The correct answer: William
Lloyd Garrison
The most unmistakable and questionable change development of the period was abolitionism, the counter slave development. Despite the fact that abolitionism had pulled in numerous supporters in the progressive time frame, the development slacked amid the mid 1800s. By the 1830s, the soul of abolitionism surged, particularly in the Northeast. In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison propelled an abolitionist daily paper, The Liberator, acquiring himself a notoriety for being the most radical white abolitionist. Though past abolitionists had proposed blacks be dispatched back to Africa, Garrison worked in conjunction with noticeable dark abolitionists, including Fredrick Douglass, to request level with social liberties for blacks. Battalion's call to war was "prompt liberation," yet he perceived that it would take a long time to persuade enough Americans to restrict bondage. To spread the abrogation enthusiasm, he established the New England Anti-Slavery Society in 1832 and the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. By 1840, these associations had brought forth more than 1,500 nearby sections. All things considered, abolitionists were a little minority in the United States in the 1840s, regularly subjected to scoffing and physical brutality.
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Europeans
Hope this helps :)
The answer is to the question is c
