The decision from Re Gault was that juveniles, when arrested, do not have the same Due Process rights as adults. This statement is false.
Gerald Goat's due process and habeas corpus rights were deemed to have been violated by the Arizona juvenile court system by the Supreme Court in 1967, marking a crucial turning point for the nation's juvenile justice system. Juveniles are guaranteed a fair trial just as adults, he added in reference to Re Gault, one of his most significant cases.
Recognizing the importance of the right to due process, courts have determined that juveniles, like adults, should have procedural protections, including the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to be notified of an indictment, and the right to plead.
Know more about Re Gault here
brainly.com/question/9783930
#SPJ1
No... It is not. That is silly.
1. The church becoming a political force (Europe); this began and contributed to the so called Dark Ages in Europe. The church was controlling most of the continent and everything that was happening on it.
2. The rise of the Mongol Empire (Asia); the biggest land empire the world had ever witnessed made the trade between Asia and Europe much easier and safer, and also after the initial bloodshed, it brought the period of peace. Unfortunately through the trading routes spread the plague (black death) as well.
3. Emergence and spread of Islam (Asia); in a very short space of time it became a dominant religion in the Middle East and started spreading very quickly. The empire led by this new religion became a strong force and was threatening the Christianity in Europe.
Yes, it required the monarchy to call upon parliament and speak to the "House of Commons" on decisions as they held the "power of the purse". The power of the purse is the spending ability of the monarchy.
Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven".[4]
Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[5]
Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset, which was a rhetorical tone;[6] however, the unsigned editorial titled "Annexation" in which it first appeared was arguably written by journalist and annexation advocate Jane Cazneau.[7] The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with the United Kingdom. But manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.