1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Ghella [55]
3 years ago
10

Do juveniles sufficiently understand Miranda warning and be able to waive their constitutional rights to remain silent or speak

with an attorney?
Law
1 answer:
patriot [66]3 years ago
4 0

According to data, it is found that juveniles do not sufficiently understand the Miranda warning and find it difficult to exercise their right of remaining silent.

<h3><u>Explanation: </u></h3>

Juveniles are far more sensitive than adults are. This is the reason what may not mean coercion in the case of an adult may be considered as coercion in the case having a juvenile involved. According to the data obtained from a number of juvenile justice cases, it is clear that the juveniles do not choose to make use of their right to remain silent.

This may be either because they don't properly come to terms with what Miranda rights actually are or they are too vulnerable to the interrogation and can't resist speaking out of fear.

You might be interested in
Which amendment is most responsible for protecting citizens' liberties from intrusion by state governments?
zzz [600]

Answer: The Fourteenth Amendment

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Which provision of the U.S. Constitution clarifies conflicts between the laws of a state and the laws of the nation?
mrs_skeptik [129]
C) Supremacy clause :)
7 0
3 years ago
Johnny loses his case in an Ohio trial court. He wishes to appeal his case decision. Which section of the diagram represents the
Vikentia [17]

Answer:

A: STATE TRIAL COURTS

B: INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURTS

C: STATE SUPREME COURTS

D: U.S. SUPREME COURT

E: U.S. COURT OF APPEAL

F: U.S DISTRICT COURTS

1)  ANSWER: B

After the state court he should request hearing from The Intermidiate Apellate Courts.

2)  ANSWER: B

After the state court he should request hearing from The Intermidiate Apellate Courts.

3) ANSWER: D

The supreme court of justice has jurisdiction over ALL of the mentioned courts in the country.

4) ANSWER: D

The supreme court of justice has jurisdiction over ALL of the mentioned courts in the country.

5) ANSWER: A,B,C

A: State trial courts. B: Intermediate appellate courts. C: State Supreme Courts

6. ANSWER:

F: Federal courts that hear cases for the first time are the U.S District courts.

Explanation:

Hope it helps!

7 0
2 years ago
Will mark brainliest!!
Finger [1]

Answer:

I belive its B.

because it doesn't mention that in the Bill of rights...I believe:/

3 0
3 years ago
Must all elements of probable cause exist before a lawful arrest can be made?
kkurt [141]

householdThereWhichever,

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before the police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant.

“Probable cause” is a legal standard applied to the police and prosecutors; individual citizens don’t “get” probable cause.

Police must demonstrate sufficient probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime to obtain a search warrant or an arrest warrant.

Prosecutors must demonstrate sufficient probable cause as to every element of a charged crime to proceed with filing charges and beginning the trial process.

There is no clear legal definition of what constitutes “probable cause” — it’s somewhere between suspicion and proof. The closest you’ll come is the 1949 case Brinegar v. the United States in which the Supreme Court described it thus:

“…where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.”

Please imagine a situation when someone very healthy falls ill all of a sudden and the reason is not immediately known. You take that person to a doctor and the doctor will ask you to identify the root cause of the illness, generally as under:

type of food the person ate recently

what liquids he/she consumed

whether he/she traveled recently and had food from outside,

whether affected by climate change,

whether any drastic change in his/her daily routine etc.

any other likely change in his/her work schedule

The above list could be the probable causes from which the doctor can identify the root cause for the illness.

II. Similarly, when an inexplicable accident happens(the driver cannot find out the cause), several questions like the following may be asked:

was there break failure

did one of the tires burst

was the driver distracted by someone(suddenly crossing the road etc.)

did the driver doze off(sleep for a while)

The above can be considered as the probable causes, to arrive at the root cause of the accident.

This is cause and this is the effect is a highly scientific approach and it is hardly possible in less than 1% of our day-to-day life despite our 99% dependence on only science-originated things. It is a decision without measurements, proper logic errors, etc., we are forced to land in probability and possibility. Maximum experience is in medical decisions, especially in new upcoming nuisance topics like a corona. Only probable cause is guessed. There is nothing when a patient comes with corona. Whichever is the cause treat him with your best tools as a doctor? Those who work in huge projects of prevention, curtailing, “stop-the-spread” projects will break their heads.

A simple example from a household happening. The jewel kept on a chair just temporarily is missing. 1. Somebody should have kept it safely 2. Somebody should have pocketed it on a non-returnable basis 3. The servants should have taken full benefit of our negligence and we should start searching for what more is stolen 4. The jeweler whom we told that we have some repair work should have come and taken it for repair, we telephone and find out. 5. Government announced gold control when Morarji was P.M. Some excise officer should have read it now, noticed our careless and taken it.

Which out of these is most probable?

Nothing! The jewel was under the cushion of the chair.

Two servants were dismissed forever. There is no excise department connection with that jewel. Nobody can keep it more safely than what the jewel can keep its good self. That jeweler has left the city two years ago.

All guesswork done is included in only probable causes, many cause foolish. Some are probable. But the actual happening has not chosen that. It is the house that has chosen those causes. The scientific or guess ability of the house is clear to them at least.

Probable cause is a guesswork cause that may be or may not be tallying with the truth. The correct guess is 100% probable!

The jewel missing cause is 0% probable!

6 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Determine the manner of evaluation that is going on in the following commentary: Claim: People who listen to heavy metal tend to
    14·1 answer
  • The control requirement under § 351 requires that the person or persons transferring property to the corporation immediately aft
    8·1 answer
  • 3<br>Миллиграммен өрнектеп, өсу ретімен жаз.<br>5г 200 мг<br>3г 61 мг<br>4г 35 МГ<br>1 кг 20 г​
    15·1 answer
  • Is popular sovereignty important to a republic? Why or why not?
    6·1 answer
  • Early American private banks were allowed to print paper money called bank
    13·2 answers
  • In court, what would a prosecutor need to document for evidence to be admitted?
    8·1 answer
  • 1 - Multiple choice
    11·1 answer
  • Eduardo Gomez is a 52 year old [changed from 52-year-old] farm worker who cannot read. He has a wife and two children. Gomez was
    9·1 answer
  • What is an example of a reserved power of the state governments?
    8·1 answer
  • She's just a girl and she's on fire
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!