Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The defendant, that is, his guilt, can only be clearly defined by material evidence.
The motive says a lot about the character of the act committed, but the motives of the crime are null and void without proof.
If the motive requires the sole reason for the commission of the crime, such treatment can be devastating to the truth, since in that case, the evidence sheds light.
The motive is the starting point of the investigator in the search for truth. The danger of taking a motive in this context can lead the investigation into the "wrong track". Finally, a motive for committing a crime without any person having done the same.
Of the 4 choices, given, the most fitting is B-Democracies. However, Aristotle mostly advocated for Aristocracy above all other governments.
None of it was Independent :)
The answer is ( Ethical relativism )<span>
</span>
