1. The Senate Foreign Relations committee is a standing committee that reviews all legislation affecting international relations in the Senate
2. Sub-committee hearings might hear testimony from the Surgeon General or the President of General Electric
3. A bill which has already passed through the whole process and been signed into law is repealed by a Congress with a different political agenda.
This is an example of ascribed status.
She was ascribed, or given the status of 'heiress to the Trump fortune' just by being born. She didn't really do much in order to achieve her goal of gaining that fortune but was rather just gifted the fortune upon her birth. Her gaining that status was not a voluntary decision.
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Differential association theory ".
Explanation:
Sutherland assesses throughout this theory whether an illegal activity is not to be dismissed out of hand by labeling the suspect 'easy'. Like most social education concepts, this theory assumes that such a person's actions are affected and conditioned by certain participants with whom they are associated.
- The predominant comparison group seems to be the nuclear family, with whom the adult lives as well as gets older or develops. Such experiences are believed to create an interpretation of social expectations and expectations for entities.
- The above discovery creates legitimacy for such a theory or concept of differential associations.
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
