technically this is asking your own personal opinion but i will give an asnwer based on my knowledge of it:
"In my personal opinion, it is an unfair clause. If a criminal were to go to court for a crime and walk free he would never be able to be accused of that crime in the future. Detectives are always making new leads in cases and if they were to find any new eveidence, no matter how incriminating it was they would not be able to arrest him a second time.
I think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted is more appropriate.
<h3>Who is a Defendant?</h3>
This is referred to as the individual or group which have been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in court.
It is more appropriate for the defendants to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted because the jury will employ the use of evidences and testimonies in other to give a verdict. This ensures fair judgement and prevent innocent from being punished unjustly.
Read more about Defendant here brainly.com/question/7315287
#SPJ1
Answer:
<em>The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ensures the human and democratic rights of all the nations, nationalities, and peoples of Ethiopia without exception and it has granted equality and mutual cooperation to them all.</em>
<em />
Answer: this is important because without congress being able to override a veto the president could veto any law he disliked.
Explanation:
Answer:
here you go did my best
Explanation:
Dear, Colleague
I am overall concerned with this Criminal, due to her not showing up to trial. She has committed perjury before she seems dangerous and I can't fight on anyone's behalf if she doesn't show I am concerned but I would greatly appreciate your comment on it.
Thank you, your Colleague
