Answer:
The United States first amendment carried more protection and less restriction in its implementation and here is why.
The edict of the United States does not qualify the application of the clause granting freedom of expression. That of the United Kingdom does. In doing so, it ensures that Freedom of Expression is used appropriately in that it must be targeted at the common good and the well being of the state.
It states, for instance, that
<em>"Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
</em>
- <em>
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
</em>
- <em>prevent disorder or crime
</em>
- <em>protect health or morals
</em>
- <em>protect the rights and reputations of other people
</em>
- <em>prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
</em>
- <em>maintain the authority and impartiality of judges"</em>
Cheers!
Domestic violence is the standard used for insanity defense to produce good result and Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a change but never changing anything is the standard used for least use of insanity defense.
Explanation:
The advantage of insanity defense is that the accused could avoid penalized with death, even if he is guilty. In the context of crime the sentence is very convenient as compared with an accused who is proven to be guilty, but it is not proven.
The insanity defense is rarely used because of the difficulty in providing legal insanity. Many criminal defendants suffer from mental illness and produce evidence of this illness such as psychiatric testimony.
Hence, Domestic violence is the standard used for insanity defense to produce good result because it changes person completely and Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a change but never changing anything is the standard used for least use of insanity defense.
Answer:
Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings.
Explanation:
Answer: Woodson v North Carolina and Roberts v Lousianna
Explanation:
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969), the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the death penalty for the first time.
By 1972, Furman v. Georgia ruled a Georgia death penalty law was cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. In 1976 there were five "Death Penalty Cases". While Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, and Proffitt v. Florida, confirmed the states´ death penalties, Woodson v. North Carolina and Roberts v. Louisiana overturned the mandatory death sentences.
Answer:
More leaning towards trails like adults depending on the crime committed.
Explanation:
