The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners should generally appeal their cases first
Prisoners should typically appeal their cases in state courts first, according to a Supreme Court decision.
What sort of attraction would that be?An appeal is not a second trial, but rather a chance for the defendant to argue against specific mistakes that might have been made during the trial. A typical appeal is that the judge's decision, such as whether to withhold particular evidence or to impose a particular penalty, was erroneous. The mayor urged the city's residents to maintain their composure. We gave to the school's annual appeal. She assisted in planning an appeal on behalf of the homeless. My attorney advised that we seek an appeal because the court's ruling was incorrect. losing party in a litigation may take their case on appeal to a higher court. The higher court then checks the case for legal mistakes.To learn more about appeal, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/29758279
1. State and explain the 5 ways in which an Agency can be created. The explanation should not be beyond 2 sentences each. (10 Marks)
2. Give two differences between each of the following:
i) Barter Transaction & Gift Transaction
ii) Bailment & Barter Transaction
iii) Bailment & Gift Transaction (6 Marks)
3. Give an example each of the following Types of Goods (3 Marks)
i) Specific Goods
ii) Unascertained Goods
iii) Future Goods
1. The five ways in which an agency can be created are express appointment, implied appointment, ratification, necessity, and estoppel. Express appointment involves a written or stated agreement between the principal and agent, implied appointment is created based on the conduct or relationship between the principal and agent, ratification happens when the principal approves an unauthorised action taken by the agent, necessity arises when there’s an emergency, and estoppel occurs when an agent acts as if they have authority, and the principal doesn’t object.
2. i) In barter transactions, two parties exchange goods or services with no money involved; in gift transactions, a person gives a gift to another person without expecting something in return.
ii) In bailment, the owner (bailor) of personal property delivers it to another person (bailee) for safekeeping; in barter transactions, two parties exchange goods or services with no money involved.
iii) In bailment, the owner (bailor) of personal property delivers it to another person (bailee) for safekeeping; in gift transactions, a person gives a gift to another person without expecting something in return.
3. i) Specific goods are tangible, identified, and agreed-upon items at the time the contract is made, such as a specific car with a unique serial number.
ii) Unascertained goods are not yet identified or agreed-upon at the time of the contract, such as a shipment of apples from a farm that hasn’t been delivered yet.
iii) Future goods are goods that don’t exist yet but will be produced or acquired in the future. For example, a pre-order of a new book that hasn’t been published yet.
Claudine is a state senator. She introduces a bill that she hopes will become a law. After she introduces it, the bill will probably go where next...
After Claudine introduces the bill, it will be assigned to a committee for further review and discussion.
The committee may hold hearings, gather input from experts and interested parties, and make amendments to the bill before voting to pass it out of the committee. If the bill is passed out of the committee, it will be debated and voted on by the full Senate.
If the Senate approves the bill, it will move to the other chamber of the state legislature (e.g. the House of Representatives) for consideration and the same process of review and debate will occur. If the bill passes both chambers, it will go to the governor for signature into law or veto.
To know more about bill here
https://brainly.com/question/10074749
#SPJ4
True or False: An immediate relationship must always exist between the act and the actor's intent for a crime to occur
False. An immediate relationship between the act and the actor's intent does not always need to exist for a crime to occur.
An act can be criminal even if the actor did not intend for it to be so. This is known as "strict liability," which means that a person can be held criminally liable for an act regardless of whether they intended for it to be criminal or not.
For example, if a person is driving under the influence of alcohol, they may not intend to injure anyone, but they can still be found guilty of a crime if they do cause injury.
In summary, an immediate relationship between the act and the actor's intent is not always necessary for a crime to occur.
Know more about strict liability here
https://brainly.com/question/28173731#
#SPJ11
Workers' Compensation fraud is punishable by a fine of up to $(?) or (?) the amount of the fraud, if greater. If the violator has a prior felony conviction of the same offense, there will be an additional (?)-year sentence for each prior conviction.
Workers' Compensation fraud is a serious offense that can result in a hefty fine of up to $10,000 or double the amount of the fraud, whichever is greater.
