Answer:
Two actions which took place.
1) was it a defamation for the publisher - yes,
2) false light? no
Explanation:
It was a defamation of character from the publisher because what he did could cause harm to the young child, One thing is show though the accusation of a false light is a no. And lana can't complain about how her pictrue was made because she was in a public space so no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Answer:
It underlines Ubuntu's compassion and empathy, and our courts should promote that principle through rehabilitation, taking into account the potential for reconciliation between an offender and the community. Still have questions?
In politics, lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation refers to the practice of legally attempting to influence the decisions, actions, or policies of public servants, most frequently politicians or regulators.
communicating with team members and clients the communications and replies of the government and other stakeholders. studying and researching proposed laws and regulations. attending meetings and activities, such as hearings before Congress. educating corporate officers and government authorities. They need to find a way to influence lawmakers to cast their votes in favor of the interests they represent. This entails creating customized appeals for both particular voters and voting blocs, such as Southerners or pro-choice voters. On occasion, lobbyists will also lobby one another. In its original sense, lobbying related to efforts to influence legislators' votes, typically in the lobby outside the legislative chamber.
Lobbying is any endeavor by people or private interest organizations to influence government decisions. There will always be lobbying of some kind.
Learn more about lobbying here: brainly.com/question/29614996
#SPJ4
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
