During a time of social upheaval, criminologists believe that some people who would normally be law-abiding citizens commit crimes. Given the feelings of desperation that these large events often bring on, what crime would a normally law-abiding person MOST likely commit?



A.


murder



B.


arson



C.


child abuse



D.


looting

Answer:

Anyone who commits a crime outside their country will be punished according to the local law of the receiving country. This has happened before for other Americans, some of whom made international headlines because of the crimes they were accused of. I think

Explanation:

In the Classical world, the political and personal realms were deeply interconnected, with the actions and decisions of individuals having significant implications on both spheres. The intertwining of politics and personal life can be observed in various Classical societies, including Persia, Rome, Athens, and Early Christianity.

In Persia, the political world was closely tied to personal life through the concept of kingship. The Persian king, known as the Shah or Emperor, held absolute power and was considered the embodiment of divine authority. Personal loyalty and obedience to the king were highly valued, and failure to demonstrate loyalty could result in severe consequences. The personal lives of individuals were therefore heavily influenced by their allegiance to the political order, as any perceived disloyalty could lead to loss of status, exile, or even execution. Similarly, in Rome, personal life was intertwined with politics, particularly among the ruling elite. The concept of "mos maiorum" emphasized the importance of upholding traditional Roman values and social norms. The political success and reputation of individuals often depended on their adherence to these societal expectations in their personal conduct, such as maintaining strong family ties, demonstrating virtuous behavior, and fulfilling public duties. Personal scandals or moral transgressions could have detrimental effects on one's political standing and aspirations for office.In Athens, personal life was also political in nature, especially for male citizens who actively participated in the democratic system. Athenian citizens were expected to engage in public affairs, attend assemblies, and serve in various civic roles. The political participation of individuals was closely tied to their personal reputation and honor within the community. The ability to deliver persuasive speeches, form alliances, and gain the trust of fellow citizens played crucial roles in shaping one's political influence. Additionally, decisions made within the family unit, such as the selection of marriage partners or the upbringing of children, could have political implications, as alliances and connections formed through familial ties could influence political networks.
In Early Christianity, personal life was intertwined with politics through the establishment of a distinct religious community with its own moral codes and expectations. Early Christians faced persecution and oppression from the Roman Empire, which sought to suppress the growth of this new religious movement. The personal beliefs and practices of Christians often clashed with the dominant political and social norms of the time, leading to conflicts and tensions. Personal decisions to adhere to Christian teachings, participate in communal rituals, or openly identify as Christians were inherently political acts that challenged the established order.
Overall, in the Classical world, the political and personal spheres were intimately connected. Loyalty to rulers, adherence to societal norms, political participation, and religious affiliations all influenced personal lives and vice versa. The examples of Persia, Rome, Athens, and Early Christianity demonstrate the complex interplay between politics and personal life, highlighting how individual actions and choices carried broader political significance in these societies.

To know more about Classical world, click here https://brainly.com/question/5338138

#SPJ11

There is a value in sending juveniles to a group home or halfway house as an alternative mode of punishment.

For young people who may require assistance with rehabilitation, education, and life skills, group homes and halfway houses can offer a structured and encouraging environment.

To assist in preparing young people for reintegration into society, they can provide counseling, therapy, and job training.  Furthermore group homes and halfway houses can give young people the opportunity to interact with others who are going through similar things and receive guidance from kind adults who can act as positive role models.

Sending young people to halfway homes or group homes can have drawbacks, though. Some claim that there may be issues with overcrowding, safety and care quality in these settings, and that they may not be the most effective or appropriate for all young people.

Learn more about juveniles at:

brainly.com/question/15145930

#SPJ4

The United States of America is a federal republic made up of 50 states, a federal district (Washington, D.C., the nation's capital), five major territories, and numerous minor islands.

The states, as well as the United States as a whole, are both sovereign jurisdictions. Any state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any American territory falls under the jurisdiction of the United States. England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Learn more about jurisdictions

https://brainly.com/question/14179714

#SPJ4

The issue is that the union is seeking authorization cards to gain access to the facility to talk to employees. An authorization card is a signed statement, in writing, that authorizes a labor union to represent the person who signs it.

The union is trying to gain access to a company with the intention of representing its employees.The union requesting access to a company to speak to its employees can lead to some concerns. The company should consider the following before granting access: the impact of unionization on company profits and productivity, the level of support for unionization among workers, and the company’s legal obligations. The company should also create an opportunity to provide employees with comprehensive information regarding unionization.

The issue here is the union's request for mandatory union membership for all employees. The concept of right-to-work is that no one can be forced to join a union. However, in a non-right-to-work state, some employers require workers to join a union as a condition of employment. The company must first determine whether it is a right-to-work state or not.If the company is in a right-to-work state, mandatory union membership is not permitted. The company should inform the union that mandatory union membership is illegal in the state. It is also essential to inform employees that joining the union is voluntary. This approach is likely to discourage union membership, thereby preventing the union from obtaining exclusive bargaining rights with the company.