Workers' compensation insurance fraud can take the form of simple or complicated schemes, and it frequently necessitates challenging and drawn-out investigations. Employees could manufacture or exaggerate injuries. On the opposite end of the scale, white-collar criminals like doctors and attorneys lure, compensate, and plan with others to cheat the system by making inflated or false claims, overtreating patients, and prescribing excessive amounts of dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals. The expense is covered by insurance firms, who then shift it to customers, taxpayers, and the broader public.
If the violator has a prior felony conviction for the same offense, there will be an additional five-year sentence for each prior conviction. It is important to note that committing Workers' Compensation fraud is not only illegal, but it also takes advantage of a system put in place to help injured workers. Anyone caught committing this offense will face severe consequences.
To learn more about Workers' Compensation, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/15307992
#SPJ11
Why does Hamilton believe a single executive is safer?
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the United States and a key contributor to the drafting of the US Constitution, believed that a single executive was safer than a multiple executive system.
Hamilton argued that a single executive would be more effective in carrying out the laws and executing the policies of the government.
He believed that a multiple executive system, where power is divided among several executives, would lead to confusion and inefficiency.
In his view, a single executive would be more accountable to the people and could be more easily removed from office if they failed to fulfill their duties.
Additionally, Hamilton believed that a single executive would be better able to protect the country from foreign threats and maintain national security.
He thought that a divided executive, with multiple leaders competing for power and influence, would be more vulnerable to foreign manipulation and could lead to a weakened national defense.
Overall, Hamilton believed that a strong, unified executive was necessary for a successful government and a secure nation.
For similar questions on executive
https://brainly.com/question/18973126
#SPJ11
Why does Hamilton argue a feeble executive leads to bad government?
Hamilton believed that a feeble executive would lead to bad government because it would lack accountability, be unable to make decisions quickly and effectively, and fail to maintain the balance of power between the different branches of government.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, believed that a feeble executive, or weak central government, would result in bad governance. In his view, a strong executive was essential to ensuring effective governance and protecting the rights of citizens.
Hamilton believed that a weak executive would lead to a lack of accountability and an inability to make decisions quickly and effectively. He argued that a strong executive would be better equipped to handle crises, protect national security, and enforce the law. Without a strong executive, Hamilton feared that the government would become susceptible to corruption, factionalism, and a lack of public trust.
Furthermore, Hamilton believed that a strong executive would be better able to balance the powers of the different branches of government, providing a necessary check on the legislative and judicial branches. He saw the executive as a crucial component in maintaining the balance of power and ensuring the proper functioning of the government.
To learn more about Alexander Hamilton
https://brainly.com/question/31006348
#SPJ4
Whether Fourth Amendment seizures are stops or arrests depends on:A. duration, invasiveness, location, the officers subjective intentB. duration, invasiveness, and locationC. duration and invasivenessD. invasiveness and the officer's subjective intent
The determination of whether Fourth Amendment seizures are stops or arrests depends on a variety of factors, including the duration, the invasiveness, the location of the seizure, and the officer's subjective intent.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts have developed a framework to analyze whether a particular seizure violates the Amendment. Stops are temporary detentions that are less intrusive than arrests, while arrests involve significant deprivations of liberty. The determination of whether a seizure is a stop or an arrest can have important implications for the legality of the seizure and the evidence that can be used in a criminal trial.
Thus, the correct answer is A.
To know more about Fourth Amendment, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/28246295
#SPJ11
What aspect of the Constitution was brought up as the central issue regarding the health care reform law?
The central issue regarding the health care reform law and the Constitution was the individual mandate. The mandate required individuals to purchase health insurance or face a penalty.
Opponents argued that Congress did not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase a product. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. This decision set a precedent for the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the limits of the federal government's authority in regulating individual behavior.
For more such questions on insurance , click on:
https://brainly.com/question/28562565
#SPJ11
30. Joy invites ken into her apartment. land if he: into her apartment. Ken commits trespass to A. Refuses to leave when Joy asks him to goB. Damages Joy's valuable collection of baseball trading cards C. Enters the apartment with a fraudulent intent D. Makes disparaging remarks about Joy's housekeeping skills
If Joy invites Ken into her apartment, he does not commit trespass. However, if he refuses to leave when Joy asks him to go, he would be committing trespass.
If he damages Joy's valuable collection of baseball trading cards or enters the apartment with fraudulent intent, he could be held liable for the damages caused. Making disparaging remarks about Joy's housekeeping skills would not necessarily be considered trespass or result in liability for damages to her apartment or land.
Based on your question, Ken commits trespass to Joy's apartment and land if he:
A. Refuses to leave when Joy asks him to go.
Trespass occurs when someone enters or remains on another person's property without permission. In this case, if Ken refuses to leave after Joy asks him to go, he is committing trespass.
Learn more about apartment here:
https://brainly.com/question/10758552
#SPJ11
In the Pinto case, Ford relied on which approaches to ethical reasoning to decide on a course of action with respect to the faulty gas tank placement: A. Egoism and utilitarianism B. Enlightened egoism and rights theory C. Ethical legalism and utilitarianism D. Justice and rights theory
Ford in the Pinto case relied on utilitarianism and ethical legalism to determine the best course of action regarding the incorrect location of the petrol tank.
What is ethical legalism?Legality is described as the need that all legal regulation and conflict should, to the greatest extent feasible, be conducted by predefined principles of significant breadth and clarity. If smoking is prohibited because it causes a public nuisance, then the law is an example of legal moralism. However, if it is prohibited or regulated due to the problems that second-hand smoke causes to others, the law is more of an application of the harm principle. The Legalists supported a legal system that precisely outlined punishments and rewards for various conduct. They emphasized that all human endeavors should be directed toward boosting the authority of the ruler and the state.To learn more about ethical legalism, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/1403278
1. ) Describe the unspoken culture in Mississippi. How does this compare to any unspoken culture that you’re aware of where you live? Explain.
2. ) What personal story does Lou share to illustrate the broken judicial system at work? Explain and analyze why this story speaks to her point.
3. ) Were there other jurors that experienced similar feelings of regret and remorse like Lou? What potential solution was mentioned that would allow the jurors to better cope with their duty? Discuss your thoughts on this.
4. ) What sentence could Lou’s granddaughter not answer? Explain the context and discuss whether you could answer this question or not. What coping mechanism has Lou employed to deal with the residual feelings of her juror experience? Discuss.
5. ) What are your thoughts on the death penalty? Do you believe that people are less likely to commit murder or violent crimes in states that have the death penalty? Evaluate and explain
Mississippi has a rich and complex culture that is deeply influenced by its history and geography. The unspoken culture in Mississippi is characterized by strong traditional values, a deep sense of community, and an emphasis on hospitality and politeness.
It also has a strong religious influence, particularly with Protestant Christianity. Respect for authority and hierarchy is also a common trait in this culture. In terms of comparison, every region has its unique unspoken culture, but there may be some similarities and differences depending on factors such as history, geography, religion, and socioeconomic status.
For example, the unspoken culture in urban areas may differ from rural areas, and the culture in the Northeast may differ from that of the South. It is important to note that these are generalizations and may not apply to every individual or community.
To learn more about culture the link:
https://brainly.com/question/30497684
#SPJ4
--The question is inappropriate, the correct question is:
Describe the unspoken culture in Mississippi. How does this compare to any unspoken culture that you’re aware of where you live? Explain.--
A driver who refuses to take an alcohol test might lose his/her license under which law?
A driver who refuses to take an alcohol test might lose his/her license under the "Implied Consent Law."
Under this law, by obtaining a driver's license, the driver automatically agrees to take a blood, breath, or urine test if requested by a law enforcement officer suspected of driving under the influence. This law states that by operating a motor vehicle, drivers implicitly agree to submit to alcohol testing if requested by law enforcement. Refusing to take the test can result in the suspension or revocation of the driver's license.
