Answer:
Twenty one
Explanation:
Currently there are 21 states that have abolished the death penalty leaving 29 states still having the death penalty active
Answer: I would say A
Explanation:
Due to the simple fact that a hair simple contains DNA
Also, It couldn't be B because it is not a form of discipline
Where In the option of C it is not necessary for a conviction
Answer choice D; a hair sample is not going to lead to skeptical testimony because it is not testimonial evidence.
Answer:
B. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child they are not allowed to claim Angela as a dependent.
Explanation:
Dasprop does not legally adopt Angela, but Sierra often refers to Angela as "her sister." Dasarupa is supportive of both the girls, no income is earned by the girl during the year, and both the girls remain in the Dasarupa residence.
There is no adoption process with four more ropes here because Angela, who lives with them, is not a legal guardian
so correct option is B. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child they are not allowed to claim Angela as a dependent.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