To know more about Employee union visit-

brainly.com/question/19593231

#SPJ11

The act of taking the law into one's own hands is known as vigilantism. It is when an individual or group of individuals take the law into their own hands to take revenge or seek justice when they feel that the legal system has failed to do so.

Vigilantism is the act of enforcing the law or carrying out punishment outside the legal system. It usually happens when individuals take the law into their hands when they feel that the legal system has failed to do so. Vigilantism can be traced back to the early 19th century when citizens in the Western United States began taking the law into their own hands because there was a lack of law enforcement personnel and resources. Vigilantism is illegal and is punishable by law as it undermines the state’s monopoly on the use of force and is a threat to the stability of a society. Therefore, it is advised to work within the legal system and follow legal procedures to seek justice.

To know more about Vigilantism visit-

brainly.com/question/32662638

#SPJ11

In a text box in Chapter 9 readers find more information about the job of a Supreme Court justice and It depicts a swearing-in ceremony showing that justices must take an oath to serve. The correct options are B and A respectively.

Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor. In 2009, after President Barack Obama's nomination and confirmation, she joined the Supreme Court as the third woman and first Hispanic.

Readers can get more information about a Supreme Court justice's duties in a text box in Chapter 9, which also features a picture of a ceremony where justices are sworn in to their positions.

Thus, the correct options are B and A respectively.

For more details regarding Sonia Sotomayor, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/14495765

#SPJ1

, murder, robbery, assault, kidnapping.

Answer:

1. Embezzlement

2. Domestic Violence

3. Murder

4. Car Theft

5. Extortion

Explanation:

The following traditional whole life policies has the lowest first-year annual premium is 40-PAY LIFE.

40-Pay Life provides a guaranteed death benefit as well as a level premiums that will never change as long as the periodic premiums are being paid for forty years.

A life insurance policy's premium is calculated using illustration software offered by the insurance company. Your age, gender, health rating, the presumed rate of return, payment mode, additional riders, as well as whether the death benefit is level or increasing all influence the premium amount. The length of the policy as well as the assumed non-guaranteed rate of return can have a significant impact on the premium.

Learn more about premium, here:

https://brainly.com/question/24441770

#SPJ1

Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;

-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and

-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.

The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.

On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or

-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

To learn more about Testimony visit here ; https://brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults

#SPJ4

If a technologist threatens a patient during the course of a procedure and has an apparent immediate ability to perform the threatened act, the tort that may be claimed is assault.

Assault is a legal term that refers to the intentional act of causing apprehension or fear of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. It does not require physical contact to occur but focuses on the creation of fear or apprehension in the victim. In this scenario, the technologist's threat, coupled with the apparent immediate ability to carry out the threat, can reasonably induce fear or apprehension in the patient.

Battery, on the other hand, refers to the intentional and wrongful physical contact with another person without their consent. Unlike assault, battery requires actual physical contact to have taken place. Since the scenario described only involves a threat and does not mention any physical contact, battery would not be the appropriate tort to claim.

Negligence involves the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another person. It pertains to situations where a duty of care is breached, causing damages. In the given scenario, while the technologist's behavior is inappropriate and threatening, negligence may not be the most applicable tort since it does not necessarily involve a breach of duty of care.

False imprisonment refers to the intentional restraint or confinement of an individual without their consent or legal justification. It involves restricting a person's freedom of movement unlawfully. Although the scenario mentions a threat, it does not specify any physical restraint or confinement of the patient. Therefore, false imprisonment would not be the appropriate tort to claim.

In summary, based on the scenario provided, the patient may claim the tort of assault due to the technologist's threat that creates a reasonable fear of immediate harm or offensive contact.

Learn more about assault here

https://brainly.com/question/28390258

#SPJ11

27

Explanation:

in the United States, capital punishment is a legal penalty the country at federal level, in 27 States and in American Samoa

Yes, words or terms in contracts that are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation can lead to mistakes.

When a contract is ambiguous or unclear, it may result in one or both parties misunderstanding the terms of the agreement. This can lead to disputes or litigation down the line, which can be costly and time-consuming for all involved. It is important for contracts to be written in clear and unambiguous language to avoid any misunderstandings or mistakes.

Words or terms in contracts that are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation can indeed lead to mistakes. This is because when a contract contains ambiguous language or vague terms, it can be difficult for the parties involved to fully understand their rights and obligations under the agreement. This can lead to misunderstandings, disputes, and even litigation.

Learn more about interpretation here:

https://brainly.com/question/30932003

#SPJ11

The scenario described supports the U.S. foreign policy goal of Option D.  national security.

By sending an executive official to Taiwan to discuss its relations with China, the United States is taking a proactive approach to safeguard its national security interests.

Taiwan is a strategically important region in East Asia, and its relationship with China is a critical factor in the overall stability of the region. China considers Taiwan as a part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve reunification. The United States, on the other hand, has long been committed to ensuring the security and stability of Taiwan, as it is a key ally in the region.

By engaging in discussions with Taiwan regarding its relations with China, the United States is signaling its commitment to maintaining a strong presence in the Asia-Pacific region and protecting its national security interests. This engagement can involve military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic support for Taiwan's international recognition.

Overall, this scenario aligns with the U.S. foreign policy goal of national security, as it reflects the United States' efforts to protect its interests and maintain stability in a region of strategic importance. Therefore the correct option is D

Know more about national security here:

https://brainly.com/question/31226718

#SPJ8

Answer:

A. World peace

Explanation:

(a) The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a US federal statute, forbids paying bribes to foreign authorities in order to win or keep business. It applies to both international firms listed on US stock

Bribery is the practise of offering or accepting anything of value, frequently money, in order to convince or influence a person in a position of authority to act in a certain way. It is a type of corruption that compromises the values of impartiality and justice in decision-making and has grave social, economic, and political repercussions. Kickbacks, bribes to get contracts, or bribes to receive preferential treatment are just a few examples of the many ways that bribery may occur in a variety of situations, including politics, business, and personal relationships. Many nations have passed laws and rules that make bribery illegal and punish offenders harshly in order to prevent the practise. In order to prevent and identify bribery inside their operations, several firms have also implemented anti-bribery policies and compliance systems.

Learn more about bribes here:

https://brainly.com/question/30524542

#SPJ4

Cultural learning may be accomplished in three ways:

Cultural learning is the process through which a group of people or animals within a civilization or culture learn and transmit knowledge. Learning styles are heavily impacted by how society interacts with its children and youth. In the last fifty years, a cross-cultural study has mostly concentrated on contrasts between Eastern and Western civilizations. Individuals can gain talents that they would not be able to master on their own during the course of their lives through cultural learning. Cultural learning is thought to be especially essential for humans. When compared to the appearance of adult teeth, humans are weaned at a young age.

To learn more about Cultural learning, click

https://brainly.com/question/29024017

#SPJ1

The statement "Cases litigated in trial court always have a jury." is false as Cases litigated in trial courts do not always have a jury.

Trial court proceedings don't always involve a jury. The type of the case and the local laws will determine whether a jury trial is permitted. A jury may not be present in some civil cases, such as those in family court or small claims and the judge will instead make the final determination.

Additionally, defendants in criminal cases have the option of forgoing their constitutional right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial with just a judge. Usually, the parties involved decide whether to hold a jury trial or a bench trial or the laws and regulations governing the particular jurisdiction decide this.

Learn more about trial court at:

brainly.com/question/14839358

#SPJ4

Answer: 21.

Explanation:

The legal age for that is 21, the act being passed 1984.

Answer:

They are assisting a police officer. A minor may only legally purhase alcohol under certain standings, most likely with a court order or will a law enforcement officer.

Explanation:

Priest–penitent privilege

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications between clergy and members of their congregation. The law recognises certain communication as privileged and not subject to otherwise obligatory disclosure; for example, this often applies to communications between lawyers and clients. In many jurisdictions certain communications between a member of the clergy of some or all religious faiths and a person consulting them in confidence are privileged in law. In particular, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, among adherents of other Christian denominations, confess their sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure, a position supported by the law of many countries, although in conflict with civil law in some jurisdictions. It is a distinct concept from that of confidentiality.

Candidates carry out election campaigns using different ways and mediums such as open discussion, advertisements, theme music, political rallies, debates, etc.

An election campaign is an organized effort carried out to influence the decision-making process of a particular group about who or what political party to vote for in an election.

The main goal of an election campaign is to persuade voters to vote for the best representative for a position or office.

Some of the ways that candidates campaign for election include:

Election campaigns can be carried out using the media, banners, social media, and other technologies.

The main point is communicating to the people in order to mobilize support for a candidate or political party.

Learn more about election campaigns at brainly.com/question/29783494.

#SPJ1

Answer:

Yes

Explanation:

Because it is another type of plagarism cslled self plagarism

Answer:

Wafula should sue the college

Explanation:

The college is responsible for keeping the student's safe atleast while they are still in the custody of the school. The college is also responsible for hiring drivers in whose hands the life of the students lies during transport. Therefore based on the narration given, which gives clear evidence showcasing negligence on the path of the driver. In other to forestall future occurence, the college should be sued for their driver's negligence being the employer. The college may decide to come up with more rigorous employment tests when hiring to forestall avoidable mistakes of this sort in the future.