Learn more about revocation here: https://brainly.com/question/30160947
#SPJ11
A special need that justifies airport searches is:A. protection of endangered speciesB. protection of public healthC. protection from drug smugglingD. protection for air travelers
The primary "special-need" which justifies airport searches is to protect air-travelers and ensure the safety of air travel, the correct option is (d).
The Airport searches are conducted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in order to ensure the safety and security of air travel. The TSA is responsible for screening passengers and their belongings to prevent dangerous items from being brought onto airplanes.
In order to accomplish this goal, the TSA has the authority to conduct searches of passengers and their belongings, including their luggage, carry-on bags, and personal items.
These searches are conducted to identify and remove-items that could pose a threat to air travel, such as weapons, explosives, and other dangerous items.
Therefore, Option(d) is correct.
Learn more about Airport here
https://brainly.com/question/12693186
#SPJ4
The given question is incomplete, the complete question is
A special need that justifies airport searches is:
(a) protection of endangered species
(b) protection of public health
(c) protection from drug smuggling
(d) protection for air travelers
In 2010, what percent of 12th graders reported using drugs in the past year?A). 75B). 90C). 38D). 50
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the annual national survey that tracks drug use among adolescents in the United States found that 38 percent of 12th graders reported using drugs in the past year in 2010.
This figure includes the use of illicit drugs such as marijuana, hallucinogens, inhalants, and non-medical use of prescription drugs. The survey also found that 8.5 percent of high school seniors reported using illicit drugs other than marijuana in the past month.
It is important to note that the overall rate of drug use among high school seniors has decreased significantly since 2010. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that the rate of illicit drug use among 12th graders in 2018 was 33.4 percent, down from 38 percent in 2010.
This decline is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the dangers of drug use, more stringent policies and laws, and increased access to drug prevention and treatment resources.
Know more about illicit drugs here
https://brainly.com/question/9743065#
#SPJ11
Probably cause deals with:A. hunches and suspicionsB. an exact degree of probabilityC. factual and practical considerations of everyday lifeD. having a specified number of facts
Probably cause deals with factual and practical considerations of everyday life. C
Probable cause is a legal standard used by law enforcement officers and judges to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the belief that a crime has been or is being committed.
It is a common standard in criminal law that requires the presence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
The determination of probable cause requires a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense, the evidence gathered by the police, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.
It does not require an exact degree of probability, but rather a reasonable belief based on the totality of the circumstances.
Probable cause is not based on hunches or suspicions, nor does it require a specified number of facts.
It is based on a practical and common-sense analysis of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
For similar questions on Probably
https://brainly.com/question/22499117
#SPJ11
According to Hamilton, how does a plural executive lead to less accountability to the people?
According to Hamilton, a plural executive, or a system where power is divided among multiple executives, would lead to less accountability to the people.
Hamilton believed that a single executive would be more accountable to the people because they would be solely responsible for carrying out the laws and policies of the government.
In contrast, in a plural executive system, the division of power could lead to a lack of clarity about who is responsible for what, making it more difficult for the people to hold anyone accountable for their actions.
Hamilton argued that a single executive would be more effective in executing the laws and policies of the government because they would be solely responsible for that task.
This would make it easier for the people to hold that individual accountable for their actions, and to remove them from office if they failed to fulfill their duties.
In contrast, in a plural executive system, power is divided among several individuals, which can lead to confusion and a lack of accountability. Each executive may pass the blame to the other, making it difficult for the people to hold anyone accountable for their actions.
Additionally, Hamilton believed that a plural executive would be more likely to engage in political maneuvering and factions, which could lead to a lack of accountability and a weakening of the government.
For similar questions on Lead
https://brainly.com/question/15041800
#SPJ11
In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite the exclusionary rule, that evidence discovered under a faulty warrant was admissible because police had acted. true/false
In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court decided that evidence found under a defective warrant was admissible despite the exclusionary rule because authorities had operated in good faith.
