“Crime” is not a phenomenon that can be defined according to any objective set of criteria. Instead, what a particular state, legal regime, ruling class or collection of dominant social forces defines as “crime” in any specific society or historical period will reflect the political, economic and cultural interests of such forces. By extension, the interests of competing political, economic or cultural forces will be relegated to the status of “crime” and subject to repression,persecution and attempted subjugation. Those activities of an economic, cultural or martial nature that are categorized as “crime” by a particular system of power and subjugation will be those which advance the interests of the subjugated and undermine the interests of dominant forces. Conventional theories of criminology typically regard crime as the product of either “moral” failing on the part of persons labeled as “criminal,” genetic or biological predispositions towards criminality possessed by such persons, “social injustice” or“abuse” to which the criminal has previously been subjected, or some combination of these. (Agnew and Cullen, 2006) All of these theories for the most part regard the “criminal as deviant” perspective offered by established interests as inherently legitimate, though they may differ in their assessments concerning the matter of how such “deviants” should be handled. The principal weakness of such theories is their failure to differentiate the problem of anti-social or predatory individual behavior<span> per se</span><span> from the matter of “crime” as a political, legal, economic and cultural construct. All human groups, from organized religions to outlaw motorcycle clubs, typically maintain norms that disallow random or unprovoked aggression by individuals against other individuals within the group, and a system of penalties for violating group norms. Even states that have practiced genocide or aggressive war have simultaneously maintained legal prohibitions against “common” crimes. Clearly, this discredits the common view of the state’s apparatus of repression and control (so-called “criminal justice systems”) as having the protection of the lives, safety and property of innocents as its primary purpose.</span>
Answer:
I believe the answer is B.
Explanation:
correct me if im wrong :)
EDIT: I DID THE PRACTICE FOR IT..ITS CORRECT YESSSSSSSSSSSSS
Nez perce was the one of the people who brought them suffering. killing some of too.
It is a true statement that the three-fifths compromise lasted until the fourteenth amendment declared that everyone would be counted as a whole person.
<h3>
What was the three-fifths compromise?</h3>
It was the compromise agreement between delegates from the North and South at the Constitutional Convention (1787) that the three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.
However, this method of counting 3/5 of slaves for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives lasted until the fourteenth amendment declared that everyone would be counted as a whole person.
Read more about three-fifths compromise
brainly.com/question/535544
#SPJ1
