Answer:
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a historical case examined by the Supreme Court. By a decision in this case, the court established that any evidence, whether confessing or exculpatory, can be used in court only if the prosecution can prove that the suspect was informed before the interrogation about the right to a lawyer and about the right not to testify against himself. At the same time, in case of refusal of the suspect from his rights, it is necessary to prove its voluntariness. The Miranda case set a precedent requiring all police departments to inform detainees of their rights to a lawyer and silence. These warnings are called the Miranda rule. The Supreme Court equated the Miranda Rule with constitutional acts.
Explanation:
19.25 is 24 divied by 495
Answer:
They believed that the articles unfairly criticized the church and its influence.
Explanation:
The best option from this list is tat "<span>British and French policy of appeasement" although it was far more complicated than this. Reparations imposed on the Germans were a more major cause. </span>
I assume that you are talking about security in the sense of police or national defense.
In a pure free market system, you would have no overall police force or army. These things (this kind of security) are called "public goods" because they are things that everyone gets use from. In other words, the army can't protect me without protecting my next-door neighbor. For that reason, there's no way an army could be profitable and so no private company would produce an army (it couldn't tell my neighbor "we'll stop protecting you from the Russians if you don't pay your army bill").
Public goods will only be produced if the government produces them. So security (except for things like private security guards) will not exist in a pure free market economy.
