Answer:
the others are already answered
Explanation:
For general intent, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant intended to do the act in question, whereas proving specific intent would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to bring about a specific consequence through his or her actions, or that he or she perform the action
For a corporation to be held criminally liable for the acts of an employee, the prosecutor does not have to prove that the employee was receiving a benefit from the criminal act.
Option e
<u>Explanation:</u>
An entity that exists only through its employees and their functions is called as an corporation. Although, a corporation may be held liable for various criminal activities, for example: the employee did that criminal act in the scope of employment, the failure in performing an affirmative duty.
Corporations must perform certain responsibilities and duties to which they are bound to, if unable to perform those duties, it may result in criminal liability. However, a criminally liable company's prosecutor does not have to prove that the "employee was trying to receive some benefit from the criminal act".
Because each year it goes through the same cycle of seasons
spring,summer,fall,winter,repeat
hope this helped