What are the duties of the Supreme Court?The Supreme Court often does not conduct trials, even though it may hear an appeal on any legal issue as long as it has jurisdiction. Instead, the Court's job is to determine what a law means, whether it applies to a certain set of facts, and how it should be applied. The three jobs include picking which cases to hear, deciding on particular cases, and figuring out how to explain the Court's decision. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest in the American legal system, and it has the authority to rule on appeals in every matter filed in federal court or a state court but involving federal law.To learn more about Supreme Court, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/15111973
a convict of which type of offense is most likely to succeed on parole?
Answer:
Drug Crime
Explanation:
A convict of a property crime type of offense is least likely to succeed on parole. Thus, the correct option is (A).
Property crime refers to any offense involving the private property of a person or group of individuals. Property crimes are often understood to include offenses like theft, burglary, shoplifting, and vandalism.
The first three months, not just following release from jail but also when probation begins, are unquestionably the most vulnerable. Due to their much lower rate of new offenses, probationers often have a lower recidivism risk than parolees.
Therefore, the correct option is "A".
To know more about the property crime, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/28738894
#SPJ2
This is an incomplete question, the complete question is:
A convict of which type of offense is least likely to succeed on parole?
a. Property crime.
b. Public order crime.
c. Weapons crime.
d. Drug crime.
The primary ethical issue in United Thermostatic Controls is: A. Misappropriation of corporate assetsB. Accelerating the recording of revenue into an earlier periodC. Delaying the recording of expenses into a later periodD. Failure to fully disclose all information
The primary ethical issue in United Thermostatic Controls is B. Accelerating the recording of revenue into an earlier period. This issue involves manipulating the financial statements to create a false impression of the company's financial performance. The correct option is B.
The ethical issue arises because United Thermostatic Controls is not accurately reporting its revenue in the correct accounting period, which is against the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). This unethical practice misleads stakeholders, including investors, employees, and regulators, who rely on accurate financial information to make informed decisions about the company.
To address this issue, United Thermostatic Controls should adhere to GAAP and ensure that revenues are recorded in the appropriate accounting period. Management should also establish strong internal controls to detect and prevent any unethical practices, and promote a culture of ethical behavior within the organization.
By doing so, United Thermostatic Controls can restore trust with its stakeholders and ensure that the company's financial statements present a true and fair view of its financial performance.
Therefore, the correct answer is option B. Accelerating the recording of revenue into an earlier period
For More Such Questions on ethical
https://brainly.com/question/21384955
#SPJ11
According to legal experts, the primary generators of the rules to regulate the behavior of police, prosecutors, and others involved in the criminal process rests with the:A. legislatureB. President of the United StatesC. trial courtsD. US Supreme Court
Legal scholars assert that the US Supreme Court is the principal source of laws governing how police, prosecutors, and others participating in the criminal justice system should behave. Here option D is the correct answer.
The Supreme Court's decisions on cases brought before it, particularly those related to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution, have set precedents that guide the behavior of law enforcement officials at all levels of government.
The Court's decisions, as well as its interpretations of statutes passed by the legislature, provide important guidance to lower courts and law enforcement agencies, shaping how they interpret and apply the law.
Therefore, the US Supreme Court is considered the primary generator of the rules that regulate the behavior of police, prosecutors, and others involved in the criminal process.
To learn more about Supreme Court
https://brainly.com/question/12848156
#SPJ4
In _______the court held that students may be searched at schools based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause (due to the schools need to maintain a healthy learning environment)A. Vernonia School District v. Action B. Board of Education V. Earls C. New Jersey V. T.L.OD. Commonwealth V. Nielson
In Vernonia School District the court held that students may be searched at schools based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause (due to the schools need to maintain a healthy learning environment. The correct option is A.
The Court Held in this 1995 case that the school had a compelling interest in maintaining a drug-free environment unreasonable searches. the testing was minimally intrusive, so it did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on the ruling determined that students' expectations of privacy in schools are lowered and that searches conducted in school settings are legal when there is a compelling interest, regardless of whether there is probable cause or not. The correct option is A.
