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
oee [108]
3 years ago
13

Do you think judges should be allowed to set whatever punishments they want for individuals that have broken the law? Why or why

not? (Give a reason for your answer)
Law
2 answers:
igomit [66]3 years ago
6 0

Answer: No they should not be allowed

Explanation:

Judges can easily be biased to the situation and set a punishment that could unfair/wrong.

garik1379 [7]3 years ago
6 0
No because depending on what judicial system in a society a judges answer is bias and not as well thoughtful as a lawyers who are specifically defending the case and have done an immense amount of research on it. Most judges too have been around for a long time over 20 years and so they know a lot of lawyers personally so ultimately they are very bias. This also goes against the veto power in the states as the judicial system or the impeachment process. Overall it would just be very bias. It’s just like if police officers were allowed to just kill someone just because they want too it’s not right and that’s why they have implants in place to stop that but unfortunately it still happens.
You might be interested in
¿Cómo afecta la violencia familiar a los derechos humanos?
Sonbull [250]
La violencia en una familia es una violación de los derechos humanos, pero debido a que muchos creen que es un asunto privado, pasa desapercibido y esto pone a las mujeres y los niños en condiciones de ser lastimados más de lo que deberían. Debido a que muchos niños están heridos y nadie interfiere, crecen y se vuelven abusivos también. Y continúan violando los derechos humanos porque les enseñaron que esto estaba bien.
3 0
3 years ago
Based on the author's description,which best describes the writer that Jamal needs
Anit [1.1K]

Answer:

The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:

After lunch, the junior representatives listened to an author read from her work. Jamal’s mom had given him some money to get a souvenir of his big day, and jamal decided to buy the author’s book. When she was done with her presentation, jamal approached her and asked if she had any copies for sale. The woman gave him a copy for free and even wrote an inscription inside. She wrote, "I hope you had a blast during the conference. I wish I had someone as ambitious as you working on my campaign. Jamal was touched by her words. He shook the woman’s hand and went back to join the other junior representatives. Based on the author’s description, which word best describes the writer that jamal meets?

a) careless

b) generous

c) demanding

d) disappointing

The answer is b): generous.

Explanation:

The answer is “generous” because when Jamal approached the writer, he likely intended to buy a copy of the writer’s book. However, the writer, a woman, gave Jamal a copy of her book for free, and also inspired him by inscribing the following words inside the book: “I wish I had someone as ambitious as you working on my campaign”. These two acts from the writer point to the fact that the writer was generous with her book, and words of inspiration.

7 0
3 years ago
The use of turn signals as a signal to the driver of other vehicles that it is safe to pass is:
Serga [27]

Answer:

This is correct.

8 0
2 years ago
How many states must pass the Amendment?
svp [43]

Answer: Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states). Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
What is the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction
Morgarella [4.7K]

Answer:

The difference is that the original jurisdiction is where the case begins and the appellate jurisdiction is when the court reviews another court's decision.

Explanation:

Original jurisdiction refers to the right of the court to hear the case first and appellate jurisdiction refers to the right of a higher court to review a court's decision.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • You have stopped for a train at a railroad crossing that is marked with a Crossbuck sign. When the train has passed, A: You shou
    7·1 answer
  • A state legislator wants to amend the Articles of Confederation. How many states would have to agree in order for the amendment
    7·1 answer
  • Should the larger states with more people living in those states be afforded more
    12·2 answers
  • Some Police Officer have issues with ethics and entitlement when they are doing the wrong thing.
    11·1 answer
  • 5. Define the following terms.
    10·1 answer
  • Amphetamines are a<br><br> a. narcotic .<br> b. stimulants .<br> c. depressant.
    6·1 answer
  • A suspect is taking a polygraph and is asked a specific question about the victim. The suspect's heart rate increases and their
    5·1 answer
  • The shift in Canada WW1 and after that year, PLEASE HELP VERY EASY WRITE A PARAGRAPH
    7·2 answers
  • 2. Which leadership position in Congress has the most power?
    7·2 answers
  • Which of the following is a defensive driving technique to manage space zones
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!