Law Questions and Answers

Should punishment in america be more metallic to prevent crime?

In other countries they have much much lower crime rates than surrounded by america, what could we do to lower the crime rate?
Answers: Much more harsh.

Plea bargain when enough evidence for a conviction exists should NOT be an selection

If you are sentenced to 20 years, you should do 20 years, not 5 and time off for "apt behavior". Where was your "correct behavior BEFORE you went to intern?

Death penalty is a must, 2-3 appeals tops, not ethnic group spending 20 years on death row.

Prisons should be within camps for minor offenses. They should live within tents with no nouns or TV.

Chain gangs are a must..

Seem similar to only the criminals are treated near dignity and respect, we don't worry in the order of the civil rights of their victims.


There go the Liberals!!!! ANN D can you please show how masses crimes are committed by law abiding handgun owners?

NONE!!! So why steal them from the innocent and violate our Second Amendment Rights?
Yes!

Liberals share in the blame for the suffering of others cause by ongoing crime. The legal system wants to be revised though, in command to insure just convictions. People call for to be educated almost jury rights, of which they're mostly ignorant.
How roughly speaking educating future criminals better so they don't become adjectives criminals?
With the exception of a few psychopaths, no one's gonna go around doing crime if they don't suppose they have to surrounded by order to survive. We're adjectives just human.
In other countries, their punishment rate is much smaller quantity than America, so does harder punishment = lower crime?

Many countries don't have annihilation penalties anymore. America still does, does that close-fisted America has smaller quantity murders?

Maybe America should stop locking up its citizens and spend that money on education and mission training. I know it's a stretch to think that empire with skills would in fact work instead of rob and steal, but it might happen. Only item America has to lose is the millions it pays private institutions to run criminal colleges..I be a sign of prisons.
I don't know if we should go through this process.

What if we minimize what makes crimes happen, such as gun sales, drugs, and etc.
If you can find a study that links lower crime rates to harsher sentencing - why not. But you wouldn't find such a study.

Crime is more tied to socio-economic issues a bit than punishment issues.

If you want to reduce crime, slim down the reasons why culture turn to crime. When people discern good in the order of themselves, feel valued contained by thier community, and percieve that they have a clothed chance to spawn a living - they will do so.
In short, yes.

A sentence should serve as rehabiliation, deterrence, and retribution. Generally, the longer the sentence, the more likely that adjectives 3 of these goals will be served.
Only conservatives regard as punishment deters behavior

to lower the crime rates

take from the rich and bequeath to the poor

legalize drugs

treat children near respect (never use violence or hit to punish them)

listen to them, show them the track by example...

raise children as a culture... integrate the lower class children
and be merciful with them,,,,
I don't know where on earth the American government get off punishing what it call "crime" anyway, their moral code is man made and constantly changing.

God give life to populace, no government have the right to end a natural life except by God's laws.
Punishment isn't the problem. The one and only kind of harsher punishment that could facilitate prevent crime is harsher punishment on white-collar crime.

According to the Home Office, "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population". Harsher sentences won't prevent crime and would purely up that disgusting percentage.

However, you may have a point if you aim that punishment toward the crimes of the rich and head of corporations that manipulate and sometimes create conditions where on earth they profit off of low-class, more adjectives crime.
no punishment..not even the death punishment prevents of deters crime..

what's hurt is that the justice dept know this to be certainty.

most other country's with lower crimes enjoy lower freedom levels. They are not morally better than another country. They hold fewer freedoms that produce the crime.
Yes,
I suppose the death cost needs to be inforced more. Harsh crimes (rape, murder, etc) have need of to be penalized more...that would stop society somewhat.
I think that criminal should hold to serve jail sentences, not 1/3 of the time. Jail requirement to be more like prison, not approaching summer camp where on earth inmates mill around and socialize all time. The death cost needs to be hand out more in cases where on earth DNA evidence is present.


..and I'm a Liberal by the way.
America have the highest incarceration rate contained by the world. The US incarcerates 702 of ever 100,000 adults. Canada, on the other hand, locks up 139 of every 100,000. Russia is the individual country that comes close, at 628.

As such, it seems clear that harsher punishment have been a complete washout, unless you happen to own prisons.
Put more stress on rehabilitation and less on punishment.

Clearly "eye-for-an-eye" in recent times doesn't work.

However, the media is so hyped up on how vicious crime can be, it have whipped the American public into a retribution frenzy.
Outlawing handgun would be the first step to a whole lot smaller number crime. I'm not even sure that shotguns should be allowed. Yes, sometimes I get so angry when I hear that a murderer single got 5 years for his crime, and I abominate the fact that convicted criminals own appeals processes that take years to procure done.

I am not sure what the answer is. I know I had a friend wrongfully convicted, and if it wasn't for the appeals process, he would enjoy died in prison. I would abhorrence to be in that position, and own no resource to get out, ya know?

How do I say: Are you for valid going to abide to the contract?

Is it spell right? if not how do I spell it?
Are you surrounded by deed to abide to the Contract expressions or not?
How do I make this question look profesional?
Are you aware and agree they intentionally misrepresented the us with false information concerning their contract?
Are you aware and agree they alter the construction plans?
Answers: By signing this contract, you agree to abide with adjectives the provisions written herein.

What rights does the Second Amendment grant US citizens?

The Amendment read as follows: A well regulated Militia, anyone necessary to the collateral of a free State, the right of the people to hold on to and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Answers: You collectively have two types of opinion here, both of which are actually wrong, though contain like mad of truth.

The "right" to keep arms is basically that, any individual (even non citizens who are considered a part of the community, customarily three months legally living surrounded by the country does it)cannot be prevented from owning arms, buying them or selling them (though restrictions can be placed on the buying and selling as long as it does not prevent you doing it is a "legal fashion" ie, not selling to those who should not hold them) you are also allowed to take guns to and from the public sale, unloaded. (this actually date back beyond the english Bill of Rights, individuals were not permitted to ride armed on horseback)

The other "right" is that of bearing arms. The supreme court said within Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)

“the right of the people to save and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Carry and conceal is not protected, besides within --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943 they said "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a levy therefor." Therefore any licensing of guns would be unconstitutional (even though the 2A does not apply to the states, i'm sure the NRA wouldn;'t be supporting pass and conceal licensing law if it were.)

You enjoy to actually look at what the founding father were motto to understand exactly what the good posture of arms clause is all give or take a few.

In the First congress discussion on the 2A
“Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I bring it, is intended to secure the family against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in adjectives cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the point for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would present an opportunity to the people surrounded by power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can state who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from carriage arms.
What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of independence. Now, it must be evident, that, beneath this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could clutch such measures, with respect to a militia, as to generate a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments have it in mind to invade the rights and liberties of the general public, they always attempt to verbs the militia, in lay down to raise an army upon their ruins.”

Basically he said that the 2A be there to prevent the federal govt using its standing army to pilfer down the people, if the govt could allege all individuals religiously conscientious then within would be no individuals in the militia to safeguard against the govt.

That means, pose arms is the "right" of individuals to BE IN THE MILITIA.

So, individuals can keep arms, contained by case they are needed by the militia, and they can be within the militia in shield they are needed by the militia. It is all roughly speaking the militia.

But, for those who hate guns, it does not niggardly you have to be surrounded by the militia to own guns, that would defeat the full point of the 2A, you have to be within the militia to bear arms, because private armies are unacceptable for obvious reason and there supreme court cases where on earth people who walk through the streets in formation armed be seen as acting illicitly and not protected by the 2A.
you answered your own question.

why ask when you already know ??

by the agency - do Any states have a "resourcefully regulated Militia" ?
if not, next maybe the 2nd Amendment no longer money what it used to and should be amended for our times.
The RIGHT of the people to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

That's what it states.

The founding Father's know we needed protection for our nation and FROM our government.

Funny how the Supremes are immediately going to re-define this too.

It's REALLY sad!!!
It grant citizens the right to keep and suffer arms.

THe " A well regulated Militia, anyone necessary to the shelter of a free State," is the justification for the right.
The right to preserve and bear arms.
Too bleak our current government doesn't moderately see it that way.
It routine just what it say. People in a economically regulated militia have the right to take on arms thought it has be interpreted throughout the years to give adjectives citizens to bear arms. I do not contemplate that the founding fathers intended to own our country overtaken with ordnance.
Seems so simple, yet it's be debated for decades... when the Supreme Court weigh in subsequent spring, it will be interesting for sure!
the right to bear arms but the governing body want to change that , slaves are easier to contol if they don't hold guns
The right to keep "tolerate arms". The arms of bears, I'm pretty sure that's what it designed. Plus, the founding fathers be pretty sure that no one would verbs that out of context.

