The Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 mandated that the same 10-year penalty be imposed for the possession of 50 grams of crack cocaine as for the possession of 5,000 grams of powder cocaine.
This Act was passed with the intention of targeting the sale and possession of crack cocaine, which was more accessible and affordable in inner-city communities.
The Act failed to consider the racial implications of the disparity between the sentences, as the African-American population was disproportionately impacted by the harsh penalties.
This discrepancy was addressed in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity in sentencing.
To know more about racial implications click on below link:
https://brainly.com/question/30942487#
#SPJ11
according to heckscher and ohlin, each country has certain , such as land, labor, and capital.TrueFalse
True because According to Heckscher and Ohlin, each country has certain resources, such as land, labor, and capital, that are used in the production of goods and services.
These resources are known as a country’s endowments. This theory suggests that a country has a comparative advantage in producing goods and services that require a relatively larger amount of a particular resource.
For example, if a country has a large amount of land, it can have a comparative advantage in producing goods that require a lot of land (e.g. agricultural goods).
Similarly, if a country has a large amount of labor, it can have a comparative advantage in producing goods that require a lot of labor (e.g. manufactured goods).
The concept of endowments and comparative advantage helps explain why certain countries specialize in certain types of production.
To know more about country’s endowments click on below link:
https://brainly.com/question/29546170#
#SPJ11
true/false. small claims courts, for the most part, resolve relatively minor disputes with maximum recoveries usually limited to a few hundred dollars at most.
The given statement "small claims courts, for the most part, resolve relatively minor disputes with maximum recoveries usually limited to a few hundred dollars at most." is false as have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants.
Small-claims courts only have limited authority to hear civil disputes involving private parties. Small claims courts may also perform other judicial duties and may go by different names in different jurisdictions. The maximum amount of money that a small-claims court can award in judgments is typically in the tens of thousands of dollars or pounds. The plaintiff typically forfeits any right to seek an amount greater than the court can grant by filing a lawsuit in small claims court. Reducing a claim to meet the requirements of this venue may or may not be permitted by the plaintiff.
Small-claims courts typically have jurisdiction over private disputes involving small sums of money. The routine collection of small debts forms a large portion of the cases brought to small-claims courts, as well as evictions and other disputes between landlords and tenants, unless the jurisdiction is already covered by a tenancy board.
Learn more about small claims courts at:
brainly.com/question/16507110
#SPJ4