Answer:
this question is kind of hard to answer because it depends on the circumstances but my main answer is no.
Explanation:
1) if they've committed a crime, then they really shouldn't have the ability to have access to a fire arm, especially if their crime(s) involves a firearm.
2) they gave away their absolute freedom the moment they committed a crime, so they shouldn't get the exact same "freedoms" as the citizens who are completely clean.
3)criminals are seen to have people be more careful around them, so they shouldn't get "free rein"
4)they could commit the crime or a different maybe larger crime if they know there wont be "after jail" consequences.
5) because some criminals cant be fully 100% trusted with certain things.
(i understand they seem repetitive, i had the right idea but i just cant get it to come out the way im thinking it.
Explanation:
The majority of Americans, for example, have more trust and confidence in the police than they have in almost any other institution. However, opinions of the police have long been lower in areas where crime is most heavily concentrated. ... The U.S. criminal justice system is more fair and effective than ever.
Answer:
El derecho consuetudinario son las normas relativas a la costumbre o tradición de una comunidad. Es una fuente de derecho subsidiaria de los derechos positivos. ... Ejemplo de ello son, el derecho civil, el penal, el laboral etc. Y el derecho consuetudinario es el antónimo de este derecho positivo.
Explanation:
Answer:
Conciseness means brevity and completeness. The entire underlying premise of “Elements of Style” (and the purpose of this section on “conciseness”) is captured in the mantra of Will Strunk's Rule #17: “Omit needless words, omit needless words, omit needless words.”
Explanation:
can i get the crown please
