The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Argue a case for appointing judges and then argue a case for having them elected.
In the case of appointing judges, many experts agree on the idea that appointed is better because judges have to be neutral. They serve the Constitution, they do not serve any political party or particular interests.
Once appointed, the judges are going to ratify, so it is supposed that their integrity is double-checked.
In other cases, some arguments favor the election of judges, stating that people should be trusted to elect judges. Through this election, judges will be driven to serve the people who put their trust in them to impart justice.
If they are elected, some voices agree that judges should be elected for a determined period, so people could evaluate if they did a good during their tenure.
However, in both cases, some advantages and disadvantages have to be resolved by law experts and politicians in their respective states.
The answer would be B . Hopeless
Answer:
a. anonymously
Explanation:
According to my research on information technology and cyber security, I can say that based on the information provided within the question at least one of these mechanisms should permit people to report incidents anonymously. This is because, when there is an incident that can cause massive damage and loss of information, the people responsible may not want to admit it or shed light on the incident because they do not want to deal with the consequences, yet the problem needs to be solved one way or another. Therefore having an anonymous option would get rid of any doubt and allow for incidents to be dealt with faster.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Everything you can possibly think of are exchanged between nations today such as oil, clothing, electronics and food.
