Answer:
a. It inflicts punishment on particular persons without granting them the right to a trial.
Explanation:
A bill of attainder is an a legislative act which declares a person guilty without a trial. This bill nullifies the civil rights of a person.
Parliaments nowadays do not use this bill as it is seen as an unfavorable, because of exploitation of this bill and is against the right to due process (habeas corpus).
It was used by King Henry the Eight by which he was able to execute a number of notable figures.
Religious literacy is understanding and interpreting the religious texts without any outside help.
Explanation:
Stephen Prothero is one of the leading religious scholars in the US who derives his thought from the tenets of Protestantism as Martin Luther envisioned it.
One of the biggest tenets is for a person to understand and work their own religion. All religious people must know and understand their texts and be able to interpret it by themselves without any outside help being needed.
This is to prevent god men and scholars to take over their religious practices and being able to be professing their religion.
Answer:Sociological research is especially important with respect to public policy debates. The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to terrorism and violent crime are difficult to resolve at the level of political rhetoric. Often, in the news and in public discourse, the issue is framed in moral terms and therefore, for example, the policy alternatives get narrowed to the option of either being “tough” or “soft” on crime. Tough and soft are moral categories that reflect a moral characterization of the issue. A question framed by these types of moral categories cannot be resolved using evidence-based procedures. Posing the debate in these terms narrows the range of options available and undermines the ability to raise questions about what responses to crime actually work.
In fact policy debates over terrorism and crime seem especially susceptible to the various forms of specious, unscientific reasoning described later in this chapter. The story of the isolated individual, whose specific act of violence becomes the basis for the belief that the criminal justice system as a whole has failed, illustrates several qualities of unscientific thinking: knowledge based on casual observation, knowledge based on over-generalization, and knowledge based on selective evidence. The sociological approach to policy questions is essentially different since it focuses on examining the effectiveness of different social control strategies for addressing different types of violent behaviour and the different types of risk to public safety. Thus, from a sociological point of view, it is crucial to think systematically about who commits violent acts and why.
Although moral claims and opinions are of interest to sociologists, sociological researchers use empirical evidence (that is, evidence corroborated by direct experience and/or observation) combined with the scientific method to deliver sound sociological research. A truly scientific sociological study of the social causes that lead to terrorist or criminal violence would involve a sequence of prescribed steps: defining a specific research question that can be answered through empirical observation; gathering information and resources through detailed observation; forming a hypothesis; testing the hypothesis in a reproducible manner; analyzing and drawing conclusions from the data; publishing the results; and anticipating further development when future researchers respond to and re-examine the findings.
Explanation: The major factors responsible for these experimentations had earlier being revealed and portrayed.
It was most likely that the anti-federalists would choose a robust state government and a meager federal one.
What principles do antifederalists adhere to?
What are antifederalists?
Many Anti-Federalists supported a constrained central government because they equated British persecution with strong governments. Others wanted to further democracy but were concerned that a strong government would be in the hands of the wealthy. They felt that the states were giving the new federal government an overwhelming amount of power.
What were the Anti-Federalists' arguments?
The national power grab was opposed by the Anti-Federalists. They supported localized, constrained national authority, similar to that provided by the Articles of Confederation.
For additional information on The Anti-Federalists, visit brainly.com/question/267094
#SPJ4