But.people did.

Can I ASK YOU, what is a WELL REGULATED MILITIA? Because it really doesn't imply a civilian population next to arms uncontrolled. I find it funny that 2nd Amendment activists place so much stress on the second part of the amendment and shame the first.
As long as I can remember, there's been argument over a moment ago what that means.
The "okay regulated militia" part would come across to suggest that gun registration, at least, is inside the gov't rights. I'm not sure that I think this is a right idea. And here are others who become hysterical about it. But that does seem to be to be what the 2nd amendment is saying.

My suggestion; every chief of household should be required to own and maintain a firearm. (There are municipalities here within the US that have such ordinance, but they don't enforce them. Mostly symbolic, I think)
These weapons should be registered. And I wouldn't be unwilling mandatory regular service. something like our national guard or the Swiss system where on earth everyone is part of the army until retirement.

In this means of access, any right we have to undergo arms would hardly be infringed, this militia would be regulated and we would enjoy protection from our own gov't and from coups-de-tat, etc.
Study history and you would know what it grants. Yes, rear in the year, there be militias because the US Army either didn't exist or be too small to regulate certain parts of the US. Andrew Jackson be a militia leader.

To suffer arms is for the citizens to have a public defense within case some other country decide to invade our public community and we're left near nothing or waiting for our military to minister to us.
A Militia is a citizen army. The founding father's knew that the citizens be required to have the right to guard themselves from an overzealous government. Look at it contained by the context of what they had a short time ago been through.

For those of you that argue the ably regulated militia portion limits the right, maintain in mind that AG Gonzales argued on behalf of the Bush leadership that the First Amendment does not give you the right to free speech. It newly says congress shall go beyond no law restricting that right. Do we want to win into parsing words or should people hold rights until government justify a need to steal them?

Keep in mind the context of the constitution. The framers believed that it be a compact, that it spelled out those limited rights that the ethnic group were granting to the command.

Amendment IX [ Annotations ]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of unquestionable rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X [ Annotations ]
The powers not delegate to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The most adjectives interpretation is

Reason for the right: a well-regulated militia being called for to the security of a free State

The Right Itself: the right of the People to keep hold of and bear arms

You'll become aware of that the word militia, is in the exoneration for the right (otherwise known as the subjective clause of the sentence) not the right itself. The right of the People, is to hold on to and bear arms. Has nought to do with militias.


If you look into the debate and discussions of the founding fathers during the times, the right to suffer arms was put forth to ensure the People allways have a means to scrap tyranny.
The militia, was any man 17-65 years dated. 'Everyone was armed' at the time. It be commonplace and a right possible covered under the 9th amendment as all right.

"A string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respected personal choice.' letter to patrick henry, June 12, 1789, refering to the introduction of what become the Bill of Rights. William Grayson

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the goverment to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberty of the people while in that is a large body of citizens, littel if at adjectives inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand primed to defend thier rights and those of thier fellow citizens." Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.' -- proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 Thomas Jefferson

'The great doubt is, that every man be armed." Patrick Henry

'A militia when properly formed are in certainty the people themselves.. and include adjectives men capable of carriage arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the integral body of the people other possess arms... The mind of that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

"...whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the undamaged body of the people allways possess arms, and be skilled alike, especially when young, how to use them..." Richard H. Lee, extra letters from the federal cultivator 53, 1788

To understand the amendments one must infer the men that wrote them, and thier intentions, not, modern day thoughts on what we want them to have it in mind.

Finally, if your still with me

"Firearms stand subsequent in exigency to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone...the rifle and pistol are equally indispensible... more than 99% of them by thier silence indicate that they are contained by safe and sane hand. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When fireamrs dance, all go, we need them every hour. President George Washingon 1st session of Congress.

One more comment on your interview: The 2nd amendment does not imply or distinguish 'private citizens' (Citizen one a person not within the military) it means People' adjectives the people.

