Analyzing the scenario, we see that the situation is repeated by the second. It may be that the first time, the woman did not know. But she had already been accused before, that is, that the second time, this was considered intentional and malicious conduct.
According to the penal code § 594, this act is considered vandalism, that is the defacing of another’s property with graffiti “or other inscribed material,” or damaging or destroying another’s property and this cant be done negligently, with the will to do the damage.
If she convicted of felony vandalism again, the maximum prison sentence is three years (after being convicted before) and fines can be up to $10,000. When the damage caused by the vandalism exceeds $10,000, the fines can be increased to $50,000. Then, comes the restitution (paying the owner property for the damage), and possibly community service.
Answer:
I and II
Explanation:
Frustration over high levels of taxation and
resentment at exclusion from government decision making
The Founders created a high standard of responsibility by requiring nine states to agree.
Answer: D is correct.
Explanation: laws of reason are mere fictions. Philosophy of rights is dedicated to this issue but in its very fundaments there are fundamental questions that are still not answered (becase both laws of nature and laws of reason are products of human intellect, i.e. they cannot be experimentally proved. In spite of its fictitious nature, theese laws became one of the pillars of Enlightenment. French philophers, for example, attempted to ground ethics on mathematics which proved to be inviable.
Try to check google or something
