Answer:
b. disparate- impact discrimination
Explanation:
Disparate impact discrimination is a term used to refer to a situation where a member of a protected class felt harmed in a situation where he or she suffered unintentional discrimination. That is, this member suffered a type of discrimination that seemed harmless or neutral, but which harmed that member or harmed the group to which he belongs.
Answer:
The CORRECT answer is C. Army
Explanation:
It is better known as the SIFT, both commissioned and warrant officers are required to obtain a score of at least 40 in order to qualify for flight school. The multiple-choice test is broken down into seven sections and can take up to three hours.
Hopefully this helps!!
Let me know if you still need help or if you have any questions!
Answer:
Goyens performed good service for Texas during the Revolution from Mexico.
Explanation:
Goyens performed good service for Texas during the Revolution from Mexico. With Adolphus Sterne and Sam Houston, he helped negotiate a treaty with the Cherokee to keep them pacified in East Texas while the Texans fought for their independence to the south and west.
Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
