Answer:
See explaination
Explanation:
1. The Defensible Space Theory can really be seen as a logical explanation for controlling crime from the perspectives of a defender as well as an attacker. This theory makes use of the science of psychology with the science of meaningful space. When the defender, that is, the home owners will be responsible for their home space, the sense of responsibility will be higher on the same. The home owners will be accountable for their defense. This encourages home owners to design their home space in such a way that they will be able to control their environment based on their present capabilities like family structure, income level, and socioeconomic status. The attacker, that is, the potential criminal will feel insecure and uncomfortable on a highly defended land. So, the probability of the criminal attacking the home space or neighborhood may be lessened. This argument is supported by the study which involved private homes in two high-crime areas in St. Louis. These areas recorded lower crimes than public areas using the Defensible Space Theory.
2. According to the Routine Activity Theory, the condition for crime is the presence of a suitable target(s) and the absence of a guardian(s). It is important to note that something or the other will always be present to motivate potential offenders to commit crime. So, there will always be motivated offenders. If motivated offenders are present, so suitable targets will be present in the society on the other side for crime to take place. So, suitable targets cannot be left unguarded which will increase the probability of crime, considering the target is in an isolated position. Even a weak guardian is sometimes equivalent to no guardian or protector. So, I think, presence of guardian(s), more specifically, more capable guardian(s) plays the greatest role at reducing
Answer:
It underlines Ubuntu's compassion and empathy, and our courts should promote that principle through rehabilitation, taking into account the potential for reconciliation between an offender and the community. Still have questions?
The use of information to falsely accuse a company such as it occurred when XYZ ran a story that was not related to the restaurant they wanted to accuse is an example of False light (option D)
The false light is:
- A grievance of the laws of the United States that refers to defamation.
- They include a person's right to protection against false publicity to the public.
- This right must be in balance with freedom of expression
According to the above, in the situation, the cable channel XYZ incurred false light because they showed a video of a restaurant chain different from the restaurant chain in which there was an outbreak of E. coli.
Therefore, the chain of restaurants in the video would be affected by defamation because it did not correspond to the case of the E. coli outbreak. So the correct answer is D. False light.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/8512832
Answer:
I think the answer to your question is mainstreaming
Explanation:
