Who is the father of nation in bangladesh

Failure about to police responding late in the scene due to equipment

Alex_Xolod [135]

Answer:

What exactly is the question here. I'm kind of confused. But will be happy to help you if you further elaborate. :]

Explanation:

8 0

2 years ago

Economic costs for automobile collisions can include hidden costs.

svet-max [94.6K]

Answer: its false i took this test awhile ago and i got it right its FALSE

6 0

3 years ago

WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti

LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0

3 years ago

Things about justice

Feliz [49]

Answer:

The components of criminal justice include police, prosecution, judiciary, prisons, probation, and parole.

The criminal justice system has multiple and often conflicting objectives: the interests of the victim have to be balanced with the due process rights of the defendant, the broader public interest, as well as considerations of cost effectiveness.

Preventing crime is at least as important as punishing offenders. The three kinds of situational crime prevention, like robbing a bank, involve increasing the effort that offenders must spend to commit a crime, increasing the risk of detection and reducing the rewards gained by criminal behaviour, for example by lowering the amount of cash held in a facility.

The key principles that guide the practice of criminal justice in Western nations include that criminal prosecution should remain a last resort, that criminal justice interventions should be the minimal response necessary (i.e. if a warning is sufficient, don’t send the offender to prison), and that the severity of the sentence should increase as the crime becomes more serious.

Of all crimes, only about 10 per cent are reported to the police. Reasons for that include that the crime was not that serious, it is felt that the police can’t do anything about it or that the victim is worried of not being believed

There are several different ways to punish an offender: financial penalties, community-based punishment (i.e. imprisonment), community service, a curfew, and a residence requirement, among others.

A suspended prison term is especially effective with young or first time offenders as the mere threat of punishment is often sufficient.

The judicial response to crime varies greatly from one society to another, even though the crime rates are similar. In Holland, for example, imprisonments account for about 7 per cent of all sentences imposed, whereas in the US about 70 per cent of sentences involve custody.

We expect our prisons to punish and to rehabilitate – we want offenders to come out as better people. But even if offenders had a change of mind after getting out of prison, their criminal record sticks with them forever and their employment prospects are greatly diminished, worsening the chances to lead a fulfilled life.

In England, it costs about £38,000 ($60,000) per year to house one prisoner. For this reason alone it is important to ensure that no-one is sent to prison unless it is absolutely necessary.

Explanation:

~Himiko Toga~

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What is the purpose of arresting someone

sasho [114]

Answer:

The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law.

3 0

3 years ago