1. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2014). It serves as a substitute for evidence. A conclusive presumption is a presumption that the law demands be made from a set of facts that also cannot be refuted by evidence. An example of this when a child is born, to a couple married and living together, it is assumed that this is the child of the husband. On the other hand, there are rebuttable presumptions. Here, the opposing side may try to disprove either the basic fact or the presumed fact using contradictory evidence. A presumption can be disproven with facts that prove otherwise. For example, if a person has gone missing, and they have not been found for years. They are presumed to be dead. This idea can be disproven, but only if that same individual is found alive. Because there is a stipulation of providing contradictory evidence to be rebuttable, there is a need for distinction between the two.

2. A contrast conclusive presumption proves facts to be true. Rebuttable presumptions is one that concludes an existing or non existing fact. The comparison between these two are that they both determine a conclusion one is completely fact based while the other is not. Yes, this distinction is crucial due to the fact that there is no mishandling of information or evidence to cause confusion within the court room and the jury.

3. Conclusive presumptions are presumptions that cannot be overturned by any evidence or argument brought up in a criminal proceeding. An example of conclusive presumptions is a child younger than seven is not capable of committing a crime. They do not have the mindset of a criminal because their mind is still developing. A rebuttable presumption is the opposite of a conclusive presumption. This can be proven to be false with the correct evidence. For example, if a child has gone missing for more than seven years it is likely they are presumed dead. This distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding because it gives a common sense of an issue.

4. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the know or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2018). The conclusive presumption is that the law does not allow to be rebutted, also called irrebuttable presumption (FindLaw, 2013). An example would be a child who is 5 years old. It is presumed that the 5-year-old is incapable of committing a crime that is considered a felony. A rebuttable presumption is the opposing side can attempt to disprove either the basic fact or the presumed fact (Hails, 2018). An example used all the time is in a criminal case, where a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding; not knowing the distinction between them can confuse and mishandle the information. It would even cause someone to be wrongly convicted or let go to be free and be guilty because of not knowing the distinction.

5. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2014). In other words, the judge instructs the jury to draw specific conclusions from the facts. Presumptions are usually divided into two types: conclusive and rebuttable. Conclusive presumptions are not as common but the opposing side can attack the basic fact but cannot attack the presumed fact. While rebuttable presumptions are divided even more into strong and weak. With a strong rebuttable presumption, the opposing side may attack either basic fact or presumed fact. With a weak rebuttable presumption, if the opposing side introduces evidence that disproves any part of the presumption then it is not told to the jury. With all presumptions the basic fact can be attacked, but only with rebuttable presumptions may the presumed fact be attacked. The basic fact can be attacked by making the witness not credible. I do believe the distinction is needed in criminal proceedings because without it the policy for the states regarding presumptions will be too broad. The more specific a policy is, the better it can be used because the attorneys will know how to use it and which one to use.

Hails, J. (2014). Criminal Evidence (Eighth ed.). Jaime Perkins.
 

Option1. Authoritarian Leaders and US Foreign Policy
Can authoritarian leaders (even dictators) play positive roles in the international system? How and when? In the past, Washington justified many dictators by emphasizing their loyalty to U.S. interests. Critics maintain that human-rights violations should not be condoned, but the reliance of the major powers on authoritarian leaders continues to this day. Throughout this century, Russia, China, and the United States supported some authoritarian regimes in Central and South Asia that agreed to suppress the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and did not support others conducting similar policies. Some countries opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq and realpolitik arguing that Saddam Hussein, despite his oppressive regime, was a guarantor of balance in the Persian Gulf. Russia claims that they support a dictator in Syria because he is the only one to restore stability in the region: without a strong central authority in Syria, the whole regions will remain unstable and a major source of international tensions for years.
What’s your view?
What do you think of the argument giving conditional support for authoritarian leaders? Would you as president back such leaders, at least in exceptional cases, if they were important, instrumental to your foreign policy? Explain your position (whatever it is).
Follow this procedure:
According to the Democracy Index complied by The Economist, the most authoritarian countries have been North Korea, Chad, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic, Iran, and Syria https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index (the list may change when you access it). Update this “list of ten”. Next, establish what type of relations does the United States have with each of these countries? Does Washington support most of them or only few of them? Is it necessary or unnecessary for Washington to maintain good relations with authoritarian governments?
Suggested length: 1,200-1,500 words
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Today, studies have discovered variation in the conflict behavior of dictatorships. Some studies by Mark Peceny and others completed that personalistic dictatorships, in which the leader depends on simply a small group of supporters, are more likely to start conflicts than both democracies and other authoritarian regime. He also referred to this pattern of his study   select orate theory, arguing that personalist regimes are more likely to begin conflicts than single-party regimes because of their small union. Select orate theory suggests that when the winning group of regime members whose support is needed for the leader in office is small relative to the select orate (the set of individuals who have a key role in choosing the leader), members of the winning union have convincing with incentives to stay reliable to the leader regardless of leader performance. This can make main parts of the system corrupted, therefore
International conflicts might happen in these types of corrupted systems.
 
 
There is a debatable question on foreign policy, dictators can have positive role in international system? my answer is really depending on the foreign policy that those leaders are follow, for example are they following diplomacy or other types of foreign policy? Or What is the role of their country internationally? Or their flexibility to collaboration to solve international conflict?
And many other questions that we can measure the role of authoritarian leaders internationally.
 
 
 
Supporting these authoritarian regimes by major powers like US can de stabilize international
Communities and can increase human right violation, although they might be loyal to US but
Their performance might harm international communities and even US in long run.
For instance, Sadam Hossein was a cruel dictator who started two major war in the Middle East
With Iran and Kuwait, when he attacked Iran most major power including US supported him but in long run they realized, he is a global threat. In my opinion reliance on dictators might have short time benefit but in lung run is not brneficial.in addition today world is connected more than Ever and foreign policy has a key role in human right violation.
 
Appropriate foreign policy can make world safer place thorough diminishing tension, increasing
Trust, work thorough global  interest
 
 
Can authoritarian leaders (even dictators) play positive roles in the international system?
 
How and when?
 
 
In the past, Washington justified many dictators by emphasizing their loyalty to U.S.
interests.  Critics maintain that human-rights violations should not be condoned, but the reliance of the major powers on authoritarian leaders continues to this day.
Throughout this century, Russia, China, and the United States supported some authoritarian regimes in Central and South Asia that agreed to suppress the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and did not support others conducting similar policies. Some countries opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq and realpolitik arguing that Saddam Hussein, despite his oppressive regime,
 
was a guarantor of balance in the Persian Gulf.
 
 
Russia claims that they support a dictator in Syria because he is the only one to restore stability in the region: without a strong central authority in Syria, the whole regions will remain unstable and a major source of international tensions for years.