The statement that contributed most directly to the enactment of the law in the excerpt provided is that the "European demands for laborers in the New World."
This is evident in the fact that Queen Isabella said, "I command you to compel and oblige the said Indians to deal and associate with the Christians of the said island, to work in their buildings in collecting and mining gold and other metals, and to grow food and supplies for the Christian settlers and inhabitants of the said island."
The excerpt was culled from the letter of Queen Isabella to Nicolas de Ovando, governor of Hispaniola, in the year 1503.
During this period, the governor of Hispaniola in the New World sees the need for laborers in New Spain.
Queen Isabella made the Decree on Indian Labor, which approved the forced labor of Native Indians by the Spanish.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that at some point in New World, the Spanish saw the need for laborers to helped them settle in the continent.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/8364655
Answer:
The thread used against Sabine comes under Debt Trafficking.
Explanation:
Debt Trafficking:
When the human traffickers perform illicit relocation of the women saying them to pay off their debt after starting working at new location in some honorable business, But on their relocation, they force them into the prostitution business to pay their unlawful debt.
Debt Bondage:
It is debt which some labor contractor pays to some person and in return the person willingly delivers his services to pay his debt to the contractor
Debt Peonage:
It is the debt which first person pays to the second person and if the second person remains unsuccessful in paying his debt, the first person forces the second person to work for him at some minimal wage rate. In this way the second person becomes the victim of debt peonage.
After understanding the aforementioned concepts of three different types of debts, we conclude that the thread used against Sabine comes under Debt Trafficking.
Answer:
No, the court will not return the $2500 back to Strickland but rather, the money has been forfeited to the government due to the circumstances around it.
<em>Since the money was a bribe offered, it is within the view of the government to withheld the money as evidence as well as take the money due to the illegal purpose it tends to actualize when it was offered.</em>
Explanation:
There are several reasons why Ted Bundy deserved the death penalty. He killed a lot of people
<h3>Reasons why the death penalty was an
adequate punishment for Ted Bundy:</h3>
- He killed a lot of people in the society.
- He was a predator.
- He raped people.
- He was a kidnapper
- He had no mercy for the people he attacked.
- He was jailed, he escaped from Jail and still killed again.
- If granted parole in years later, someone like him would still atatck innocents again.
- It was the good that the society got rid of him. People like him would always be a danger to other good people.
- The people that he killed did not deserve to die also. He was only made to tast his own medicine.
Read more on the death penalty here: brainly.com/question/509558
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
