Answer:
acquisition
Explanation:
Acquisition: In psychology, the term "acquisition" was explained by a psychologist named Ivan Pavlov and is defined as the very first stage related to learning in the classical conditioning process through which a specific response is being established.
In other words, the acquisition is described as a period whereby a particular stimulus tends to trigger a specific conditioned response.
Example: In classical conditioning, when a dog begins to salivate after getting associated with the sound of a bell.
In the question above, the given statement signifies the "acquisition" period.
The answer is Uganda because they have an autocratic government, and citizens under an autocratic government have little participation with the government.
hopefully my answer helps you
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
Hi,
Dwayne loves going to Las Vegas. Even when he is inside the casinos, where there are no windows to give him light cues, he still feels sleepy by midnight, because his body still is influenced by circadian rhythms.
Answer:
There were not "branches" of government in the modern sense with the judiciary separated from the legislature and the executive. But Ammianus is not correct that the Senate had "all" the power either. The Senate appointed the Consuls each year (the executives, who effectively took the place of kings) and pretty much all the other officials. Senate resolutions (consults) had virtually the force of law. The Senate itself could act as a judiciary over its own members, particularly in cases of treason and such, and the officials they appointed had judicial as well as executive powers in their respective jurisdictions.
But there were also other, broader assemblies, of the army, the citizens, and the plebs (the membership of which would have overlapped a lot), and each of those had genuine powers. Formal written laws (leges) had to be voted in by the citizen assembly - they couldn't be simply decreed by the senate, and they had more weight than senate consults. Perhaps most importantly, the tribunes of the plebs had veto power over the acts of any official, which was a protection of the rights of common citizens against abuse by patricians.
The whole thing had begun with revolt against the abuses of corrupt kings. The senate had probably been a council of nobles advising the kings before that. With the kings gone, the senate took control, and the appointment of consuls was a way to have someone fill the roles kings had played like leading the army. Over the first couple of centuries of the republic, there was great civil strife between patricians (nobles in the senate) and plebeians (commoners), particularly over burdens of military service and taxation. The outcome of it was the growth of the plebeian assembly's powers and the tribunes, and the creation of a system that would admit leading plebeians as well as patricians to the senate's ranks through public service. So it all evolved in response to the demands of the time.<u>(Answer not mine)</u>