Why do people have a sneaking suspicion that smoking pot is wrong? Is it?

I was a moment ago wondering why people seize in a uprage next to pot. I can see meth and hard core drugs. I purely don't see why they don't legalize pot dosen't it enjoy some health benifits too?
Answers: OF course it have heath benefits approaching it helps beside glaucoma and depression and other things most places don't want it legal because if you be caught we don't have a device to show the cop how much be done but one day it will adjectives be legal
1. It is undemocratic.

2. And it is a mind-altering drug. One of my friends in college be killed within a car catastrophe because he drove off the road after smoking pot.

3. It may hold health benefits, but that would be contained by a very controlled situation.
It is not desperate
(Leah that sux but same can happen near caffine pills, booze, not sleeping, Nyquil, etc so a person doing a stupid entry is not enough to build it wrong or bad)

The main purpose is that stoned people are not productive and so smoothly found due to smell, behavior. If it made you work more hours in the rat muddle of corporate life after it would not only be lawful...but mandatory.it actually make you do less so the "man" have to make sure ethnic group do not use it to have a moment's pleasure or because certain groups "know what is best for you"
Some ancestors mistakenly call it a "Gateway" drug to harder, more perilous and addictive drugs.

Interestingly they don't make duplicate analogy to alcohol. Have you ever heard ethnic group say that they just SMOKE when they drink? Alcohol becomes the gateway drug to Tobacco.

Is smoking pot wrong? For some it is, for some it is not, again, lately like alcohol.

Not one and only does marijuana have benefits to some sick ethnic group from glacoma to migraines to chemotherapy patients, you can not OD on it like you can from Alcohol poisoning.

For adjectives debates, merely substitute Marijuana for Alcohol and settle about Prohibition and adjectives of the ills that come out of that time in our history.

End the War of Drugs... Repeal Prhobition.

Finally don't fret at adjectives about the tobacco and alcohol companies. Don't you muse that Anhueser Busch , Brown & Williamson, Seagrams etal have a plan surrounded by place to get packages of pot onto the shelves at Walgreens and your local liquor store? Imagine going into a grocery store and buying an ounce of pot purely as you would a fifth of alcohol. And buying it for less.
Smoking pot can incapacitate your future children. It make you lazy and robs you of ambition. When you stopped getting buzzed by pot you will move onto something harder to carry the buzz. Eventually the buzz becomes more historic than what should be. Yes pot can help some populace deal next to pain and that's a flawless thing. But essentially it makes relations losers and a waste to society. While the drugs may variety you feel as though you are accomplish great things, you are not and it is an illusion. I don't want to enjoy to support you or your damaged children. I used to be a hippie and would move about to parties where on earth everyone, but me, was large. Oh yea. Everyone there be staring at a glowing number on the door and chitchat about how cool it be. Boring. . . And this great pianist playing this great tune. . .really bad. And next my best friend passed out cause the drugs be so good. Wow, that be not a good time. . .it is individual the illusion the drugs create. You are really doing nought. . .Oh yea and my bf passed out on my bed laying within his own puke. Geez! My best friend went from Pot to glass panes to LSD. She resembling to sit on my balconey and be high, dignified, high. I lived on the fourth floor beside the pool beneath me. I had to take her to stop her from picking the red flower. It was the Coke domestic device on the other side of the pool four stories down. She would have walk off the balconey. Yea drugs are such fun. Altho it be funny when she (very high) backed into a Miller beer truck or he back into her. The driver was thoroughly drunk. They argued and argued and both ended up at the tavern drinking. The next time the beer driver come in sober and my friend come in sober, they didn't even remember respectively other. They couldn't figure out what everyone be laughing at. It's a waste. I don't want to be responsible for any of the consequences any.
And to the stoner, maybe you necessitate to consider what you could be doing instead of sitting on your *ss inhaling after working hard adjectives day. It dulls you and take the edge sour of life, to some extent than living it to the fullest and takes a pretty apposite bite into disposable income too. There is so much else to do besides sit and suck. And because other drugs are legal, that doesn't be set to we need a different to deal near. Tell this stupid stuff to someone that doesn't know better. I know you and hundreds just similar to you.
I don't know, I guess if it meant more votes for the Republicans, we might see it legalized.