Three methods that are used to enforce a judgment include garnishment, property liens, and wage assignments. The legal principles presented in Chapter 29 favor creditors over debtors.

Following is a brief explanation of each method:

The legal principles presented in Chapter 29 favor creditors over debtors. This is because they provide creditors with several methods for enforcing judgments against debtors. For example, creditors can garnish wages, place liens on property, and take other legal actions to collect debts owed. These legal principles ensure that creditors have a means of recovering the money owed to them by debtors.

Learn more about Garnishment:

https://brainly.com/question/28636835

#SPJ11

If the defendant has failed to correct the issues within 120 days of the date of the inspection, it is likely that the court will take action.

This could include ordering the defendant to make the necessary repairs, or to pay a fine for not complying with the inspection order.

The court may also order the defendant to pay for the costs of the inspection, and to pay any other damages that may have been caused due to the negligence of the defendant.

In some cases, the court may even order the defendant to vacate the premises until the repairs have been completed. Ultimately, the court will use its discretion in determining the appropriate action to take.

Know more about costs  here

https://brainly.com/question/30045916#

#SPJ11

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that compulsory self-identification, such as providing one's name to a police officer during a stop, is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it does not constitute a search or seizure

According to The U.S. Supreme Court, it has held that compulsory self-identification, such as providing one's name to a police officer during a stop, is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it does not constitute a search or seizure.

The Court has reasoned that requiring a person to identify themselves to a police officer is a minimal intrusion on their privacy and is outweighed by the government's interest in ensuring public safety and enforcing the law.

However, there are limitations on the government's ability to compel identification, and the Fourth Amendment still requires that any stop or detention be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Learn more about Fourth Amendment at:https://brainly.com/question/29617389

#SPJ1

The burden of proof during pretrial evidence suppression hearings lies with the prosecution.

During pretrial evidence suppression hearings, it is the prosecution's responsibility to establish that the evidence in question should be admissible in court. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to demonstrate that the evidence was obtained lawfully and in accordance with constitutional rights. The defense may argue for the exclusion of evidence by challenging its legality or arguing violations of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ultimately, the court decides whether the evidence should be suppressed based on the arguments and evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense.

Learn more about suppression hearings

brainly.com/question/32331686

#SPJ11

Answer:

b) Yes, but only to protect the wreckage from further damage.

Explanation:

While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has the primary responsibility for investigating aircraft accidents in the United States, it may take some time for NTSB investigators to arrive at the accident site. In the meantime, it may be necessary to move the wreckage to protect it from further damage, such as from weather conditions or other hazards.

According to the NTSB's guidelines for the preservation of aircraft wreckage, "if the wreckage must be moved to protect it from further damage, the party moving the wreckage should take steps to preserve evidence, such as taking photographs and measurements of the wreckage and the surrounding area, and collecting any debris or other evidence that may have been displaced." The guidelines also state that "any movement of wreckage should be done only after consultation with the NTSB, if possible, and only after appropriate documentation and photographs have been taken."

However, it's important to note that moving the wreckage without proper documentation and consultation with the NTSB can compromise the integrity of the investigation and the accuracy of the findings. Therefore, any movement of wreckage should be done only when necessary to protect the wreckage from further damage, and with great care to preserve all relevant evidence.

Hope this helps!

Yes, but only if moved by a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer or to protect the wreckage from further damage. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), aircraft wreckage should be preserved until NTSB personnel arrive to take custody of it.

However, if the situation requires the aircraft wreckage to be moved, then it is possible but only under specific circumstances.The wreckage may be moved if it is required for life-saving activities or to prevent further damage to the wreckage. Moreover, the wreckage may be moved by a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer if they are carrying out their official duties. These individuals are authorized to move the wreckage if it is necessary for them to do so.The wreckage may also be moved if it presents an imminent danger or is required for evidence preservation. In some cases, the NTSB may approve the removal of the wreckage if they feel that the wreckage may pose a threat to public safety.

However, all actions related to the removal of the wreckage must be well documented to ensure that all the evidence is available for examination by the NTSB.The NTSB has the authority to investigate the cause of the accident, and it is imperative that the wreckage is preserved until they arrive. They have the expertise and the equipment to carry out a thorough investigation. It is essential that the wreckage is preserved as it may contain evidence that could help to determine the cause of the accident. Therefore, it is important that the aircraft wreckage is left undisturbed until the NTSB arrives to take custody of it.

To know more about National Transportation Safety Board visit-

brainly.com/question/31226772

#SPJ11

Answer:B). Presidential nomination

Explanation:

Answer:

A). Presidential impeachment