It always struck me as odd

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.

educational segregation in the us prior to brown.

the members of the u.s. supreme court that on may 17, 1954, ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

judgment and order of the supreme court for the case.

u.s. circuit judges robert a. katzmann, damon j.

the u.s. supreme court's decision in brown v. board of education marked a turning point in the history of race relations in the united states. on may 17, 1954, the court stripped away constitutional sanctions for segregation by race, and made equal opportunity in education the law of the land.

both inform the reader that faryad and liaqat were not given the chance to tell their version of events at the police station.

hope this