Answer:
Max Weber bureaucratic theory
Max Weber, a German scientist, defines bureaucracy as a highly structured, formalized, and also an impersonal organization. He also instituted the belief that an organization must have a defined hierarchical structure and clear rules, regulations, and lines of authority which
Explanation:
Max Weber bureaucratic theory
Max Weber, a German scientist, defines bureaucracy as a highly structured, formalized, and also an impersonal organization. He also instituted the belief that an organization must have a defined hierarchical structure and clear rules, regulations, and lines of authority which
How can you institute a criminal action
1.What conclusion can you draw about why excessive use of force can happen sometimes in the fields of policing and corrections?
Don't send me links!
Answer:
Answer Below:
Explanation:
With everything happening I am going to answer carefully; The use of excessive force may be the surroundings of the cop(A place where the cop could easily be hurt), the way the person being arrested acts, and if it happens the cop being corrupt.
Which of the following would most likely be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
OA.
Confiscating the cellphone of a student who made a bomb threat
OB.
Searching the lockers of all students with black hair
O c. Stopping a vehicle believed to be involved in a bank robbery
OD
Stopping and searching all cars at the US-Mexico border
Answer:
OB
Explanation:
There is no reason to confiscate them but people in all other options could be doing something, have done, or they are currently doing it. Everything but OB is reasonable.
WHAT CRIMES ARE COMMITTED BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN (give 5 crimes)
, murder, robbery, assault, kidnapping.
Answer:
1. Embezzlement
2. Domestic Violence
3. Murder
4. Car Theft
5. Extortion
Explanation:
Keisha committed a crime in New York, but the punishment for the crime is harsher in Georgia, so the prosecutor organizes her case to be transferred to Georgia
Answer:
Keisha has the right to be tried in New York under the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed[.]”
Explanation:
Keisha committed a crime in New York, but the punishment for the crime is harsher in Georgia, so the prosecutor organizes her case to be transferred to Georgia because the sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant the right to be represented by an attorney during trial.
What is crime?The term crime refers to the illegal activity. The crime is not allow to the country, if any person is commit the crime are go the jail. The legal punishable by the state in case of crime. The punishment is set according to the different crime. For example a person is harm another person property.
Keisha has the rights to be tried in New York underneath the Sixth Amendment, which states that "in all criminal proceedings, the accused shall have the right to a prompt and public trial, by an unbiased jury appointed by the state and jurisdiction wherein the crime may have been committed."
As a result, the conclusion of the sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant the right to be represented by an attorney during trial are the aforementioned.
Learn more about on crime, here:
https://brainly.com/question/9997722
#SPJ2
How frequently do you think corruption and misconduct occur in policing? Why?
Answer:
Depends on what people think this is an opinionated question but here is what I thinks:
Explanation:
Not very often; as of 2020 with the murder of George Floyd people are way more decisive on police officers and how they do there job. This does not happen often. Up to many times of people saying corruption and police brutality there has been proof of someone handeling a gun, not co-operating, or being a threat. Im not saying it does ot happen but we need to look deeper than what we see and think.
In what ways do the state and federal governments work together in order to ensure that the court runs smoothly?
Answer:
Court take many years to solve a problem
Of every case
Which of the following is true concerning criminal law and tort law
determine what type of evidence the following may be: A man holding a book of matches at the scene of a fire
Answer:
Well, The only specific evidence we have at the current scene would be that man that has a book of matches but sense we cant really determine whether or not he was the one who did it, therefore we have no exponential evidence that he did it.
Explanation:
Watch a portion of the Chauvin Murder Trial. Summarize and describe the verbal and nonverbal actions of the courtroom participants (defendant, attorneys, judge, witnesses)
The defendant's vehicle matched the description of a vehicle seen in the vicinity of a
burglary before the burglary, during the burglary, and after the burglary. The
defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accomplice
to the burglary. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of accomplice act,
accomplice intent, or both?
Answer:
Often more than one criminal defendant participates in the commission of a crime. Defendants working together with a common criminal purpose are acting with complicity and are responsible for the same crimes, to the same degree.
Explanation:At early common law, there were four parties to a crime. A principal in the first degree actually committed the crime. A principal in the second degree was present at the crime scene and assisted in the crime’s commission. An accessory before the fact was not present at the crime scene but helped prepare for the crime’s commission. An accessory after the fact helped a party after he or she committed a crime by providing aid in escaping or avoiding arrest and prosecution or conviction. In modern times, there are only two parties to a crime: a principal, who is in the same category with his or her accomplice(s), and accessory(ies). Principals actually commit the crime, and they and their accomplices are criminally responsible for it. Accessories play the same role as accessories after the fact at common law.
The criminal act element required to be an accomplice in most jurisdictions is assistance in the commission of a crime. Words are enough to constitute the accomplice criminal act. Mere presence at the scene, even presence at the scene combined with flight after the crime’s commission, is not enough to constitute the accomplice criminal act unless there is a legal duty to act.
The criminal intent element required for accomplice liability in many jurisdictions is specific intent or purposely to commit the crime at issue. In some states, general intent or knowingly that the principal will commit the crime creates an inference of intent if the offense is serious. In a minority of jurisdictions, general intent or knowingly that the principal will commit the crime is sufficient.
The natural and probable consequences doctrine holds accomplices criminally responsible for all crimes the principal commits that are reasonably foreseeable. In many jurisdictions an accomplice can be prosecuted for a crime the principal commits even if the principal is not prosecuted or acquitted.
Vicarious liability transfers criminal responsibility from one party to another because of a special relationship. Vicarious liability is common between employers and employees and is the basis for corporate criminal liability. Pursuant to modern corporate criminal liability, a corporation can be fined for a crime(s) a corporate agent or employee commits during the scope of employment. The corporate agent or employee also is criminally responsible for his or her conduct. In general, the law disfavors individual criminal vicarious liability. The law in this area is evolving as the incidence of juveniles committing crimes increases.
In modern times, an accessory is the equivalent of an accessory after the fact at common law. The criminal act element required for an accessory is providing assistance to a principal in escape, avoiding detection, or arrest and prosecution, or conviction for the commission of a felony, high-level misdemeanor, or any crime, depending on the jurisdiction. Words are enough to constitute the accessory criminal act. Several jurisdictions exempt family members from criminal responsibility for acting as an accessory.
The criminal intent element required for an accessory in most jurisdictions is general intent or knowingly that the principal committed a crime, and specific intent or purposely that the principal escape, avoid detection, or arrest and prosecution, or conviction for the offense. Accessory is a separate crime that is usually graded as a misdemeanor, although some jurisdictions grade accessory as a felony.
This case illustrates the legal concept of an accomplice act, as the defendant's vehicle matching the burglary description indicates participation in the crime.
The defendant's vehicle matching the description of a vehicle seen before, during, and after the burglary serves as evidence linking the defendant to the crime.
The consistent presence of the defendant's vehicle at different stages of the burglary raises reasonable suspicion of their direct involvement.
The focus in this case is on the defendant's actions, specifically having a vehicle that matches the description related to the crime, rather than their intent.
Accomplice act does not require proving the defendant's intent or knowledge of the specific crime being committed.
Thus, it focuses on their direct participation or contribution to the criminal activity, as demonstrated by the matching vehicle in this instance.
Learn more about the accomplice act here:
https://brainly.com/question/15189112
#SPJ4
Explain any 2 significance of public administration.
Public administrators play a crucial role in aiding federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Transportation Security Administration.
On a local level, public administrators organize efforts to improve communications and share data between public safety services
Why should anyone be allowed to record information about another person without their consent?
Explanation:
i strongly believe everyone has a choice and should be informed about who shares or records his or her information. It's just weird and rude if you just share stuff about another person withing him or her knowing..unless it's a surprise party
I need help please.
Answer:
the answer is true
Explanation:
because the force is greater than that which is needed to compel compliance
The legalization of drugs is neither unwise nor immoral. It is not unwise because by legalizing drugs we would eliminate the illegal drug trade. Hence, by legalizing drugs, we would rid our nation of all the violence that goes along with the illegal drug trade. Furthermore, the legalization of drugs is not immoral because it can be combined with a massive program of moral education. The conclusion in a standard argument form is often presented as __________
Answer:
Inductive
Explanation:
There has been a high rate of bicycle accidents in your community. The local police department has decided to host free bicycle safety seminars at a local community center. The officers who conduct the trainings are being paid for the time they conduct these seminars.
Is this example a public policy?
Answer:
yes they are helping with the incidences of the bicycles
Explanation:
If emergency vehicles are responding to an emergency, you need to
Answer:
move aside to give the emergency vehicle room
Explanation:
what is the relationship between law and morality with regard to euthanasia?
Answer:
please give me brainlist and follow
Explanation:
The law plays no role in euthanasia if good fortune or good medicine allows such a death. Today, however, euthanasia all too often attracts a second meaning1, an act or omission designed to hasten death and thus relieve the suffering of a dying or incurably sick patient.
Which of the following actions is illegal for selling alcohol
Answer:
no options
Explanation:
"All Catholics need to do to live a good life is to follow the
example of Jesus"
Discuss this statement showing that you have considered more than one point of view. (You must
refer to religion and belief in your answers.) [15]
Please answer
Thank youu :)
Answer:
yes all Catholics must live a good life to follow the example of jesus in order to include a really good life if not would they go to ^HELL^
Emile Durkheim believed that when people left their traditional farms and moved into the cities to work in factories, their behavior became:
A.
normal.
B.
normless.
C.
deviant.
D.
more conforming.
Emile Durkheim felt that as people left their customary fields to work in industries and relocated to cities, their conduct became normless. Thus, option (B) is correct.
What is the meaning of behavior?Behavior refers to the action or the response made by the person in the particular situation. Every persons' behavior varies as it is influenced by the family background, society, cultures, traditions etc. The behavior tells about the nature or the character of the person.
The term normless can be defined as the thing that lacks the rules, regulation or the norm. According to the above situation, Emile Durkheim felt that as people left their customary fields to work in industries and relocated to cities, their conduct became normless.
Therefore, it can be concluded that option (B) is correct.
Learn more about behavior here:
https://brainly.com/question/8871012
#SPJ2
Keith owed Art some money, and Art was tired of waiting for Keith to pay him back. Art saw Keith walking down the street and decided to approach him with his aggressive Rottweiler Rox. Art let Rox lunge at Keith, and then asked him, "Are you ready to pay me back the money that you owe me now?" What if Rox the Rottweiler actually bites Keith? Rox recently bit another neighbor and is known for her vicious ways. Art would be liable to Keith for _____. battery negligence assault strict liability
Answer:
assault
Explanation:
Answer:
imma say assault
Explanation:
plz tell me if im right.