Answers
The collective word that refers to offenses committed in terms of the ECT ACT 25 of 2002 is "Cybercrimes".Explanation:The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECT ACT 25 of 2002) is a South African law.
That regulates electronic communications and transactions.The Act defines cybercrime as any offense committed through the internet or other electronic communications systems.According to Section 86 of the Act, any person who violates any provision of the Act is committing an offense.
Some of the offenses under the ECT ACT 25 of 2002 include:Unlawful access to a computer or computer network;Unlawful interception of data;Unlawful possession or use of passwords, access codes, or similar data;The spread of malicious software; andOffenses related to cyber forgery, cyber extortion, and cyber terrorism.The ECT ACT 25 of 2002 covers all cybercrimes committed in South Africa.
To know more about collective visit:
https://brainly.com/question/32464115
#SPJ11
Related Questions
TRUE OR FALSE the brutal harassment of baptist ministers in virginia and other incidents caught the attention of thomas jefferson and james madison who sympathized with the baptists' plight
Answers
It is true that the brutal harassment of Baptist ministers and other incidents caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who sympathized with the Baptists' plight.
What is harassment?Harassment refers to any unwanted behavior that is hostile or offensive and that can occur in a variety of contexts, such as the workplace, schools, online, or in public spaces.
In colonial Virginia, the established Anglican Church held a dominant position, and dissenting religious groups such as the Baptists faced harassment and persecution.
Baptist ministers were often arrested, fined, and even beaten for preaching without a license or for their non-conformist beliefs.
Thus, the given statement is true.
For more details regarding harassment, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/11375821
#SPJ1
Which right is protected by the Fifth Amendment?
to bear arms
to trial by jury
against cruel and unusual punishment
against self-incrimination
Answers
Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury,
Give examples between law and values
Answers
Law and morality are two normative systems that control and regulate behaviors in a human community so as to allow harmonious and effective intersubjectivity between individuals who recognize one another as bearers of rights. The values of any society are its own law. One of the purpoess of law is to provide a list of "norms" which constitute obligatory rules of behavior for the members of the society. These legal norms are closely related to various social values, being either a direct expression of them or serving them in a more indirect way.
Answer:
values of any society is its law. By its very nature, law consists of a number of norms which constitute obligatory rules of behavior for the members of the society. These legal norms are closely related to various social values, being either a direct expression of them or serving them in a more indirect way.
Explanation: there really is no explanation in this answer
examine how religious code apply to various aspect of morality
Answers
Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city's largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer. The only passenger was a young woman who was in the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver's jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment. After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.
If the driver moves to suppress the use as evidence of the marijuana and cocaine found in the search of the truck, the court should
Answers
The court should consider the legality of the search and seizure conducted by the police officers. In this situation, the police received a tip from an undercover officer about two men in a red pickup truck selling marijuana near a high school. The police then observed a truck fitting that description and stopped it.
The search of the driver led to the discovery of narcotics in his pocket, which could be considered legal based on probable cause and the reasonable suspicion that the driver was involved in illegal activities. However, the search of the locked toolbox and glove compartment may be subject to scrutiny, as it might require a warrant or further justification for the search.
If the court determines that the search of the toolbox and glove compartment was not justified, it may suppress the marijuana and cocaine as evidence due to the violation of the driver's Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Additionally, the search of the young woman's purse may also be subject to scrutiny, as her involvement in the described illegal activities was not initially established. The court will need to examine whether the police had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search her belongings.
In conclusion, the court should evaluate the legality of the search and seizure based on the provided information and circumstances. If any of the searches are deemed unconstitutional, the court may suppress the respective evidence.
To know more about rights visit:
https://brainly.com/question/28965018
#SPJ11
You are the prosecutor on a domestic violence-related murder. A husband brutally stabbed his wife more than 20 times. The first responding officer placed the husband into custody after arriving on the crime scene. The officer questioned the man about what happened. The man confesses to the officer at the scene that he had killed his wife because she had caught him cheating, and she was going to divorce him.
During your pre-trial preparation, you have a meeting with the officer. He tells you that he did not advise the husband of his Miranda Rights after taking him into custody, but before asking him questions. As an experienced prosecutor, you know that this might be an issue during the trial. You know of some legal loopholes that might allow you to get the confession entered into evidence, but only if the officer tells the truth that he did not read the Miranda Rights. During the trial, the defense attorney cross-examines the officer and asks, "Officer, did you read my client the Miranda Warnings before you interrogated him?"
There is NO video or other evidence to support or contradict whether the officer read the Miranda Warnings or not. The officer testifies that yes, he did read the Miranda Warnings. You know that the officer is lying on the witness stand. If you say something, you know that the confession will be thrown out, and the entire case will be tainted. You know that most likely that the defendant will be found not guilty and set free. If you say nothing, then the man will be convicted and sent to prison for the brutal murder. Ethically, what should you do?
Answers
As an experienced prosecutor, it is important to follow ethical rules. Ethically, it would be appropriate to inform the court of the officer's lie regarding the reading of the Miranda Warnings.
Here are some reasons to support this ethical decision:
If the officer lied, it would indicate that the confession was not voluntary because the defendant was not warned about his right to remain silent.The court would be more likely to dismiss the case if it became aware that an officer had lied under oath about Miranda Warnings.
In court, the prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice, not to obtain convictions at all costs.There is no ethical dilemma since there is only one correct answer. The prosecutor must disclose the officer's testimony and allow the court to determine the credibility of the officer's testimony regarding Miranda Warnings.
To know more about ethical visit
https://brainly.com/question/30090411
#SPJ11
there is a case thats not from your state but it is mandatory auhority in your state, how is this possible
Answers
Answer: the reason for that is becasue it may be on the borader line of the states where it had happen
What is it called when a licensed surgeon calls an unlicensed surgeon to perform surgery on a patient in Business Law?
Answers
A motorist is required to yield right-of-way to buses re-entering traffic after dropping off, or picking up, bus passengers
True or false
Answers
Answer:
very True, with an increasing severity of punishment depending on the state laws. It could be fineable up to hundreds of dollars, because the motorist is putting pedestrian lives in danger when they don't.
A growing number of law enforcement dispatchers and officers on the street believe that the 10-code system has outlived its usefulness. Compose a convincing argument that either supports this contention and offers an alternative form of communication shorthand that appropriately addresses contemporary calls for law enforcement response, or argue that the 10-code remains viable and useful in police communication but would benefit from some modernization; also provide examples of how you would modernize the code. You should answer this question using a minimum of 300 words.
Answers
Answer: The United State government pushed for "plain language" after 9/11 because the inter-organizational discussion was hurt by codes. For a while, they pushed it hard (there may have been laws but I don't ken for sure) but later recanted and now "plain language" is only required when more than one organization is involved. From what I have optically discerned, many emergency accommodation men and women prefer utilizing the 10 codes, especially in certain situations where predilection for discretion is propitious. I do believe there should still be the implementation of it as simply saying 10-24 is better than yelling "f'ing send backup this man sent shots at me" but I understand stress can interfere with our competency to recollect certain things, especially in an emergency field. What's nice about 10 codes is that if everybody on the job understands them, you can convey a lot in a concise message. It'd be prevalent to describe how a tour went just with the mundane 10 codes. some people are immensely colossal proponents of plain English. You can articulate what is genuinely transpiring rather than utilizing pre-determined 10 code that may not be entirely precise. I cerebrate plain English AND 10 codes should be the default method of communication if you are in command or interfacing with certain agencies or predicaments. Clear and efficacious communication is often the first causality in the war of "oh shoot" calls. Though I can cerebrate of a few instances where, within a single agency and intra-agency communication, I believe 10 codes would be more utilizable than plain English. An area with poor radio communication may benefit from a 10-code that is able to convey an entire sentence. Or if you are unable for whatever reason to openly request a resource such as the police or convivial workers. That would be my modernization of the ten code
Explanation:
I'm kinda slow but had the same question so here was my probably bad answer lol
In the United States, which of the following is a rule on voting found in the Constitution or its amendments?
A No person may be denied the right to vote merely for lack of either state or federal citizenship.
B No person eighteen years of age or older may be denied the right to vote on account of age.
C No person may be denied the right to vote merely because he or she has previously served a prison sentence.
D A state may not establish a residency requirement for voting.
E A state may require a person to pay a poll tax in order to register to vote.
Answers
In the United States, a rule on voting found in the Constitution or its amendments is No person eighteen years of age or older may be denied the right to vote on account of age. Thus the correct option is C.
What is an Amendment?An Amendment refers to any alteration or modification taken place in existing laws to support the welfare of the people living in the country by improving the objective for better implementation.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Explicitly forbade the federal government and the states from claiming age as a justification for refusing residents of the United States who are at least eighteen years old the right to vote.
Therefore, the option C Is appropriate.
Learn more about Twenty-sixth Amendment, here:
https://brainly.com/question/3307756
#SPJ1
what is RA 6675 The Generic Act of 1988
Answers
Michael, a 25-year-old man, has committed serious felonies such as arson, assault, and battery. An analysis of his personality suggests that he has some inherent negative traits that make him extremely aggressive and violent. The trait theories state that criminal behavior is not the result of a person choosing to commit a crime, but rather that of the traits with which the person is born. If the trait theory is correct, what type of punishment does Michael deserve? What do you think are the implications for punishment for those who break the law? Provide reasoning for your answers.
Answers
Answer:
Although Michael broke the law from Negative Traits, Micheal is still responsible for his actions, he knows from right from wrong. Therfore charges should stand.
Explanation:
Rich and Archie sign an agreement in which Archie agrees to deliver ten cases of champagne in 5 days. The parties negotiated and meant to say in the written agreement, delivery in 50 days. If the evidence is clear that the two parties intended to agree to 50 days, the courts will probably
Answers
Answer:
Reform the contract
Explanation:
Contract reformation means that both parties, in this case, Rich and Archie, ask the courts to rewrite the contract or make a change in a specific part of the contract to express what both of the parties want. Then, Rich and Archie would agree that Archie has to deliver ten cases of champagne in 50 days, not 5.
What type of intent is necessary to violate the provisions of the Deadly Weapons Control Law?
Answers
Attempt robbery or dacoity while armed with a lethal we-apon.— If the criminal is armed with a dangerous we-apon while attempting to commit robbery... dacoity, the imprisonment with which such offender must be sentenced shall Law.
Central Government Law committing grave harm voluntarily utilizing dangerous we-apon or ways —Whoever, except as provided in section 335, voluntarily causes grievous harm by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument which, when used as a we=apon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or corrosive substance.
To learn more about Law, click here.
https://brainly.com/question/6590381
#SPJ1
What is the environmental impact assessment act, and its
benefits? (please answer in a detailed non- plagiarized answer
)
Answers
The Environmental Impact Assessment Act evaluates and manages the environmental impacts of proposed projects, promoting sustainable development and environmental protection.
A framework for assessing and managing the potential environmental effects of proposed projects or activities is established by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Its main advantages include promoting sustainable development by taking into account social, economic and environmental factors, protecting the environment by identifying and mitigating negative effects and facilitating public participation in decision making processes.
The act promotes project enhancements and modifications, ensures adherence to environmental regulations and provides comprehensive information on environmental impacts to enable informed decision making. The EIA Act promotes more environmentally conscious and sustainable development, ecosystem protection and a balance between development and conservation by incorporating environmental factors into project planning.
Learn more about Environmental Impact Assessment Act. at:
brainly.com/question/33015812
#SPJ4
general principles of insurance law
Answers
Answer:
almost good faith
insurable interest
contribution
Explanation:
please follow me
What comprise a social class? how do clarify your family in terms of socio-economic status?
Answers
Answer:
social class, also called class , a group of people within a society who possess the same socioeconomic status. Besides being important in social theory, the concept of class as a collection of individuals sharing similar economic circumstances has been widely used in censuses and in studies of social mobility.
Explanation:
what are some examples of equity
Answers
Answer: In simple terms, owner's equity is defined as the amount of money invested by the owner in the business minus any money taken out by the owner of the business. For example: If a real estate project is valued at $500,000 and the loan amount due is $400,000, the amount of owner's equity, in this case, is $100,000.
Explanation:
PLEASE HELP
Which of the following can help the judge in deciding the severity of a sentence?
a. The opening statements
b. A victim impact statement
c. The witness testimony
d. The final argument
Answers
Answer:
The correct answer is b. A victim impact statement.
Explanation:
A victim impact statement is a statement made by the victim or their representative during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. It provides the victim with an opportunity to express the emotional, physical, and financial impact of the crime on their life. This information can be relevant to the judge in determining the severity of the sentence, as it allows the judge to consider the harm caused to the victim and the community as a result of the crime.
While the other options, including a. opening statements, c. witness testimony, and d. final arguments, can provide valuable information to the judge during a trial, they may not necessarily be directly related to determining the severity of a sentence. The victim impact statement, on the other hand, is specifically designed to inform the judge about the impact of the crime on the victim, which can be a factor in determining the appropriate sentence for the offender.
Applying the job characteristics Model, how motivating are Uber’s jobs for drivers?
Answers
Uber's jobs for drivers can be moderately motivating based on the Job Characteristics Model. Factors like skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback contribute to the overall motivation level, although individual experiences may vary.
Applying the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) to Uber's jobs for drivers, the motivation level can vary for different individuals. The JCM proposes that motivation is influenced by five core job characteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Uber's jobs for drivers generally exhibit some degree of skill variety as drivers perform various tasks like navigation and customer service. Task identity may be moderate, as drivers have a clear role in transporting passengers. Task significance can also be meaningful, as drivers contribute to the transportation needs of individuals. Autonomy is relatively high, as drivers have flexibility in choosing their working hours and locations. Feedback can vary depending on passenger ratings and reviews.Overall, Uber's jobs for drivers can provide a moderate level of motivation, with autonomy being a key factor. However, individual drivers' experiences and perceptions may influence the degree of motivation they derive from the job.
For more questions on Job Characteristics Model:
https://brainly.com/question/17228938
#SPJ8
Law cluster escape room
Answers
The law that Jerry breaks is that he urinated in the parking lot.
He was arrested at the mall.
The occupation that arrested him is security guards.
He stated that he broke the law because his father was in the prison.
The guard stated that he cared about keeping the grounds on the facility sanitary.
What is law?Law refers to a set of rules, principles, and regulations that govern human behavior and relationships in society. It is a system of rules enforced by a governing authority to regulate the conduct of individuals, businesses, and organizations. Laws can be created by legislative bodies, such as national or state parliaments,
Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.
Learn more about law on:
https://brainly.com/question/820417
#SPJ1
he American Law Institute publishes and revises explanations and examples of the law in various areas of the law, known as: ______.
Answers
Answer:BrhfdjExplanation:shut up brainly admin is trash
The intentional publication of a written piece of information that the
defendant knows to be false is called
A. libel
B. slander
c. disparagement
D. defamation
Answers
Answer:
Defamation.
Explanation:
According to General Law of Torts, "Defamation is the intentional communication (sometimes referred to as publication) by the defendant to a third person of a false statement about the plaintiff that causes harm to the reputation of the plaintiff resulting in damages."
Answer:
Libel
Explanation:
Explain the major factors that go into how judges make decisions in their cases.
Answers
The major factors that go into how judges make decisions in their cases. are
"direct influences," which include things like legal and political experiences."indirect and distant impacts," which include things like broad legal and political.What is a Judge?Generally, A judge is an individual who presides over the proceedings that take place in a court of law, either on their own or as a member of a panel of judges.
The judge will listen to all of the witnesses as well as any additional evidence that may be provided by the prosecution or the defense. On the basis of the evidence that has been provided as well as in compliance with the law, the judge will make a determination as to whether or not the accused individual is guilty. In the event that the accused is found guilty, the court will subsequently impose the appropriate penalty.
Read more about judge
https://brainly.com/question/1059156
#SPJ1
Suzy loaded her .38 caliber pistol, snuck out the back door, and, unknown to Bob, with finger on the trigger aimed directly at his heart. She fired but the gun only made a loud noise. Unknown to Suzy, she had loaded the gun with blanks, thinking they were real bullet.
Answers
Answer:
Suzy is expected to be charged with attempted murder.
Explanation:
Suzy showed a strong intention to kill her husband, even though her plan failed and she was unable to actually kill her. For this reason, she should be charged with attempted murder and since there is direct evidence that she wanted to kill Bob, it is likely that she would be convicted, even without actually carrying out the crime.
This accusation would be prevalent, even if Suzi had not caused Bob any injuries or injuries.
During the exposition of a story, the author describes a character as so shy, they would rather have their teeth pulled out at the dentist than to present a speech to an audience. What is this called?
Answers
Answer:
During the exposition of a story, the author describes a character as so shy, they would rather have their teeth pulled out at the dentist than to present a speech to an audience. What is this called?
Explanation:
There is no penalty for wrong answers on grid-in questions, so you should grid in anything that ... Sometimes sentence completion questions contain two blanks rather than one. In ... If you have already taken an SAT, use your actual scores from that test. • If you ... audience will be in no ---- about the meaning of the speech.
If a state were to have the majority of its productive capacity in the public sector, this would most likely indicate the existence of a(n):
Answers
Answer: D. social market system.
Explanation:
I'm a social market system, the economy runs as an amalgamation of two economic policies being the capitalist system and the socialist system.
The goal of this is to improve the welfare of humans whilst still encouraging competition. As a result, most of the country's productive sector will be in the public sector where the government tries to institute it's ideals of trying to improve the general welfare of the people.
HUMAN RIGHTS. Based on UDHR, CEDAW, and CRC, Is there any right deprived to you? How do you feel? Who was responsible for its denial?
Answers
Based on the UDHR, CEDAW and CDC, there is no deprived right for me, however legally human, women's and children's rights can be fulfilled, we know that there is still a long way to go for greater social equity.
What is the UDHR?It corresponds to a document adopted by the United Nations in 1948 which attests to the set of inalienable rights of man, that is, the basic rights of any individual received at the time of his birth, such as the right to life, liberty and security. .
CEDAW corresponds to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, being an international treaty of the United Nations of 1979, which specifies the rights of women.
The CRC is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that is, the protection of all children on freedom from neglect, abuse and any type of violence.
Therefore, as much as such conventions are in force in most countries of the world, there are still many changes and efforts that need to be made so that every individual has a dignified life, with opportunities, education and development, this being a collective effort to be achieved.
Find out more about Human Rights on:
https://brainly.com/question/1261546
#SPJ1
why your doctor should care about social justice argumentative
Answers
Doctors should care about social justice because it is essential to providing quality healthcare. Social justice is the fair and just distribution of resources and opportunities in society.
When people are denied access to healthcare, education, housing, and other essential resources, it has a negative impact on their health.
There are many ways that doctors can promote social justice. They can advocate for policies that improve access to healthcare, such as universal healthcare.
They can also work to address the social determinants of health, such as poverty, discrimination, and environmental pollution. Doctors can also educate their patients about social justice issues and how they can make a difference.
To know more about social justice, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/28207883#
#SPJ11