Answer:
The answer is below
Explanation:
Labeling theory of crime and deviance is a form of social theory that concluded that people behave defiantly according to the label at which they were given.
For example, if someone is called a by a popular thug name, such a person would start behaving like that particular thug.
There are criticisms of the labeling theory of crime and deviance, some of which are:
1. It does not clarify the main deviance or the reason people take offense in the first place which arises before they have been labeled
2. It suggests that deviants have no knowledge of their offense until they are labeled, but most know they are disobeying institutional standards
3. It does not clarify the source of labels. For example common practices and traditions system or capitalism principles.
Answer:
The right solution will be "Selective prosecution".
Explanation:
- Selective prosecution occurs when someone steals a complaint is made at either the initiative of such a prosecutor instead of being in the usual operation including its investigating authority's organization as a matter of practice.
- It might just be the implementation or enforcement under criminal statutes towards a certain category of citizens as well as the corresponding failure to implement existing penalties against someone outside of the specified clause
Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, Rule 901 (a) ALL IN ALL. The proponent must provide evidence adequate to sustain a finding that the item is what the proponent asserts it is in order to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence.
<h3>What is Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence?</h3>
Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, Rule 901 (a) ALL IN ALL. The proponent must provide evidence adequate to sustain a finding that the item is what the proponent asserts it is in order to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence. The authenticity of the evidence is one need that must be met for it to be considered admissible by the court. A rule of evidence known as "authentication" stipulates that there must be adequate evidence to support a determination that the thing in question is what its proponent says.
The first step in authenticating a piece of evidence is to call a witness who can attest from personal experience that it is what the claimant says it is. As an illustration, in United States v. Evidence must be sufficiently demonstrated to establish its authenticity in order for it to be admitted into court. Only a prima facie showing is necessary, hence the burden of proof for authentication is relatively low.
To learn more about Rule 901 refer to:
brainly.com/question/24261690
#SPJ4
