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.
On February 24, 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students at school retain their First Amendment right to free speech. The story of this landmark case begins four years prior, during the early wave of protests against the Vietnam War.
Answer:
The possible excuse in defense of the adolescent could be the kleptomania condition. It is a neurological condition which is characterized by recurrent episodes of compulsive steal.
Explanation:
A. Because that is a “threat” and a crime deterrence is a specific act of a punishment to someone
