Answer:
See explaination
Explanation:
1. The Defensible Space Theory can really be seen as a logical explanation for controlling crime from the perspectives of a defender as well as an attacker. This theory makes use of the science of psychology with the science of meaningful space. When the defender, that is, the home owners will be responsible for their home space, the sense of responsibility will be higher on the same. The home owners will be accountable for their defense. This encourages home owners to design their home space in such a way that they will be able to control their environment based on their present capabilities like family structure, income level, and socioeconomic status. The attacker, that is, the potential criminal will feel insecure and uncomfortable on a highly defended land. So, the probability of the criminal attacking the home space or neighborhood may be lessened. This argument is supported by the study which involved private homes in two high-crime areas in St. Louis. These areas recorded lower crimes than public areas using the Defensible Space Theory.
2. According to the Routine Activity Theory, the condition for crime is the presence of a suitable target(s) and the absence of a guardian(s). It is important to note that something or the other will always be present to motivate potential offenders to commit crime. So, there will always be motivated offenders. If motivated offenders are present, so suitable targets will be present in the society on the other side for crime to take place. So, suitable targets cannot be left unguarded which will increase the probability of crime, considering the target is in an isolated position. Even a weak guardian is sometimes equivalent to no guardian or protector. So, I think, presence of guardian(s), more specifically, more capable guardian(s) plays the greatest role at reducing
Answer:sorry not sure
Explanation:
sorry not sure dont know spanish
Limited government because of it being world wide company’s
In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed in response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals, offering broad protections for whistleblowers at public companies in order to encourage fraud reporting. Private companies were considered immune to the law.
But in 2014 the Supreme Court heard a challenge to SOX, and ruled that even though the plaintiffs were not employees of the publicly traded company, the SOX whistleblower statute applied to them. The reason? They suffered retaliation for reporting alleged fraud involving financial reporting of a publicly-traded company.
Here’s what the law now says:
SOX covers employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors.
SOX covers privately-owned companies if they provide services for publicly-traded ones. Answer:
Explanation:
