Answer:
loss
Explanation:
The economic goals are the objectives of any nation which it desires to achieve. The economic goals of any nations includes full employment, efficiency, security, equity, stability, economic freedom and economic growth.
The economic goal are sometimes incompatible with each other. The cost of fulfilling the one set goals is having less resources to address the other sets of goals.
The economic goals conflict with one another. Every goal cannot be achieve at the same time. The choice of one goal comes with the loss of another goal.
Answer:
this question is kind of hard to answer because it depends on the circumstances but my main answer is no.
Explanation:
1) if they've committed a crime, then they really shouldn't have the ability to have access to a fire arm, especially if their crime(s) involves a firearm.
2) they gave away their absolute freedom the moment they committed a crime, so they shouldn't get the exact same "freedoms" as the citizens who are completely clean.
3)criminals are seen to have people be more careful around them, so they shouldn't get "free rein"
4)they could commit the crime or a different maybe larger crime if they know there wont be "after jail" consequences.
5) because some criminals cant be fully 100% trusted with certain things.
(i understand they seem repetitive, i had the right idea but i just cant get it to come out the way im thinking it.
Answer:
Exclusionary Rule.
Explanation:
The exclusionary rule is a legal rule of the constitution that prevents any illegal search and seizure of 'evidence' that is collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. It also prevents the presentation of such 'evidence' in a court of law.
This rule also states that any evidence collected in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) may not be admissible in a court of law as legal evidence as it is 'seized' in violation of the person's constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prevents the government from doing any search or seizure of 'evidence' of a person's home without due reasonable reason. Thus, it prevents a person's from being forcefully searched. So, when such searches are done and evidence produced before the court, they are not admissible under the exclusionary rule.
