The correct answer to this open question is the following.
In judging whether this is fair handling of the case, ask:
A. Is it fair to Eddie?
Youngsters have to learn to be responsible for their life. They know that for every action there is a consequence. In this case, it is the third time that this happened. So it is not new for him, and he really knew what he was entering. So he got what he deserves.
B. Is it fair to Best Buy?
Best Buy is a serious company with a good reputation in the market. It has to follow rules and regulations and respect the law. Eddie is a criminal and there are procedures to be followed.
C. Is it fair to society?
I think this is not a matter of fairness, but to obey the law that is the same to all. This application of the law allows people to live in harmony in society. Otherwise, everybody would act according to their interests and advantages.
D. Is it in the best interest of society to punish Eddie severely?
It is in the best interest of society to punish Eddie to give a clear message. It's the law. You have to obey it, otherwise, there would be chaos in society. Furthermore, it was not the first time Eddie committed a crime, it is the third time. He had his chances to improve his conduct and learn his lessons. He decided otherwise. And as I said, for every action there is a consequence.
Explanation:
Introduction
When empires fall, they tend to stay dead. The same is true of government systems. Monarchy has been in steady decline since the American Revolution, and today it is hard to imagine a resurgence of royalty anywhere in the world. The fall of the Soviet bloc dealt a deathblow to communism; now no one expects Marx to make a comeback. Even China's ruling party is communist only in name.
There are, however, two prominent examples of governing systems reemerging after they had apparently ceased to exist. One is democracy, a form of government that had some limited success in a small Greek city-state for a couple of hundred years, disappeared, and then was resurrected some two thousand years later. Its re-creators were non-Greeks, living under radically different conditions, for whom democracy was a word handed down in the philosophy books, to be embraced only fitfully and after some serious reinterpretation. The other is the Islamic state.
From the time the Prophet Muhammad and his followers withdrew from Mecca to form their own political community until just after World War I—almost exactly thirteen hundred years—Islamic governments ruled states that ranged from fortified towns to transcontinental empires. These states, separated in time, space, and size, were so Islamic that they did not need the adjective to describe themselves. A common constitutional theory, developing and changing over the course of centuries, obtained in all. A Muslim ruler governed according to God's law, expressed through principles and rules of the shari'a that were expounded by scholars. The ruler's fulfillment of the duty to command what the law required and ban what it prohibited made his authority lawful and legitimate.
You call them a Deists. Deism combines a rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existance of a single creator of the universe.
Answer:
Protection from cruel punishment
protection from excusive fines
Explanation:
Alexander Hamilton was known to openly support Various forms of Federalist polciies, which are backed by bankers and wealthy businessmen.
At that time, the majority people in the north were influenced with anti-federalist ideology, so they would pretty much disagree with or even despise Hamilton's policies.
