Answer:
Criminal law is the most ancient branch of the law. Many wise observers have tried to define and explain it, but the explanations often include many complex and subtle distinctions. A traditional criminal law course would include a lot of discussions on criminal intent, the nature of criminal versus civil responsibility, and the constitutional rights accorded the accused. But in this chapter, we will consider only the most basic aspects of intent, responsibility, and constitutional rights.
Unlike civil actions, where plaintiffs seek compensation or other remedies for themselves, crimes involve “the state” (the federal government, a state government, or some subunit of state government). This is because crimes involve some “harm to society” and not just harm to certain individuals. But “harm to society” is not always evident in the act itself. For example, two friends of yours at a party argue, take the argument outside, and blows are struck; one has a bloody nose and immediately goes home. The crimes of assault and battery have been committed, even though no one else knows about the fight and the friends later make up. By contrast, suppose a major corporation publicly announces that it is closing operations in your community and moving operations to Southeast Asia. There is plenty of harm to society as the plant closes down and no new jobs take the place of the company’s jobs. Although the effects on society are greater in the second example, only the first example is a crime.
Crimes are generally defined by legislatures, in statutes; the statutes describe in general terms the nature of the conduct they wish to criminalize. For government punishment to be fair, citizens must have clear notice of what is criminally prohibited. Ex post facto laws—laws created “after the fact” to punish an act that was legal at the time—are expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. Overly vague statutes can also be struck down by courts under a constitutional doctrine known as “void for vagueness.”
In order for a plaintiff to establish that they have the standing to sue, they need to allege a personal stake in the resolution of the controversy.
<h3>When can a plaintiff sue?</h3>
For a plaintiff to be able to sue a defendant, they need to show the courts that they will be personally affected by the case.
This is to ensure that people and companies are not sued haphazardly by plaintiffs for one reason or the other because the legal process can be quite expensive.
Find out more on the right to sue at brainly.com/question/15011106.
#SPJ1
Option B is correct. <u>Good faith</u> is a complete defense to fraud as it is inconsistent with the defendant's intent to defraud or willfulness, purposes essential to the charges.
About Fraud
Fraud is a criminal offence as well as a civil tort. Allegations of fraud in civil litigation may be based on a negligently made or intentionally made factual misrepresentation. In order for a remark to be intentionally untrue, the speaker must have either known it was wrong or been careless about its veracity. Additionally, it must have been the speaker's intent for the listener to rely on the assertion. Then the promise must have been reasonably relied upon by the hearer, and that reasonable reliance must also have resulted in harm.
To know more about Misrepresentation:
brainly.com/question/28964131
#SPJ4
Answer:
Government policies pertaining to science and technology
Related policies—with respect to educating the public, issuing patents, and developing human capital by nurturing a new generation of professionals and scientist with energy expertise—also have a critical role to play
