“Crime” is not a phenomenon that can be defined according to any objective set of criteria. Instead, what a particular state, legal regime, ruling class or collection of dominant social forces defines as “crime” in any specific society or historical period will reflect the political, economic and cultural interests of such forces. By extension, the interests of competing political, economic or cultural forces will be relegated to the status of “crime” and subject to repression,persecution and attempted subjugation. Those activities of an economic, cultural or martial nature that are categorized as “crime” by a particular system of power and subjugation will be those which advance the interests of the subjugated and undermine the interests of dominant forces. Conventional theories of criminology typically regard crime as the product of either “moral” failing on the part of persons labeled as “criminal,” genetic or biological predispositions towards criminality possessed by such persons, “social injustice” or“abuse” to which the criminal has previously been subjected, or some combination of these. (Agnew and Cullen, 2006) All of these theories for the most part regard the “criminal as deviant” perspective offered by established interests as inherently legitimate, though they may differ in their assessments concerning the matter of how such “deviants” should be handled. The principal weakness of such theories is their failure to differentiate the problem of anti-social or predatory individual behavior<span> per se</span><span> from the matter of “crime” as a political, legal, economic and cultural construct. All human groups, from organized religions to outlaw motorcycle clubs, typically maintain norms that disallow random or unprovoked aggression by individuals against other individuals within the group, and a system of penalties for violating group norms. Even states that have practiced genocide or aggressive war have simultaneously maintained legal prohibitions against “common” crimes. Clearly, this discredits the common view of the state’s apparatus of repression and control (so-called “criminal justice systems”) as having the protection of the lives, safety and property of innocents as its primary purpose.</span>
<span>If I'm assuming correctly that "courteous behavior" is one option, then that is the answer :)
You've probably heard the word "courtesy" or the phrase "common courtesy" before. Courteous is the adjective form of that word and it means polite/considerate. Jonas holding the door open is being polite/considerate or courteous, and he is showing courteous behavior.</span>
Answer:
Ok the number of earthworms is 30 and if it is not 30 it would be 40.
Answer:
Congress was concerned about how admitting it as a slave state would affect representation and the balance of power between states.
Explanation:
During that period, Missouri was a huge area that was called Missouri Territory and by 1819, there were enough people in part of that so it could be considered a state. But to be considered a state the Congress had to approve it.
In that period there was a struggle between free states and pro-slavery states the union wanted a balance between those two and the addition of a new state could ruin that balance.
The admission of Missouri would have added a slave state to the Senate and left northern non-slave states as a minority. This is the reason the application of Missouri caused a two-year debate.
