Answer:
It was a civil case. Snoozer was seeking compensation for the loss of her birds.
Explanation:
A jury has the responsibility of making the decision if, on the facts presented in the case, an individual is guilty or not guilty of the crime being charged. The verdict is reached after evidence has been produced and presented in court to allow the judge take a stand. In this case, Snoozer was seeking the compensation for loss of the birds that were missing.
Answer:
B. childhood sexual instincts.
Explanation:
Neo-Freudian personality theorists were most likely to disagree with Freud about the importance of childhood sexual instincts.
Most Neo-Freudian Thinkers such as the case of Erik Erikson considered that Freud was not accurate when he assured that the personality of an individual was shaped in a great extent by childhood events and sexual instincts. Some other neo-Freudian thinkers were also in disagreement with Freud in aspects such as the negative view of the human nature, the lack of emphasis on those social and cultural aspects that impact behavior and personality or Freud's argument of sexual urges as a primary engagement factor.
The Supreme Court system is the first thing that comes to mind
Yes, sometimes candidates can change people opinions for the worse, so by not stating their opinion; they can actually help the voters have their own mind. (This is your opinion though their asking you for your opinion, but this is just mines)
Curfews in or around her area, crime rate of teens 18 and younger, etc.