Learn more about drug-free at:
brainly.com/question/531621
#SPJ4
I am allowed to drive myself to the testing center without a licensed driver? (T/F)
The statement "I am allowed to drive myself to the testing centre without a licensed driver" is false because a licensed driver is mandated by law.
The correct answer is false.
A person at least 14 years old may apply for a learner's license in Arkansas. With a learner's license, the individual can drive but must be accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and has held a valid driver's license for at least two years. The licensed driver must sit in the front passenger seat next to the person with the learner's license and must be able to take control of the vehicle if necessary.
The learner's license is valid for 4 years, and the individual must complete a certain number of hours of supervised driving practice before they can apply for a provisional driver's license. The provisional license is issued to individuals at least 16 years old who have held a learner's license for at least 6 months and have completed the required hours of supervised driving practice.
To know more about drivers, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/685799
#SPJ4
After enlisting in the Army, recruits are told they will not receive the college grants promised them before enlisting. Which principles of the rule of law is violated in this scenario?A. GeneralityB. ProspectivityC. PublicityD. ConsentE. Due Process
The principle of the rule of law violated in this scenario is the principle of "Due Process." Due process refers to the idea that everyone is entitled to fair treatment and that the legal system must follow fair procedures.
The correct option is E.
Due process is a principle that requires individuals to be treated fairly and impartially by the legal system. This principle ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without a fair and impartial process.
In this scenario, recruits were promised college grants before enlisting in the Army. However, they were told they would not receive the promised college grants after enlisting. This violates the principle of due process because the recruits were not treated fairly and were not given the benefits they were promised before enlisting.
The correct option is E.
To know more about Due Process, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/12176268
#SPJ4
A brief description of the steps and judgments made by each court that has heard a case is called the:A. courts' judgmentsB. courts' decisionsC. courts' opinionsD. procedural history of the case
The brief description of the steps and judgments made by each court that has heard a case is called the procedural history of the case.
The procedural history of the case typically includes a summary of the relevant facts, the legal issues raised by the parties, the decisions and orders issued by each court, and any appeals or remands to lower courts.
The procedural history provides a chronological overview of the case and the key events that have occurred in its adjudication, and can be a useful tool for understanding the legal reasoning and precedents that have shaped the outcome of the case.
In summary, the procedural history of a case is an important component of legal analysis, providing a roadmap of the court proceedings and judgments that have led to the current state of the case.
Learn more about Judgments :
https://brainly.com/question/13131264
#SPJ4
Concerns about privacy led Senator Udall to advocate having a national debate on the use of
Senator Udall's call for a national debate on the use of surveillance techniques aims to foster a productive and informed conversation among policymakers, citizens, and industry experts.
Senator Udall expressed concerns about privacy and called for a national debate on the use of various surveillance methods and technologies. The primary reason for this advocacy was to address potential violations of citizens' privacy rights and to ensure transparency in government activities.
As part of the debate, stakeholders would discuss the proper balance between national security interests and individual privacy rights. This dialogue would encompass the appropriate use of surveillance techniques, such as wiretapping, metadata collection, and facial recognition technology. The goal is to create a framework that respects privacy while maintaining the ability to protect citizens from potential threats.
The debate would also involve examining the legal implications of surveillance activities, particularly those that may infringe on constitutional rights such as the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, it would consider the role of oversight and accountability mechanisms to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies act within legal and ethical boundaries. The objective is to strike a balance between protecting national security and preserving individual privacy rights, ultimately resulting in a more transparent and accountable surveillance infrastructure.
For More Such Questions on surveillance
https://brainly.com/question/30650595
#SPJ11
Magda, David, and Rashida have been friends since the sixth grade. One of their favorite activities is to go to the mall and look around in the stores. Sometimes they make purchases and sometimes they are just window-shopping. There are lots of young people who do this, and it is fun to see people and hang out.
