How to use infractor in a sentence? Find typical usage patterns (collocations)/phrases/context for "infractor" and check conjugation/comparative form for "infractor". Mastering all the usages of "infractor" from sentence examples published by news publications.
So if this equation is positive, the potential infractor will have an incentive to violate the potential victim's rights. Here the two theories come into play. On a retributive justice framework, an additional cost R should be imposed to the transgressor that is proportional to the harm done (or intended to be done). Specifically, R = r\cdot H, where r is the degree of responsibility the infractor has and 0 \leq r \leq 1.
|
|
In chapter 4 Nozick discusses two theories of punishment: the deterrence and the retributive ones. To compare them, we have to take into account what is the decision that a potential infractor is facing. His decision may be determined by: G \cdot (1-p)-(C+D+E) \cdot p Where G are the gains from violating the victim's rights, p is the probability of getting caught and (C + D + E) are the costs that the infractor would face if caught. Specifically, C is full compensation to the victim, D are all the emotional costs that the infractor would face if caught (by being apprehended, placed on trial and so on) and E are the financial costs of the processes of apprehension and trial.
|
|
A geas can be compared with a curse or, paradoxically, a gift. If someone under a geas violates the associated taboo, the infractor will suffer dishonor or even death. On the other hand, the observing of one's geas is believed to bring power. Often it is women who place geasa upon men.
|
|
The band derived its name from geis (pl. Geasa), which in Irish mythology and folklore, is an idiosyncratic taboo, whether of obligation or prohibition, similar to being under a vow or spell. A geis can be compared with a curse or, paradoxically, a gift. If someone under a geis violates the associated taboo, the infractor will suffer dishonor or even death.
|
|
Therefore, the decision a potential infractor would now face would be: G\cdot (1 - p) - (C+D+E+R) \cdot p But this still won't deter all people. The equation would be positive if G is high enough or, more importantly, if p is low. That is, if it is very unlikely that you will be caught, you may very well choose to do it even if you have to face the new cost R. Therefore, retributive justice theories allow some failures of deterrence. On the other hand, deterrence theories ("the penalty for a crime should be the minimal one necessary to deter commission of it") don't give enough guidance on how much deterrence should we aim at.
|
|
The Act came about as the result of the First Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which examined the flaw in criminal law relating to indecent assaults against children. Under the law as it then stood, there was no "indecent assault" unless there was some form of threat or show of force to the victim, and the Act was intended to close this gap. The Act came into force on 2 July 1960, and Section 1 made it an offence to commit or incite an "act of gross indecency" with somebody under the age of fourteen. The infractor was liable to imprisonment for up to two years on conviction after indictment, and six months or a fine of £100 for a summary conviction.
|
|
No results under this filter, show 6 sentences.