How might these challenges make Mose more likely to break the law? With the fetal alcohol syndrome, the learning disability, and the living conditions, from a psychological standpoint he has no home, no family, is with the wrong crowd, and has no examples to show him how to be a responsible man and has no one to motivate him. A study shows the overall average for prisoners had either as learning disabled or borderline learning disabled for the three sites was 32%. approximately 60 percent of adolescents and adults with FASD reported interface with the legal system, and 35 percent reported having been incarcerated for a crime. 30 to 40 percent of foster children have been arrested since they exited foster care. Over one-fourth have spent at least one night in jail and over 15 percent had been convicted of a crime. Not to put the kid down but as you can see he didn’t have much of a chance to begin with according to the study’s but he can change, at the end of the day I don’t think he really understands what he is doing is wrong and he needs someone to guide him and if he doesn’t have that I guarantee you he will continue to go down the wrong path. He has no family, no one that loves him, isn’t going to school, around the wrong people, wasn’t raised by the right family, he’s never seen anything other then the wrong way of life
How might these challenges make Mose more likely to be victimized? In court a Jury and the judge are going to see what went wrong in his life, a lawyer is going to use that as their defense which honestly isn’t a bad thing I personally don’t think the kid needs to be in jail I think he should be put in a rehab, sent to a therapist or someone that could help him
What services might help Mose avoid involvement with the criminal justice system? No services can keep him out of the system but they will help, unless they are keeping him in a program that he is at everyday and he is staying there nothing can keep him out of the system, he is going to choose what he wants to do at the end of the day, but he could for example go to like I said before therapy, rehab, if under 18 back to foster care, it would probably be up to the court if the company presses charges. I personally think a judge would not make him spend any time in jail, Juvie, prison I think they would instead realize that he needs a support system and needs someone to guide and help him, I know that’s what I would choose to do with him if I was the judge
Pick the one that’s nicer and if not the. Just pick the cuter one
Answer:
- An election determines a winner fairly
- An election is a part of democracy
- An election will determine the person who runs the country
An election is important to a country's democracy because it determines the winner in a free and fair election.
An election is a part of a working democracy, because if the country did not have an election, it would not be a fair democracy.
An election will <u>fairly</u> determines who will run the country for the next period of years, for example, 4 years or 8 years.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
