Montesquieu pushed for the division of powers among the three branches of government because he thought that no one group should be able to rule it. Thus, option D is correct.
Who is Montesquieu?A French judge, man of letters, historian, and political philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755), also known as Montesquieu, is credited with helping to establish sociology as a scholarly field.
Montesquieu's most significant writings are the Persian Letters and The Spirit of the Laws. According to Montesquieu, the ideal form of government is chosen by the people.
He promoted the notion of "separation of powers," defined as the distribution of authority among three different groups of officials, as the optimum form of government. His concepts served as the foundation for the U.S. Constitution.
Learn more about Montesquieu here:
https://brainly.com/question/4325651
#SPJ7
You are the Police Officer...
You are dispatched to 123 Main Street in reference to a disturbance. Upon arrival you make contact with John Doe. John invites you inside and begins to advise that he is having an argument with his roommate Jane because she has not contributed to paying her portion of the rent for the month. While you are standing inside by the front door, you observe a small baggie of what appears to be marijuana on the coffee table and a bong in front of where John is sitting.
Based on this scenario. Do you have probable cause for an arrest? Who would you arrest? And what are the charges, if any?
they would be charged with possession of an illegal substance (depending what state and how many kilos the baggy is carrying) and yes you do have a reason for arrest and john would be arrested
Answer:
The answer above is correct, and i very much agree with them!! also mallory I'm here, mallory can you post a new question so i can text in the comments if possible?
Explanation:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a separate system of justice for juveniles? Be sure to fully explain your reasons.
Answer:
Explanation:
Age is the most significant clear measure isolating the adolescent court from the grown-up criminal court. State laws shift in the base and greatest age limitations. Under precedent-based law, the base age for considering an individual responsible for criminal conduct is 7. Most extreme age is the age when an individual is characterized as a grown-up and not, at this point subject to the authority of adolescent court. Most states set the greatest age at 17 years old or underneath.
Police caution
Police practice gigantic prudence in managing adolescent guilty parties. They have the accompanying choices:
Discharge and caution.
Discharge and document a report.
Take the adolescent to the police headquarters and make a referral to a network youth‐services organization.
Allude to adolescent court consumption, without confinement.
Allude to adolescent court admission, with detainment.
More than 70 percent of the adolescents who are captured by the police are alluded to the court. Yet, numerous contacts between the police and adolescents are never recorded on the grounds that the police handle things casually. For offenses, for example, check in time infringement, fleeing, and intruding, the police may caution the adolescent as well as educate the guardians. Now and then police allude adolescents to social‐service offices, a training called redirection, which expels the adolescent from the adolescent equity framework and evades any negative results that may connect to naming a young "reprobate."
A police or school referral to adolescent court can be made with or without detainment. Confinement is the transitory imprisoning of young people who are anticipating demeanor of their cases. Most state laws require a confinement hearing under the steady gaze of an adolescent court judge can hear a case. The intention is to conclude whether to discharge the youngster to their folks or hold care. The significant purposes for securing up adolescents detainment focuses are
To make sure about their quality at court procedures.
To hold the individuals who can't be sent home in light of the fact that parental oversight is deficient.
To keep them from hurting themselves and to forestall wrongdoings (preventive confinement).
In 1994, more than 12,000 misconduct cases were moved to grown-up criminal court by a procedure called confirmation (waiver of ward). State and government resolutions indicate the time of youthful wrongdoers (typically 16 or 17) at which criminal courts have locale and accommodate waiver. The choice with respect to whether to move a case is made by an adolescent court judge at an exchange hearing.
In certain states, waivers can apply to adolescents over the age of 16 paying little mind to offense. In different states waivers can happen just for lawful offenses. The impact of a waiver is to deny an adolescent the security of the adolescent court and to expose the adolescent to the chance of getting cruel discipline. The Supreme Court governed in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) that capital punishment can be forced for wrongdoings submitted by adolescents as youthful as 16.
Arbitration in adolescent court
During an arbitration (or fact‐finding) hearing, an adolescent court judge chooses whether or not there is verification past a sensible uncertainty to name a young "reprobate." Rights stood to adolescents incorporate
The option to notice of charges.
The option to advise.
The option to stand up to witnesses.
The privilege to cross‐examine witnesses.
The benefit against self‐incrimination.
