Answer:
police protection, education, highway building and maintenance, welfare programs, and hospital and health care.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
B.money because many people killed for money.
Answer:
Those on the right, including American conservatives, tend to favor more freedom in economic matters (example: a free market), but more government intervention in personal matters (example: drug laws). ... Libertarians favor both personal and economic freedom and oppose most (or all) government intervention in both areas.
Answer:
maybe
Explanation:
ome observers believe the crisis is due to the lack of economic opportunities, while others argue that it’s a result of foreign meddling and disproportionate military power. The reality, though, is that these are all consequences rather than the cause of Pakistan’s troubles. Taken as a whole, they underscore a deeper crisis within Pakistani society that goes right to the nation’s very foundations—a crisis of identity that originates in the late 19th century, when the idea of an independent Muslim nation in South Asia first emerged.
As Pakistan was founded in truly modern terms—inspired by the principles of self-determination that were prospering during the wave of independence movements in the post-World War II era—the best place to start understanding Pakistan isn’t actually one of these former colonies, but a future colonist: post-revolutionary France.
Not only does Pakistan’s post-independence trajectory bare an uncanny similarity to that of France’s First Republic, but the critiques of its path are similar to those of the French Revolution.
