<u>Explanation:</u>
Using the Miranda v. Arizona case as an example, we need to remember that M.r Mirinda was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping; which are part of the important issues society tries to avoid
In other words, he went against these important values and goals of society. Hence, there must be a balance between the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel over breaking other laws in the constitution.
Answer:
you can't always rely on every stranger over the internet to help give you answers, look for trusted and newer sources from articles, reports, or other sources.
Explanation:
The correct answer is B: accompanying inmates to and from court.
Answer:
I believe it is D
Explanation:
a plea bargain is "an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or "no contest" (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence ..."
Answer:
3 basic rights.
1.Religious freedom
2. Freedom of speach
3. Freedom of the press
Explanation:
All of our rights even inalianable rights come with limits.
The only right that has no limits is the freedom of thought which is the same as religious freedom. You have the right to think and believe anything. But even that has restrictions on how you can act on your beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not a license to do anything related to that belief. You can't engage in human sacrifice as a ritual for the belief. You can't hide behind your religous beliefs as a sheild against prosecution for murder.
"Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, -freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things the second cannot be. ~ <em>Cantwell v Connecticut.</em>
<em />
The freedom of speach also has limits. You can say anything but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so could cause a stampede and endanger the lives of others. Likewise, we have an impeachment case before the Senate right now in which the former president incited a riot at the Capital complex that caused the death of 6 people. The question before the Senate is did the former President incite a riot causing death and destruction of public property?
The freedom of the press is a first amendment right. But that doesn't give a publisher the right to slander or print falsehood about another person. The freedom of assembly is another 1st amendment right, but there is a difference between a lawful and peaceful assembly and a riot that results in the death of 5 people and the destruction of property.
