Crime

It depends on the institution and the criminal justice department within the school as to which focus they prefer.

The Bachelor of Arts degree (BA) has a broader scope, with a strong emphasis on the humanities, theoretical and general knowledge in a recognized discipline, interdisciplinary field, or of a professional study.

The Bachelor of Science degree (BS) is more of a focused approach with a science base to include a balance of liberal arts, technological knowledge, math and computer oriented skills, and practical skills needed for a particular discipline within the field.

If it resulted in an arreest and criminal charges (e.g.: Assault - Affray - etc) it will.

Overall, the numbers of households increased from 1990 to 2000.

Most notably, when you're a detective, you are a detective of any type of crime. If you have been assigned to the special victims unit, your primary duty is to investigate crimes involving special victims, most notably, sexual assault victims including children. Even homicide detectives will investigate less serious crimes when there are aren't homicides to investigate.

Probably theft and murder.

its means the the court can hear by decide to make the case go into recess

True

Criminal justice is society's last line of defense because it is the last resort after social norms have been violated. People must be disciplined for breaking the law, or chaos would reign.

Justice demands that all people be treated as equal in corted.beacause

because i really don't know

The political position, supported by the majority of the voting population holds that drugs used for pleasure or recreation are of no benefit in a modern society and that certain drugs can be ranked as to the damage they may cause to that society. Law enforcement supports this position on the grounds that the cost of using these drugs is a driving force behind other criminal behavior. Therefore if illegal drug use is ended, theft, burglary, robbery and murder rates will decrease. The laws are therefore written in such a way that a very small quantity of a drug in a persons possesion may be ignored, while a larger amount indicates an intent to traffic. At one time an effort was made to have marijuana made legal, have it taxed, and to control its use in that manner in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are controlled. That effort failed. Science and medecine have had little or no influence on this subject. Morality holds the upper hand today. As the cost of warehousing the vast number of prisoners in the US increases, Economics may again take the lead. Alcohol could not be stopped by prohibition. Taxing cigarettes at a higher rate has had some effect on reducing smoking, but it has also increased a black market enterprise. Some of the following benefits have been put forward as arguments in favor of criminalizing the specific drug user: The individual drug user (as opposed to trafficker, manufacturer, etc.) is often white collar, not a violent criminal, not well versed in her own legal defense, and more frequently has sufficient cash resources to pay a fine. This means that this person makes for a safe, easy arrest, followed by money, often transferred directly into law enforcement. Opponents of this argument question whether the punishment fits the crime, and whether a white collar occassional drug user shold be treated in the legal sense in the same way as someone guilty of repeated assault and battery, robbery, B&E, etc. (Note that minor possession offenders often spend more time in jail than second time crimes against persons offenders). Proponents note that certain criminals (rapists, sexual sadist killers, and such) evolve through a "ramp up phase" where they act out lesser crimes (burglary, breaking and entry, lewd display, etc.), which gives them a higher degree of comfort in perpetrating the greater crimes. Proponents have supported the idea that criminal violations such as individual drug use may psychologically allow the perpetrator to more comfortably act out far more serious crimes. Ergo, stopping this in the bud will reduce crime overall and more severe crimes in particular. Opponents of this approach question the validity of the "gateway" concept. They suggest that high end crimes-against-people felons suffer from a series of social, behavioral and psychological disorders that make such high-end crimes attractive, whereas misdimeanor individual drug users do not share the same pathology, thus invalidating the symptomology and the prognosis. Proponents of this theory suggest that interrupting the end-users of the product by either arresting and imprisoning them will reduce demand for illegal products, thus attacking the industry directly. Historically, attacks on the supply side of narco-trafficking have been stunningly ineffective, so attacks on the other end of the supply/demand formula might work. Opponents question whether this method is financially or ethically feasible. First, it would involve the arrest and trail (and possible imprisonment) of literally millions of Americans, at a huge cost. There is also no guarentee that the trials would result in convictions (pricey if they do; unconvincing if they don't). Also -- once more -- the issue of the punishment fitting the crime comes into play here. For a crime that harms no person directly, and has a questionable effect on society, how harsh can the punishment be before we start damaging our own sense of justice? There is also the final question in this category of, if America did this, and it was successful, would the impact be enough to stop the reest of the traffic, considering that this would not necessarily have any effect on the international market.

The actual wording will depend on the state, but 'intentional killing' is unlikely to be classified as manslaughter.

Going under cover to catch a criminal such as a police officer posing as a prostitute inorder to catch people trying to pick them up.

Of course there are gang problems in many states of India, but the newspapers don't usually discuss this information until some brutal killings take place.

U can be a police or try out to be a police and maybe become a policemen or policewomen so hats your answer to your


question

It's a little unusual but not unheard of. If they have a legitimate reason for doing so (e.g.: they are working on a similar case or cases and they wish to compare the two crimes with one another). So long as the chain of custody is thoroughly documented and not broken the evidence remains un-tainted.

Alright... a little clarification, since I found someone who actually is a Lt. Detective in Homicide for the SFPD. Barring the case you just mentioned, where they are working on a similar case, it is (according to him) almost impossible to check out evidence unless you have been assigned to the case. But thank you for the answer! :)

personnel

It sounds like you wish to be a secretary, and it is certainly possible to be a secretary without being a police officer. But if you wish to be in law enforcement, I do not think such a thing is possible.

Fifth Amendment (Study Island)

Cuz, I'm black! Got a problem? Get the hell over it!! :D

Graham v Connor is a landmark court case. This Supreme Court case deals with police officers using excessive force in cases where they should not be.

They can ask you anything they want, for just about any reason. Did you think there was a rule?

On a traffic stop, they can make any type of inquiry, assuming they had a reason to stop you. They have to tend to business of writing the ticket, in a reasonable amount of time, and then hand it to you. At that point you are told (or you can ask) about being "free to go." If he says yes, you can drive off. If he says "Yes, but I would like to ask you more questions." It is then a voluntary contact and you can decline his questions, and leave. If the police completes the ticket and then withholds your paperwork, or license, for the purpose of further detaining you for questioning, your answers may not be admissable in court, and you can file a grievance with the officer's department.

If you file a complaint, they can ask you anything, since you initiated the contact.

If you are a suspect, and not in custody, they can ask you anything until you choose to walk away or close the door.

If you are in custody, they must advise you of your Miranda rights (to silence) and right to have an attorney present. Usually they must get you to either agree in writing or verbally, before they proceed with questioning.

Short-term recovery

Betty Smith was a school girl in a village about 35 miles north of Van Rhynsdorp. It was alleged that she had received a parcel of rough diamonds from Alexander Bay. Three men were alleged to have lured her from a school dance and murdered her. Her body was found in a ditch.

A trial took place in Cape Town in 1953 but all the accused were found not guilty.

On June 7, 2004, she was deported back to Columbia. Her remaining three sons were earlier deported to Columbia, and they were assassinated days after arriving. No one has heard or seen her since she arrived in Columbia. Her youngest son is still alive living in Miami as a hip hop producer.