Recently, a number of stores at the mall have experienced an increase in shoplifting and vandalism. As a result, the stores have made a policy that no one under 16 years of age can enter without a parent or guardian. The new rules also state that if you are between the ages of 16 and 18 you cannot enter the store in groups larger than two. Other teens have to wait outside until each pair leaves. Store owners have threatened to call the police if the young people give them any trouble about the new policies.
This policy makes Magda, David, and Rashida angry. They believe it is unfair. After all, they are paying customers and spend money in these stores. Why is the rule directed only at young people? They do not want to get into trouble with the police, but they do not understand why they have to be treated as troublemakers when they have not done anything wrong.
The manager of the shopping mall, along with one of the store owners, has agreed to meet with two of the teens and a mediator to try to find some workable solutions.
Problem 4. 2
In preparation for the mediation session, the disputants should consider the following issues:
a. What are your concerns? How would you state the issue in the dispute?
b. What is your starting position (demand)? What are your underlying interests (what do you really want)?
c. What is the best conceivable outcome from your perspective?
d. What do you think the starting position and underlying interests of the other side will be?
The concerns in this situation are that Magda, David, and Rashida feel unfairly targeted by the new policies that restrict their access to stores at the mall. They are paying customers who have not engaged in any illegal behavior, yet they are being treated as potential troublemakers because of their age.
Magda, David, and Rashida believe that they are being unfairly targeted and treated as potential troublemakers because of their age. They are paying customers who have not engaged in any illegal behavior and do not understand why they are being punished for the actions of others.
The policy also creates a barrier to their social activity of hanging out at the mall and enjoying each other's company. The proposed meeting between the mall manager, store owner, and the teens and mediator is an opportunity to find a solution that addresses the concerns of all parties involved.
To learn more about illegal the link:
https://brainly.com/question/15276669
#SPJ4
The correct question is:
Magda, David, and Rashida have been friends since the sixth grade. One of their favorite activities is to go to the mall and look around in the stores. Sometimes they make purchases and sometimes they are just window-shopping. There are lots of young people who do this, and it is fun to see people and hang out. Recently, a number of stores at the mall have experienced an increase in shoplifting and vandalism. As a result, the stores have made a policy that no one under 16 years of age can enter without a parent or guardian. The new rules also state that if you are between the ages of 16 and 18 you cannot enter the store in groups larger than two. Other teens have to wait outside until each pair leaves. Store owners have threatened to call the police if the young people give them any trouble about the new policies. This policy makes Magda, David, and Rashida angry. They believe it is unfair. After all, they are paying customers and spend money in these stores. Why is the rule directed only at young people? They do not want to get into trouble with the police, but they do not understand why they have to be treated as troublemakers when they have not done anything wrong. The manager of the shopping mall, along with one of the store owners, has agreed to meet with two of the teens and a mediator to try to find some workable solutions.
What are your concerns? How would you state the issue in the dispute?
Which standard solely considers whether the accused is able to distinguish right from wrong?A). The M'Naghten ruleB). the irresistible impulse testC). substantial capacity testD). Durham rule
The M'Naghten rule is a legal standard which is used to determine whether an accused person can be held criminally responsible for their actions.
This rule considers only whether the accused was able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the alleged offence. The other tests, such as the irresistible impulse test and the substantial capacity test, consider other factors such as the accused's mental state and any external influences which may have caused them to commit the crime. The Durham rule is another legal standard which considers whether the crime was the product of a mental disease or defect.
The M'Naghten rule is by far the most widely accepted legal standard for determining criminal responsibility. It has been used in many countries and is the basis for many modern criminal laws. The other tests are used in some countries, but the M'Naghten rule is still the most commonly applied. This is because it is a straightforward and simple test which is easy to apply in court.
Know more about M'Naghten rule here
https://brainly.com/question/14711253#
#SPJ11
You should always park your vehicle more than 18 in. from the curb: (T/F)
Answer:
Explanation:
false, 18 in or less
Reasonable suspicion needed to make a stop:A. Requires more than probable causeB. Requires a preponderance of the evidenceC. Requires only a hunchD. Requires some minimum level of objective justification
Answer:
d
Explanation:
this is answer because it's d