1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
EleoNora [17]
3 years ago
13

How far was the Anglo Saxon system of justice fair

History
1 answer:
nasty-shy [4]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The Anglo-Saxon system of justice was fair because of the extent it goes in punishing criminals. The system does not tolerate crime therefore they mete out punishment to those that are guilty.

Explanation:

The Anglo-Saxon had a new conception of royal justice which was aggressive. The made brutal corporal and capital punishments at their disposal.

The system set up a hundred courts were local cases would be heard and judged. Their duty was to find the criminal and bring him back to face justice. Punishments were organised for criminals such like exile.

You might be interested in
What agreement did American settlers make with the Mexican government in order to colonize the province of Texas?
mamaluj [8]

Answer:

the agreement was to being 500 families on the vacant lands remaining within the limits of the colony already established

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Which is true of FDR?
tekilochka [14]

D is true... is it a select all that applies question?

5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
According to Gribkov, why was Zorin unable to answer Adalai Stevenson’s question about the missiles in Cuba
luda_lava [24]

Answer:

I want to say to you, Mr. Zorin, that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!

But if I understood what you said, you said that my position had changed, that today I was defensive because we did not have the evidence to prove our assertions, that your Government had installed long-range missiles in Cuba.

Well, let me say something to you, Mr. Ambassador—we do have the evidence. We have it, and it is clear and it is incontrovertible. And let me say something else—those weapons must be taken out of Cuba.

Next, let me say to you that, if I understood you, with a trespass on credibility that excels your best, you said that our position had changed since I spoke here the other day because of the pressures of world opinion and the majority of the United Nations. Well, let me say to you, sir, you are wrong again. We have had no pressure from anyone whatsoever. We came in here today to indicate our willingness to discuss Mr. U Thant’s proposals, and that is the only change that has taken place.

But let me also say to you, sir, that there has been a change. You—the Soviet Union has sent these weapons to Cuba. You—the Soviet Union has upset the balance of power in the world. You—the Soviet Union has created this new danger, not the United States.

And you ask with a fine show of indignation why the President did not tell Mr. Gromyko on last Thursday about our evidence, at the very time that Mr. Gromyko was blandly denying to the President that the U.S.S.R. was placing such weapons on sites in the new world.

Well, I will tell you why—because we were assembling the evidence, and perhaps it would be instructive to the world to see how a Soviet official—how far he would go in perfidy. Perhaps we wanted to know if this country faced another example of nuclear deceit like that one a year ago, when in stealth, the Soviet Union broke the nuclear test moratorium.

And while we are asking questions, let me ask you why your Government—your Foreign Minister—deliberately, cynically deceived us about the nuclear build-up in Cuba.

And, finally, the other day, Mr. Zorin, I remind you that you did not deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today again if I heard you correctly, you now say that they do not exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.

All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question: Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no—don’t wait for the translation—yes or no?

(The Soviet representative refused to answer.)

You can answer yes or no. You have denied they exist. I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room.

(The President called on the representative of Chile to speak, but Ambassador Stevenson continued as follows.)

I have not finished my statement. I asked you a question. I have had no reply to the question, and I will now proceed, if I may, to finish my statement.

I doubt if anyone in this room, except possibly the representative of the Soviet Union, has any doubt about the facts. But in view of his statements and the statements of the Soviet Government up until last Thursday, when Mr. Gromyko denied the existence or any intention of installing such weapons in Cuba, I am going to make a portion of the evidence available right now. If you will indulge me for a moment, we will set up an easel here in the back of the room where I hope it will be visible to everyone.

8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Totalitarian governments are often controlled by a single political party because
klasskru [66]
Totalitarian government is when a single group completely takes over and makes the people subservient to the state (they make all of the rules) and if there was more than one group, opinions may differ and actions may be more diverse, and it wouldn't have total control over the decisions anymore. Ex: Hitler- changed laws to what he saw fit, changed culture, controlled how people were treated, threw Jew's in concentration camps because of a personal bias, etc. He had total control, thus totalitarian gov.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
“Gerrymandering is a threat to democracy in the United States”
stepladder [879]

Answer:

Gerrymandering (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/,[1][2]) is a practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems.

Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).[3] The top-left diagram in the graphic is a form of cracking where the majority party uses its superior numbers to guarantee the minority party never attains a majority in any district.

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in Northern Ireland where boundaries were constructed to guarantee Protestant Unionist majorities.[4] The U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities are known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents. Wayne Dawkings describes it as politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.[5]

The term gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry (pronounced like "Gary"[2]), who, as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative connotations and gerrymandering is almost always considered a corruption of the democratic process

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How long did the watergate investigation take
    10·1 answer
  • Which item was a byproduct of the Columbian exchange
    8·1 answer
  • according to the declaration of independence, when do people have the right to abolish their government and establish a new one?
    7·1 answer
  • What does it mean to call someone a “Benedict Arnold”?
    11·2 answers
  • Which power would give a president greater legislative power than the office currently has
    14·1 answer
  • Who declare war on Hitler after the invasion of poland ​
    14·1 answer
  • 8. In which of the following countries are Shia Muslims the majority?
    13·1 answer
  • Which statement best completes the diagram?
    9·1 answer
  • Which lines, latitude or longitude, remain the same
    14·1 answer
  • Choose the right inventor’s name to complete the sentence.
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!