Answer:
The United States first amendment carried more protection and less restriction in its implementation and here is why.
The edict of the United States does not qualify the application of the clause granting freedom of expression. That of the United Kingdom does. In doing so, it ensures that Freedom of Expression is used appropriately in that it must be targeted at the common good and the well being of the state.
It states, for instance, that
<em>"Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
</em>
- <em>
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
</em>
- <em>prevent disorder or crime
</em>
- <em>protect health or morals
</em>
- <em>protect the rights and reputations of other people
</em>
- <em>prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
</em>
- <em>maintain the authority and impartiality of judges"</em>
Cheers!
It varies from year to years, but I would say about 6 percent. A very small amount 4-6% is passed each year.
Answer:
d.) social disorganization therory
Explanation:
Answer:
There are stark differences between public and private prisons. When it comes to overall comparisons, privately run prisons are often less likely to report data on inmate population, staffing, or where the budget was spent. The main difference between the two types of prisons comes down to money.
Each for-profit facility or institution houses people who violated the law. They are run by private, third-party companies rather than the state government, who runs traditional public prison. Private prisons receive their funding from government contracts and many of these contracts are based on the total number of inmates and their average length of time served
Explanation:
