This is a great question with various for and against points so i shall just give you a few that come to mind.
FOR
-conditions can be below to basic living standards, which is immoral and a violation of human rights
-People wouldn't voluntarily pay money to maintain the living conditions of convicts due to the atrocities of their crime.
-Statistics support the fact 'it doesn't work' as rehabilitation is in the minority
-it does not reduce crime rate in the slightest
-corruption
AGAINST
-what is the question suggesting should happen to convicts instead?
-wrongfully convicted
apologies im running out of time, so i can write appropriate against. hope this helps though
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Answer: 1. before they had moved in they should have checked everywear in the house for this specific reason. 2. the couple should have gotten the mold professionally removed or resolved ( replaced the wood or use some prevention chemicals).
Explanation:
if they had done these things the child would have most likely been fine i also dont know how this relates with "law"
Answer:
The opportunity cost in this scenario is the three lost opportunities Harry experiences by deciding to go to his parent's house. The term opportunity cost refers to the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. The potential gain Harry may have lost by choosing to go to his parents for dinner instead could be relaxation while fishing, His house painting being finished, and time spent with his friends at the birthday party. These all can be considered lost opportunities due to choosing an alternate opportunity, that being dinner at his parents.
Explanation:
Hope this helps if so
pls mark brainliest :D
