Self-Assessment of Leadership SkillsGoal: To assess own leadership skills. Content Requirements:

Self-Assessment of Leadership Skills    Goal: To assess own leadership skills. Content Requirements: Determine your preferred leadership style using The Foundation of Nursing Leadership’s Leadership Development – Test One –…

Continue ReadingSelf-Assessment of Leadership SkillsGoal: To assess own leadership skills. Content Requirements:

The assignment is called “First Paper” the topic for the assignment is  “Screeni

The assignment is called “First Paper” the topic for the assignment is  “Screening and Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder” in APA style 7Th edition, 4-5 pages  (excluding the title and reference…

Continue ReadingThe assignment is called “First Paper” the topic for the assignment is  “Screeni

In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warnings but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warnings were read to the suspect. In an earlier case, Oregon v. Elstad, the Court admitted a confession obtained after the police gave the Miranda warnings—even though the suspect had previously made statements before the warnings were given. Discuss the differences between the two cases. Discuss the Court’s rationale regarding the decisions. Do you agree with the rationale? Why/why not?

In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warnings but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after…

Continue ReadingIn Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warnings but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warnings were read to the suspect. In an earlier case, Oregon v. Elstad, the Court admitted a confession obtained after the police gave the Miranda warnings—even though the suspect had previously made statements before the warnings were given. Discuss the differences between the two cases. Discuss the Court’s rationale regarding the decisions. Do you agree with the rationale? Why/why not?