Looking for Spring 2025 Intro to Criminal Justice (CRJ-201-01) test answers and solutions? Browse our comprehensive collection of verified answers for Spring 2025 Intro to Criminal Justice (CRJ-201-01) at lms.peace.edu.
Get instant access to accurate answers and detailed explanations for your course questions. Our community-driven platform helps students succeed!
State law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for:
More women and minorities began to be recruited to police forces during what decade?
Today about one-third of law enforcement agencies require some sort of college or university degree; consequently, higher education has been shown to benefit police officers and police agencies as demonstrated by each of the following except:
The vast majority of cases are resolved informally at the stage of pretrial procedure (bail, arraignment, plea bargain) and thus never come before the Courts:
The vesting of judicial power within the United States is found within:
When the Supreme Court of the United States decides to hear a case, it grants a:
There are five goals of modern sentencing (punishment); of the five, which goal emphasizes that punishment of offenders be fair and just; that the punishment fit the crime:
The Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at trial; this right was granted to the indigent in a very famous Supreme Court case (covered in another exam question). Nine years after the aforementioned case, this Supreme Court case granted counsel to all criminal cases where the penalty includes imprisonment (jail or prison):
Since September 11, 2001, which federal law enforcement agency is considered the main investigative agency for terrorism?
Which of the following Supreme Court cases ruled that issues relating to deadly force must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable officer. For instance, if an officer was approached in a threatening manner by an assailant wielding a knife … and the assailant failed to stop when warned and was killed by the officer … and it turned out that the assailant was deaf. The officer would not be held liable if he had no way of knowing about the disability according to this Supreme Court case: