their other crimes, the district court ultimately sentenced Mr. Glover to more than 41 years in prison and Mr. Davis to more than 50 years."
Assume that Glover and Davis file an appeal in your court.
1. In the U.S. legal system, courts can declare statutes unconstitutional if the statute is vague. Is §924(c)(3) unconstitutionally vague? How would you decide this case? Explain your answer.
2. What problems does it cause when statutes are too vague? Explain your answer.
3. If it is unconstitutionally vague, which branch of government is responsible for correcting it? Explain your answer.
[See United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).]
1. In the United States legal system, courts can declare statutes unconstitutional if the statute is vague. §924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague.
I would decide this case in favor of Glover and Davis.The lower court erred in finding §924(c)(3) to be unconstitutionally vague. However, after careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that §924(c)(3) was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide a fair warning of what conduct would be considered a violation of the statute.2. When statutes are too vague, they cause problems in the legal system. One of the problems is that vague statutes are susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, which can result in inconsistent and unpredictable applications. Additionally, vague statutes may not provide adequate notice to individuals about what conduct is prohibited, which can lead to confusion and unjust prosecution.3. If it is unconstitutionally vague, the judicial branch of government is responsible for correcting it. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret and strike down statutes that it finds to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), is an example of the Court exercising its power to declare a statute unconstitutionally vague and correct the issue.
To know more about government , visit ;
https://brainly.com/question/1078669
#SPJ11
Keith owed Art some money, and Art was tired of waiting for Keith to pay him back. Art saw Keith walking down the street and decided to approach him with his aggressive Rottweiler Rox. Art let Rox lunge at Keith, and then asked him, "Are you ready to pay me back the money that you owe me now?" What if Rox the Rottweiler actually bites Keith? Rox recently bit another neighbor and is known for her vicious ways. Art would be liable to Keith for _____. battery negligence assault strict liability
Answer:
assault
Explanation:
Answer:
imma say assault
Explanation:
plz tell me if im right.
determine what type of evidence the following may be: A man holding a book of matches at the scene of a fire
Answer:
Well, The only specific evidence we have at the current scene would be that man that has a book of matches but sense we cant really determine whether or not he was the one who did it, therefore we have no exponential evidence that he did it.
Explanation:
Damian and Hunter are college roommates from very different walks of life. Damian was raised in a poverty-stricken city by a single mom. Hunter is the son of a small-town doctor and his socialite wife. Regardless, they get along well. Over time, they become known around campus as a good source for illegal drugs. For several years, Damian and Hunter run their business successfully. When the police finally catch up with them, they are both arrested. Following the theory of radical criminology, what is MOST likely going to happen to the two men?
A.
Damian will get an easier sentence because he did not have the advantages that Hunter did.
B.
Hunter will get a harder sentence because he had more privileges growing up.
C.
Both men will get equal sentences under the law.
D.
Damian will get a harder sentence because of his background.
Answer: D. Damian will get a harder sentence because of his background
Explanation:
Radical criminology bases its opinion on the fact that the state uses its power to make laws that will be beneficial to the ruling class while the working class are left out. It simply means that the laws made benefits the rich at the expense of the poor in the society.
Therefore, since Damian was raised in a poverty-stricken city by a single mom while Hunter is the son of a small-town doctor and his socialite wife, Damian will get a harder sentence because of his background.
I need help please.
Answer:
the answer is true
Explanation:
because the force is greater than that which is needed to compel compliance
The legalization of drugs is neither unwise nor immoral. It is not unwise because by legalizing drugs we would eliminate the illegal drug trade. Hence, by legalizing drugs, we would rid our nation of all the violence that goes along with the illegal drug trade. Furthermore, the legalization of drugs is not immoral because it can be combined with a massive program of moral education. The conclusion in a standard argument form is often presented as __________
Answer:
Inductive
Explanation: