“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:Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population. The case arose from a challenge to the unequal population of congressional districts in the state of Georgia
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can answer the following.
The major U.S. War that helped change the laws that stated that enslaved Africans were not U.S. Citizens was the American Civil War (1861-1865).
Before the Civil War, slavery was the normal thing in the large plantations of the southern states. Indeed, the economy of the South totally depended on slaves to produce the kinds of crops that had to be exported to Europe.
During the war, U.S. War, US President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, stating that al slaves in the south had to be free.
After the war, and during the Reconstruction period, white people established a series of laws called the Jim Crow laws that limited black people's rights.
It was the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution granted citizenship to all the people born in the US or that were naturalized in the US, as was teh as of most black people.
The atlantic slave trade began in 1500s
They could get in a car crash, kill themselves or hurt some on else
