Answer:
gender intensification
Explanation:
Gender intensification: The term gender intensification is given by Hill and Lynch in 1983.
According to Hill and Lynch, gender intensification is explained in terms of the gender differences that increase and appears in adolescence. It explains that girls and boys early in their adolescence experience an enormous amount of pressure or compulsion to conform to the gender roles which is culturally sanctioned.
In the question above, Elisa is likely experiencing gender intensification.
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.
Romanian:
Legile moderne care implică copii sunt foarte diferite de legile celor cincizeci de ani în urmă. Legile moderne protejează copiii în multe feluri, printre care: protejarea dreptului copiilor la educație, dreptul la îngrijiri medicale, dreptul la nediscriminare, prevenirea legilor muncii copiilor.
English:
Modern laws involving children are very different from the laws of fifty years past. Modern laws protect children in many ways including the following: protecting children’s right to education, right to health care, right to non discrimination, the prevention of child labor laws.
Today, a surprising number of countries call their goverments communist (surprising to me because I didn't know)
-Cuba
- People's Republic of China
-North Korea (which has a specific bland of communism)
-Vietnam
-Laos
? I barely get any of this and what question or subject is this from?
