🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in

Subjects

Homework Help for Law

393 results

Psychology is the study of mind behavior and mind. It concerns the biological influences, social pressures, and environmental factors that affect how people think, act, and feel.

Questions
Academic integrity

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Avatar image
usaushsj asked for the first time
Answer
Share
Avatar image
hsshsjsj asked for the first time
Answer
Share
Lv1
in Law·
28 Apr 2023
lizacatv
plumwombat187
punithg05
5 answered
bssbshshsh
1 watching
Answer
Share
Avatar image
bssbshshsh asked for the first time
Answer
Share
Avatar image
hdbzzhhzzbzbzb asked for the first time
Lv1
in Law·
28 Apr 2023
punithg05
gnana0537
lizacatv
7 answered
hdbzzhhzzbzbzb
1 watching
Answer
Share
Answer
Share
Avatar image
kdidisussis asked for the first time
Answer
Share
Avatar image
ususshshshau asked for the first time
Answer
Share
Lv1
in Law·
27 Apr 2023

Answer the following questions

Influencing U.S. Democracy: Enlightenment Thinkers

Activity: Working with a partner, you will be tasked with gathering information about one of 4 Enlightenment Thinkers and the ideas they contributed to the development of American government. Then, taking on the persona of your assigned philosopher, you will draft a speech to be made to the class in which you convey that philosopher’s ideas and beliefs. Use this sheet to document your cooperative efforts.

Assigned Enlightenment Thinker:

Part I: Gathering Information—use your textbook and given handouts to answer the questions below.

Background Information:

1. Where was the philosopher born?

2. What was his upbringing?

3. What was his job?

4. Where did he study?

5. What book(s) did he write?

Philosophical Ideas:

6. What influences contributed to this thinker’s ideas?

7. Did this philosopher believe people could govern themselves?

8.Is humankind good or bad (according to him)?

Beliefs in Government:

9. What did this thinker believe is the best form of government?

10. Did this thinker contribute any new political ideas?

Part II: Compose a Speech—compose a 2 minute speech introducing your philosopher. Your speech should:

____ Include a brief biography

____ Cover the thinker’s philosophy on Government/basic beliefs

____ Be presented in a clear and concise fashion

OR

Write a Letter - write a letter, taking on the persona of your philosopher, to Thomas Jefferson in which you:

____ Include a brief biography

____ Provide advice on how American government should be structured

Part III: Closure—Typing your response below, respond to the following essay prompt as a pair to reflect on the contributions of all 4 philosophers to the development of American government:

The U.S. Constitution was influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment Thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Montesquieu. Select two philosophers. Describe and compare the ideas they contributed to the development of American democracy.

himanshujoshi3738
plumwombat187
2 answered
gygh
1 watching
Answer
Share
Avatar image
gygh asked for the first time
Lv1
in Law·
27 Apr 2023

What is Apportionment? Video by Census

1. What is Apportionment?

2. How does it work?

3. Why is the Census important to apportionment for our national, state and local legislatures (districting)?

Baker v. Carr (1962)

4. Why is Baker v. Carr important to apportionment and districting?

5. How did this impact districting in local districts?

6. What are a couple of the negative impacts when an individual attempts to vote in the sense of “one person, one vote”?

Gerrymandering Video by Khan Academy

7. What did you notice about the shaping for the congressional districts in Chicago?

8. What is gerrymandering?

Reapportionment (Redistricting) in Prince George’s County

Current District Map of Prince George’s County

2021 Proposed District Map of Prince George’s County (Redistricting)

9. What areas were to be impacted by the changes? Who would have benefited from these changes? Who would not have benefitted from the changes?

Read and Watch the local News coverage of the redistricting plans:

- Could Prince George's County's Redistricting Plan Disenfranchise Inner-Beltway Voters? : NPR

- Judge Throws Out Prince George's County Redistricting Map – NBC4 Washington

10. Was the result of redistricting plans fair to you? Why? Why not?

Answer the prompt below using details and examples from the lesson and your prior knowledge

11. PROMPT: How do demographics and population shifts impact the political system?

himanshujoshi3738
killerdrag
2 answered
gygh
1 watching
Answer
Share
Lv1
in Law·
25 Apr 2023

Current Bill Graphic Organizer   

Directions: Go to C-SPAN’s Congressional Chronicle Site or Congress.gov.  Find a bill that you would like to further research.  Use the information from the site on your bill to complete the questions in this organizer and then prepare a defense for how you would vote on this bill if you were a member of Congress to present to the class.

Questions

Your Answer

What is the number and name of the bill you chose to research?

Who was the Sponsor of the bill? Include their name, party, state they represent, and are they a senator or representative?

Did the bill start in the house or the senate?

What does your bill do?  Explain the purpose of your bill.

Where is your bill in the 7 Steps of how a bill becomes a law?

If it has not been signed into law, what is the next step for your bill.

If You Were a Member…

How would you vote on this bill? Prepare a detailed explanation of why you would or would not vote for the bill you researched to share with the class.

Your Explanation:

punithg05
papayabutta
2 answered
nfkdkdkffkjfkdkdk
1 watching
Answer
Share
Avatar image
nfkdkdkffkjfkdkdk asked for the first time
Lv1
in Law·
25 Apr 2023

Influencing U.S. Democracy: Enlightenment Thinkers

Activity: Working with a partner, you will be tasked with gathering information about one of 4 Enlightenment Thinkers and the ideas they contributed to the development of American government. Then, taking on the persona of your assigned philosopher, you will draft a speech to be made to the class in which you convey that philosopher’s ideas and beliefs. Use this sheet to document your cooperative efforts.

Assigned Enlightenment Thinker:

Part I: Gathering Information—use your textbook and given handouts to answer the questions below.

Background Information:

Where was the philosopher born?

What was his upbringing?

What was his job?

Where did he study?

What book(s) did he write?

Philosophical Ideas:

What influences contributed to this thinker’s ideas?

Did this philosopher believe people could govern themselves?

Is humankind good or bad (according to him)?

Beliefs in Government:

What did this thinker believe is the best form of government?

Did this thinker contribute any new political ideas?

Part II: Compose a Speech—compose a 2 minute speech introducing your philosopher. Your speech should:

        ____        Include a brief biography

        ____        Cover the thinker’s philosophy on Government/basic beliefs

        ____        Be presented in a clear and concise fashion

OR

        Write a Letter - write a letter, taking on the persona of your philosopher, to Thomas Jefferson in which you:

          

        ____     Include a brief biography

        ____     Provide advice on how American government should be structured

Part III: Closure—Typing your response below, respond to the following essay prompt as a pair to reflect on the contributions of all 4 philosophers to the development of American government:

The U.S. Constitution was influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment Thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Montesquieu. Select two philosophers. Describe and compare the ideas they contributed to the development of American democracy.

punithg05
papayabutta
2 answered
nfkdkdkffkjfkdkdk
1 watching
Answer
Share
Lv1
in Law·
25 Apr 2023

Read the text above in the two photos attached and then answer these two discussion questions below

Facts:
On June 13, 2003, Constable Roughley received a call about a man trying to use a stolen credit card at an Ontario liquor store. An officer who was already at the scene radioed Roughley to say there were two male suspects. Roughley arrived on the scene and saw the other officer speaking to a cashier and one male customer. As he entered, Musibau Suberu walked out of the store past Roughley and said something like "It was him, not me, I guess I can go."
 
Roughley, said "wait, I need to talk to you", and followed Suberu out of the store and to a minivan. A short conversation followed. Suberu was sitting in the driver's seat and Roughley was standing beside the door. From this conversation, Roughley learned that the other man in the store was Suberu's friend, who had asked Suberu to drive him. Roughley then received another radio call with the license plate number of a van that had been used in another liquor store purchase involving a stolen credit card earlier that day. The license plate number matched the license plate of the van Suberu was sitting in. Roughley noticed liquor store bags in the back seat, and decided he had grounds to arrest Suberu for fraud.
 
Roughley arrested Suberu and advised him of the reason. Before he could tell Suberu about his right to counsel, Suberu made several other statements, along the lines of "if [my friend] admits it was him, can I go?" After a short conversation, Roughley told Suberu to "just listen" and was able to read him his rights.
 
At trial, Suberu argued that the evidence seized when he was arrested should be excluded from evidence, because he was not informed of his right to counsel at the time of detention. Suberu argued that Roughley had detained him at the point he told him to wait. The trial judge disagreed and convicted Suberu. The Court of Appeal found that Roughley had detained Suberu by telling him to wait. Roughley should have informed Suberu of his right to counsel at that point, but, there was only a very brief delay, which was allowed. They upheld the conviction. Suberu appealed to the Supreme Court.
 
The Decision:
The Court found that there was no detention, and upheld Suberu's conviction.
 
Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that when arresting or detaining someone, the police must inform the person of the reasons for the arrest or detention. The police must also inform the person of their right to speak to a lawyer, without delay.
 
A person is under police detention when they are either physically restrained by the police, or they have a legal obligation to comply with a police demand. A person can also be detained if they are put in a position where a reasonable person would believe they have a legal obligation to comply with the police, even if they actually do not.
 
In order to do their job, the police must be able to make inquiries and investigate matters. Roughley testified that this was why he approached Suberu, and that until he was radioed with the license plate number that matched the van Suberu was sitting in, he did not believe he had grounds to detain or arrest Suberu. When Roughley told Suberu to wait and followed him to the van, he did not consider Suberu to be under any legal obligation to comply. Suberu could have ignored Roughley's questions, or even driven away. Roughley did not try to obstruct Suberu's path, and Suberu did not say at any point that he didn't want to speak to Roughley. In all the circumstances, there appeared to be no detention. Since there was no detention, Roughley was not obligated to inform Suberu of his right to counsel at this point.
 
The Court went on to consider the meaning of "without delay" in section 10 (b) of the Charter. They concluded that the only logical meaning is "immediately." When the police make a detention, they must inform the subject of their Charter rights immediately.

1. The decision was released on the same day as R.v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32. Do you think these cases were decided in the same way or do you notice any difference in the justices’ reasoning?

2. Do you agree with the court that it was unreasonable for the Suberu do you think he was being detained? What do you think Constable Roughley would have had to do for the court to decide that there was a detention?

papayabutta
punithg05
2 answered
Goatcookiemonsterani
1 watching
Answer
Share
Lv1
in Law·
25 Apr 2023

Read the text above and the two pictures attached and answer these two discussion questions below:

Two plainclothes police officers were on patrol in the Danforth area of Toronto. Their primary duty was to visit schools in the area to help create a safer environment and prevent the assaults, robberies, and drug offences that had been happening there. A third officer, Cst. Gomes, was in uniform and driving a marked police car, to provide a visible police presence in the area.
 
The plainclothes officers saw Donnohue Grant, a young black man, walking down the street. They noted that he seemed to stare at them in an unusual way, and was fidgeting with his coat and pants. They asked Gomes to "have a chat" with Grant to see if there was any reason to be concerned.
 
Gomes got out of his car and blocked Grant's path on the sidewalk. He asked Grant to provide his name and address. Grant nervously adjusted his jacket and Gomes asked him to keep his hands in front of him. The two plainclothes officers, who were watching the conversation from their own car, felt Grant was acting suspicious, and decided to stand by. They took up positions behind Gomes and flashed their badges to identify themselves as police officers.
 
Gomes asked Grant a number of questions, and in response Grant replied that he had been arrested a few years earlier, and that he was carrying a small amount of marijuana and a firearm. The officers arrested and searched Grant, and seized marijuana and a loaded revolver. Grant was advised of his right to counsel.
 
At trial, Grant claimed the officers had violated his rights under sections 8,9 , and 10 of the Charter and argued that the firearm should be excluded from the evidence under section 24(2). The judge did not find any Charter breaches, admitted the firearm into evidence, and convicted Grant of several firearm offences. On appeal, the court found that the police had arbitrarily detained Grant, and therefore breached his rights under section 9 of the Charter. However, they found that the firearm should still be admitted into evidence. Grant appealed further to the Supreme Court.
 
The Decision:
The Supreme Court found that the police had violated Grant's rights under sections 9 and 10 of the Charter.
 
Section 9 of the Charter protects people from being detained by the police without any good reason. Police detention may be physical-for example, handcuffing or restraining someone-or it may be psychological. Psychological detention happens when the police make a demand that a person must comply with, or when the police act in a way that gives the impression that the person must comply with a demand. If the Court has to decide whether or not there was a police detention, they will look at the whole set of circumstances and the way the interaction played out. If reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe they were being detained, the court will find out that there was a detention.
 
Although the police were acting within their powers when they decided to approach and question Grant. Grant was not  under any legal obligation to answer. When Gomes told Grant to keep his hands in front of him, he gave the impression Grant has to obey. This impression was reinforced by the plainclothes officers joining Gomes and standing behind him as backup. A reasonable person in these circumstances would most likely believe they had an obligation to do as the police said, so the court decided that Grant was psychologically detained.
 
The Court also found that the police had infringed Grant's the police must under section 10 of the Charter. At the time of detention, and of their right inform a detained person the reasons for their detention, and of his right to to speak to a lawyer. The police did not inform Grant of his right to counsel until after they had detained him, searched him, and arrested him. The court said this is too much of a delay.
 
Although the Court found the infringement of Grant's Charter rights serious, they also felt that the public interest in keeping guns off the streets outweighed it. Since this was an 'uncertain' area of the law at the time, the Court allowed the firearm into evidence. All but one of Grant's charges were upheld.
 

1. Do you agree with the courts decision to admit the fire arm as evidence? Why or why not?

2. The court wrote (paragraph 32) that if police are unsure, whether an individual thinks they’re being detained, “ it is open to them to inform the subject in unambiguous terms that he, or she is under no obligation to answer questions and is free to go.” do you think this is a good policy? Does it go too far or not far enough?

karthikeyanm
1 answered
Goatcookiemonsterani
1 watching
Answer
Share
Answer
Share
Make an impact
by contributing
  • Help answer questions
  • Upload study documents
  • Earn Knowledge Points
  • Get free sitewide access
  • Win on the weekly leaderboard
  • Earn up to 20% of the recurring revenue when someone purchases a subscription from your content ($1.8-$24 per subscription)
Make an impact by contributing

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Law 700
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in