Answer:
Por fuera del poder judicial, crearía un organismo colegiado formado igualitariamente por miembros pertenecientes a los distintos partidos políticos que se hubieran presentado en las elecciones presidenciales: por ejemplo, si hubiesen participado 5 partidos, cada uno tendría una participación del 20% en dicho organismo.
Este organismo tendría la función de evaluar las políticas del gobierno y, a través de mayorías simples, emitir dictámenes evaluatorios periódicos respecto del poder ejecutivo, pudiendo, en caso de creerlo conveniente, remitir causas al poder judicial para evaluar las políticas llevadas a cabo y declararlas nulas.
Answer:
custodial
Explanation:
when parents divorce and move to separate residences the parents who live in the same household as the children referred as the custodial parent.
A custodial parent is the parent who is given physical or legitimate authority of a youngster by court request. Joint physical guardianship, or shared child rearing, implies that the kid lives with the two guardians for rise to or around equivalent measures of time. In joint care, the two guardians are custodial guardians and neither one of the parents is a non-custodial parent.
Answer:
Judicial
Explanation:
The Judicial System claims justice in the order of the court
An arraignment is a criminal proceeding where the defendant is called before a judge in a court, informed of the charges (either in writing or orally, but usually just in writing) and asked to enter a plea of not guilty, guilty or no contest.
Stanford v. Kentucky, was a United States Supreme Court case in the year 1989 that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime.
The Supreme Court in the year 2005,while handling the Roper v. Simmons' case ruled that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles, and thus it violates the Eighth Amendment to impose a death sentence on a youthful murderer who committed the crime before age 18.
Christopher Simmons, who was 17 at the time, committed a crime that led to a death sentence.
The Court said that the society views juveniles as categorically less culpable than the average criminal. The supreme court argued than a man only becomes culpable of any criminal act when he reaches the age of 18, and claimed at imposing a death penalty on a young child who is not old enough to take charge of his own actions is wrong.
The supreme court claimed that a juvenile who committed a heinous crime can be made to forfeit his fundamental rights rather than being murdered.
