Answer:
Definitions below. V
Explanation:
Foreiture is the loss or giving up of something as a penalty for wrongdoing, something similar to a Confiscation or Sequestration.
The types of Foreiture include but are not limited to:
Criminal forfeiture: An action brought as a part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant. It is an in personam (against the person) action and requires that the government indict the property used or derived from the crime along with the defendant. If the jury finds the property forfeit-able, the court issues an order of forfeiture.
Civil judicial forfeiture: An in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.
Administrative forfeiture: An in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited, a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance, a monetary instrument, or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value.
Answer: If i'm correct i think its The lack of government funding toward criminological research
Explanation:
I never understand these questions
Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
