“Crime” is not a phenomenon that can be defined according to any objective set of criteria. Instead, what a particular state, legal regime, ruling class or collection of dominant social forces defines as “crime” in any specific society or historical period will reflect the political, economic and cultural interests of such forces. By extension, the interests of competing political, economic or cultural forces will be relegated to the status of “crime” and subject to repression,persecution and attempted subjugation. Those activities of an economic, cultural or martial nature that are categorized as “crime” by a particular system of power and subjugation will be those which advance the interests of the subjugated and undermine the interests of dominant forces. Conventional theories of criminology typically regard crime as the product of either “moral” failing on the part of persons labeled as “criminal,” genetic or biological predispositions towards criminality possessed by such persons, “social injustice” or“abuse” to which the criminal has previously been subjected, or some combination of these. (Agnew and Cullen, 2006) All of these theories for the most part regard the “criminal as deviant” perspective offered by established interests as inherently legitimate, though they may differ in their assessments concerning the matter of how such “deviants” should be handled. The principal weakness of such theories is their failure to differentiate the problem of anti-social or predatory individual behavior<span> per se</span><span> from the matter of “crime” as a political, legal, economic and cultural construct. All human groups, from organized religions to outlaw motorcycle clubs, typically maintain norms that disallow random or unprovoked aggression by individuals against other individuals within the group, and a system of penalties for violating group norms. Even states that have practiced genocide or aggressive war have simultaneously maintained legal prohibitions against “common” crimes. Clearly, this discredits the common view of the state’s apparatus of repression and control (so-called “criminal justice systems”) as having the protection of the lives, safety and property of innocents as its primary purpose.</span>
True surprisingly a house can burn down in 10 minutes in 100 degree whether
Answer:
Corruption is among the greatest obstacles to economic and social development. The harmful effects of corruption are especially severe on the poor, who are hardest hit by economic decline, most reliant on the provision of public services, and least capable of paying the extra costs associated with bribery, fraud, and the misappropriation of economic privileges. Corruption also represents a significant additional cost of doing business in many developing countries. It undermines development by distorting the rule of law and weakening the institutional foundation upon which economic growth depends.
Corruption damages policies and programs that aim to reduce poverty, so attacking corruption is critical to the achievement of IFC's overarching mission of poverty reduction. Countering corruption is therefore aligned with IFC’s overarching mission to promote sustainable private sector investment in developing countries, to help reduce poverty and improve people's lives.
Explanation:
Answer:
C. Good Funds Act
Explanation:
Good Funds Act are simply laws that are made to protect the money funding purchasing of mortgage and refinancing transactions are safe for disbursement at the time of closing.
This act is actually meant to safeguard all parties from discovering they have unfunded mortgage at closing.
Good fund law is also known as Residential closing fund distribution Act of 2005. And it could be found in Good Funds Law (TCA § 47-32-101)
Section: 47-32-105 – Disbursement of funds by settlement agent from escrow or settlement account
Clothilde brought her money to escrow at closing and was desperate for the sale to record immediately so she and her dog could move in..was an example of Good fund Act.
Here is the answer that would best complete the statement above. The difference between a strike team and a task force is that, the <span>strike teams have similar resources while task forces are comprised of mixed resources. The answer for this would be option A. Hope this answers your question. Have a great day!</span>
