Answer:
Criminal justice data is making a difference in a number of areas. These include: ... When these data points are geotagged, law enforcement can narrow the data further and use it to predict when and where certain types of crime are most likely to occur. In real-world usage, such data analytics have proven quite effective.
Explanation:
To me it means doing what is right and not disgreminaring against people
Answer:
No, the court will not return the $2500 back to Strickland but rather, the money has been forfeited to the government due to the circumstances around it.
<em>Since the money was a bribe offered, it is within the view of the government to withheld the money as evidence as well as take the money due to the illegal purpose it tends to actualize when it was offered.</em>
Explanation:
Answer:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Explanation:
The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.
In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.
Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
(Hint: Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.)
Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.
