<u>Answer:</u> The decisions to ban and then reinstate eligibility in the Oscar Pistorius case raises questions about the "process through which deviance is defined in sports".
<u>Explanation:</u>
South African athlete Oscar Pistorius was on court charged with the murder of his 29-year-old model and law graduate girlfriend named Reeva Steenkamp at his home in Pretoria on 14 February 2013.
Pistorius is a leading South African runner and gained recognition as a high-level athlete with a disability, including several Paralympic Games and the 2012 Summer Olympics.
The judgment given by the Judge named Thokozile Masipa that Pistorius was not guilty of murder but guilty of Steenkamp's culpable homicide (unlawful killing of a person with or without intent to kill, depending on how the crime has been defined by a particular jurisdiction).
Soon after Pistorius was banned by sports authority, his arrest and later imprisonment was big shock among media and people. But later his eligibility was reinstated which raised questions about the "process through which deviance is defined in sports" and opposed by many people.
Answer:The influence of economics, the most imperialistic of the social science disciplines, is widely thought to have been felt more decisively in political science than in any other discipline. After briefly reviewing some evidence that this alleged influence is not transmitted through the use of specific economics concepts, this paper explores the possibility that the influence instead stems from the importation of formal rational choice modeling techniques from economics into political science. This is carried out using a case study of an important political science literature on voting behavior and the voter turnout
Explanation:
<span>Intuitive thought. This stage is part of Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development positioned at the preoperational stage of development. This
is most common among 4-7 years old. Children at this stage believe that they
are capable of everything with the knowledge that they have. </span>
Answer: judicial restraint
Explanation:
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges
