papayabutta

papayabutta

Lv1

papayabutta

0 Followers
0 Following
0 Helped

ANSWERS

Published11

Subjects

Law3English1Sociology2Algebra1Calculus1Biology1Mathematics1Chemistry1
Answer: Molecular shape plays a critical role in the translation of genotype t...
Answer: What is the number and name of the bill you chose to research? The bil...

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.

Answer: Background Information: John Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in Wri...
Answer: Answer is in explanationStep-by-step explanation: Layla is struck by t...
Answer: 24Step-by-step explanation: FOR WEIGHT 110 WE HAVE 4 MEMBERS FOR WEIGH...
Answer: 0.128 MStep-by-step explanation: The balanced chemical equation for th...

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?

Answer: the answer is explained belowStep-by-step explanation: It is difficult...
Answer: 48x^2+144x-84
Answer: You will find the answer in the explanation Step-by-step explanation: ...
Answer: Go to explanation for answerStep-by-step explanation: Promotes Rehabil...
Answer: You will find the Answers below in the explanation Step-by-step explan...

Weekly leaderboard

Start filling in the gaps now
Log in