Do any people surrounded by the law paddock in Chicago know what "Above Reproach" medium??

We'll skip the Cook County system !!!
Answers: Honest and upright. Without suspiscion.

I finally completed 18 month driving safety arts school for 2nd DUI (sober now for 27 mos!) what's an SR 22?

Answers: The SR22 is a form for the DMV of financial responsibility. Your insurance fill it out and sends it to the DMV to get your driver's license rear legs. It just tell the DMV you have insurance. It costs give or take a few $20 or more in your insurance bill.
I don't know what an SR22 is.
Just required to congradulate you, on 27 months of sobriety.
My son just reach 60 days.
I will pray for both of you.
As the others have stated it have to do with proof of insurance for the dmv - basically wanted to put surrounded by my congrats as well - I'm going on my 17 month!!


-edit - purely curious, why did someone give me a thumbs down? That is the correct answer, and depending on what state you are surrounded by, anything more specific could be wrong - and I said congrats, wtf?
More information than you thought you would ever need.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1...

Copy of the declamation piece entitled AM I DELINQUENT?

Answers: yes

SErving papers?

How much does it cost to get a sheriff to serve court papers?
Answers: Usually $50... same as the process servers charge.

Can anyone help me?

ok so i hold been messing around beside this guy for about 5 mos presently... he has a girl friend but she lives surrounded by a diff town... me and him live almost next door.powerfully at first he was material nice to me and all.but presently he is a total jerk...he call me a *****...and is just rude torwads me... he is totaly connote to his girlfiriend he hits her and everything...

i want to stop having sex beside him and keep him away from me but it merely dont work. when he wants to own sex and i tell him no he only just keeps on anyway and he will make clear to me that it pisses him off to be told no and that if he get turned down for sex he will go stale.. i am scared to destruction of him..im afraid that if i dont let him surrounded by he will beat my door contained by or sumthing.. i have be tryn to get outta this mess but he wont permit me...
and now im worried i might be pg by him and he told me that if i obtain PG HE WILL KILL ME! i really think he scheme it plz can anyone tell me what to do? he have me so mixed up
Answers: Honey, you NEED to call the police. That man is raping you, threatening you and frightening you and THAT IS NOT OK.

You can grasp a restraining order against him. But you enjoy to call the police to do it. DO NOT consent to him keep hurting you and scare you. You can do it - have the courage to ask for assistance.

Also, you need to pocket a pregnancy test. If indeed you are pregnant, you will necessitate some help too. All the more idea to keep yourself undisruptive from him.

Good luck!
Well you get hurt once you will capture hurt twice so I will tell you only just to leave him alone and that you deserve better you do not hold to keep on doing that next to him trust me it is not worth it I know babe I want you to just be joyous thats right if you give me the occasion thats what you will get the arbitrary for everything to be loved to be heard to be taken fastidiousness of and to have my trust love you babe and devout luck with the desicion.

Can I still sue?

I fell when I was pregnant and lost the babe-in-arms. I fell in a integral on someone property. I did not realize that I lost the baby until it be born. (It was a twin) It have been three years can I still sue?
Answers: Grubbing for money, eh? (It's alwyas easier to grub for it than to in truth work.) Yes, you can likely sue, but after waiting three years to report suit, the judge, jury, defendant's attorney and all the rest will know that this is nearly money and not about even-handedness.
Anyone can sue; I don' t think you can do anything but rack up allowed bills for both sides.

Sorry for your loss
You can sue for anything- winning is entirely different.
You would own to prove that the fall be what caused your miscarriage nil else- which you can't prove now.
doubtful
I am not sure but I doubt that you can hold the other participant responsible due to satute of limitations.
Generally, there are time confines in which a lawsuit desires to be brought. In CA it's one year for personal injury.

You need to speak next to a lawyer and find out what the statute of limitations on your potential travel case would be? You should do it ASAP!

Only licensed lawyers can provide legal support. I am not a lawyer.

More Questions and Answers:
[1564] - [1474] - [1792] - [2170] - [1599] - [1567] - [2266] - [1082] - [2281] - [440] - [2148] - [777] - [608] - [2500] - [1272] - [1579] - [1817] - [991] - [1406] - [1542]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: