Foram encontradas 50 questões.
De acordo com o Decreto 45.969, de 24/05/2012, que regulamenta o acesso à informação no âmbito do Poder Executivo, a informação em poder dos órgãos e entidades, observado o seu teor e em razão de sua imprescindibilidade à segurança da sociedade ou do Estado, poderá ser classificada em graus. Considere que o Comandante-Geral da PMMG deseja classificar o sigilo de determinada informação, neste caso hipotético, e considerando a norma citada, analise as afirmativas abaixo e marque a alternativa CORRETA:
Provas
Acompanhe o diálogo de quatro estudantes que estavam discutindo temas de Direito Administrativo enquanto estudavam para determinado concurso:
- Quanto aos destinatários, os atos administrativos, podem ser gerais ou individuais. Sendo que os atos gerais são aqueles aplicáveis a um número indeterminado de sujeitos. É o caso dos regulamentos. Disse o primeiro estudante.
Em sequência, o segundo estudante disse:
- E os individuais são aqueles cuja aplicação é restrita a sujeitos específicos e determinados. É o caso, por exemplo, das licenças.
O terceiro estudante que participava da conversa, disse:
- Exatamente, as instruções e resoluções da PMMG também se classificam, quanto aos destinatários, como atos administrativos individuais.
Por fim, um quarto estudante, também se referindo aos destinatários dos atos administrativos, afirmou que “quando eu passar no concurso, haverá um ato administrativo chamado nomeação. E a nomeação é classificada, quanto aos destinatários, como um ato administrativo geral”.
Avaliando as afirmações dos estudantes, é CORRETO afirmar que:
Provas
Considerando o que dispõe a Lei Federal nº 14.133 de 01/04/2021, Lei de Licitações e Contratos Administrativos, analise as assertivas abaixo e marque a alternativa CORRETA:
Provas
Um Oficial da Polícia Militar de Minas Gerais, aqui entendido como um administrador público, estava em vias de decidir sobre a celebração de uma parceria prevista na Lei Federal n. 13.019, de 31/07/2014, que estabelece o regime jurídico das parcerias entre a administração pública e as organizações da sociedade civil, em regime de mútua cooperação, para a consecução de finalidades de interesse público e recíproco, mediante a execução de atividades ou de projetos previamente estabelecidos em planos de trabalho inseridos em termos de colaboração, em termos de fomento ou em acordos de cooperação; define diretrizes para a política de fomento, de colaboração e de cooperação com organizações da sociedade civil. Neste sentido, e nos termos da norma citada, o Oficial deverá, EXCETO:
Provas
Considerando o contido na Lei Federal n. 9.790, de 23/03/1999, que dispõe sobre a qualificação de pessoas jurídicas de direito privado, sem fins lucrativos, como Organizações da Sociedade Civil de Interesse Público, institui e disciplina o Termo de Parceria, e dá outras providências, analise as assertivas abaixo e marque a afirmativa CORRETA:
Provas
Observe o seguinte diálogo envolvendo três interlocutores que tratavam sobre o regime de concessão e permissão da prestação de serviços públicos previsto no art. 175 da Constituição Federal.
Interlocutor 1: - A permissão de serviço público é a delegação, a título precário, mediante licitação, da prestação de serviços públicos, feita pelo poder concedente à pessoa física ou jurídica que demonstre capacidade para seu desempenho, por sua conta e risco.
Interlocutor 2: - Esse poder concedente que você se referiu pode ser a União, o Estado ou o Distrito Federal, mas não o Município.
Interlocutor 3: E o poder concedente publicará, previamente ao edital de licitação, ato justificando a conveniência da outorga de concessão ou permissão, caracterizando seu objeto, área e prazo.
Considerando o diálogo acima e ainda o que dispõe a Lei Federal n. 8.987, de 13/02/1995 – Dispõe sobre o regime de concessão e permissão da prestação de serviços públicos previsto no art. 175 da Constituição Federal, e dá outras providências. Assinale a assertiva CORRETA:
Provas
A Administração Pública no Brasil é composta pela Administração Direta e Indireta, cada uma com suas peculiaridades e finalidades. Neste sentido, marque a alternativa que contém a resposta CORRETA:
Provas
Read text I and then answer the questions.
TEXT I
“All crimes are not created equal in the harm they cause: homicide is many times more harmful than shoplifting but in crime statistics where offences are counted by number, they appear equivalent. For example, in the UK for the year ending September 2019, there were 3,578,000 incidents of theft and 729 homicides (Office for National Statistics, 2019). An increase of 500 thefts would be a small change in the overall number of thefts and have little impact on police resources. 500 extra homicides would have large consequences both for the harm caused and the impact on police resources. In a number-only count, the additional 500 thefts or homicides would result in the same overall number of crimes, yet clearly the impacts are disparate.
This reality has led to the proposition of a “Harm Index” to measure how harmful different crimes are in proportion to the others. This approach adds a larger weight to more harmful crimes (e.g. homicide, rape and grievous bodily harm with intent), distinguishing them from less harmful types of crime (e.g. minor thefts, criminal damage and common assault). Practically, adoption of a harm index can allow targeting of the highest-harm places, the most harmful offenders, the most harmed victims, and can assist in identifying victim-offenders. Experimentally, use of a harm index can add an additional dimension to the usual measures of success or failure, by considering harm prevented as well as reductions in prevalence or frequency. For the police, creation of harm index could allow them to invest scarce resources in proportion to the harm of each offence type.
Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) propose that any index needs to meet three requirements in order to be considered a legitimate measure of harm: An index must meet a democratic standard, be reliable and also be adopted at minimal cost to the end user. To meet these requirements, Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) opted for using sentence starting points rather than maximum or average actual sentences. The sentencing starting point is used to calculate crime harm as it provides a baseline penalty relative to the crime. We propose that it is a better measure of harm caused by the crime than average actual sentences, which are offender-focused and thus substantially affected by previous offending history.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Consensus proposes creation of seven statistics for counting crime, usefully including separation of historic crime reports, creation of a harm detection fraction and separation of public reported crime and those detected by proactive police activity, with the aim of providing the public with a more reliable and realistic assessment of trends, patterns and differences in public safety.
Counting crime by harm is an idea that has spread beyond the United Kingdom with indices published for Denmark (Andersen and Mueller-Johnson, 2018), Sweden (Karrholm et al. 2020), Western Australia (House and Neyroud, 2018), California (Mitchell, 2017), New Zealand and other countries.”
Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing. Available at: https://www.cambridge-ebp.co.uk/the-chi Accessed on: June 30, 2024.
In the sentence "Counting crime by harm is an idea that has spread beyond the United Kingdom”, identify the grammatical function of "that”:
Provas
Read text I and then answer the questions.
TEXT I
“All crimes are not created equal in the harm they cause: homicide is many times more harmful than shoplifting but in crime statistics where offences are counted by number, they appear equivalent. For example, in the UK for the year ending September 2019, there were 3,578,000 incidents of theft and 729 homicides (Office for National Statistics, 2019). An increase of 500 thefts would be a small change in the overall number of thefts and have little impact on police resources. 500 extra homicides would have large consequences both for the harm caused and the impact on police resources. In a number-only count, the additional 500 thefts or homicides would result in the same overall number of crimes, yet clearly the impacts are disparate.
This reality has led to the proposition of a “Harm Index” to measure how harmful different crimes are in proportion to the others. This approach adds a larger weight to more harmful crimes (e.g. homicide, rape and grievous bodily harm with intent), distinguishing them from less harmful types of crime (e.g. minor thefts, criminal damage and common assault). Practically, adoption of a harm index can allow targeting of the highest-harm places, the most harmful offenders, the most harmed victims, and can assist in identifying victim-offenders. Experimentally, use of a harm index can add an additional dimension to the usual measures of success or failure, by considering harm prevented as well as reductions in prevalence or frequency. For the police, creation of harm index could allow them to invest scarce resources in proportion to the harm of each offence type.
Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) propose that any index needs to meet three requirements in order to be considered a legitimate measure of harm: An index must meet a democratic standard, be reliable and also be adopted at minimal cost to the end user. To meet these requirements, Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) opted for using sentence starting points rather than maximum or average actual sentences. The sentencing starting point is used to calculate crime harm as it provides a baseline penalty relative to the crime. We propose that it is a better measure of harm caused by the crime than average actual sentences, which are offender-focused and thus substantially affected by previous offending history.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Consensus proposes creation of seven statistics for counting crime, usefully including separation of historic crime reports, creation of a harm detection fraction and separation of public reported crime and those detected by proactive police activity, with the aim of providing the public with a more reliable and realistic assessment of trends, patterns and differences in public safety.
Counting crime by harm is an idea that has spread beyond the United Kingdom with indices published for Denmark (Andersen and Mueller-Johnson, 2018), Sweden (Karrholm et al. 2020), Western Australia (House and Neyroud, 2018), California (Mitchell, 2017), New Zealand and other countries.”
Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing. Available at: https://www.cambridge-ebp.co.uk/the-chi Accessed on: June 30, 2024.
Choose the alternative that best matches the meaning of the word 'disparate' as used in the sentence:
“In a number-only count, the additional 500 thefts or homicides would result in the same overall number of crimes, yet clearly the impacts are disparate”.
Provas
Read text I and then answer the questions.
TEXT I
“All crimes are not created equal in the harm they cause: homicide is many times more harmful than shoplifting but in crime statistics where offences are counted by number, they appear equivalent. For example, in the UK for the year ending September 2019, there were 3,578,000 incidents of theft and 729 homicides (Office for National Statistics, 2019). An increase of 500 thefts would be a small change in the overall number of thefts and have little impact on police resources. 500 extra homicides would have large consequences both for the harm caused and the impact on police resources. In a number-only count, the additional 500 thefts or homicides would result in the same overall number of crimes, yet clearly the impacts are disparate.
This reality has led to the proposition of a “Harm Index” to measure how harmful different crimes are in proportion to the others. This approach adds a larger weight to more harmful crimes (e.g. homicide, rape and grievous bodily harm with intent), distinguishing them from less harmful types of crime (e.g. minor thefts, criminal damage and common assault). Practically, adoption of a harm index can allow targeting of the highest-harm places, the most harmful offenders, the most harmed victims, and can assist in identifying victim-offenders. Experimentally, use of a harm index can add an additional dimension to the usual measures of success or failure, by considering harm prevented as well as reductions in prevalence or frequency. For the police, creation of harm index could allow them to invest scarce resources in proportion to the harm of each offence type.
Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) propose that any index needs to meet three requirements in order to be considered a legitimate measure of harm: An index must meet a democratic standard, be reliable and also be adopted at minimal cost to the end user. To meet these requirements, Sherman, Neyroud and Neyroud (2016) opted for using sentence starting points rather than maximum or average actual sentences. The sentencing starting point is used to calculate crime harm as it provides a baseline penalty relative to the crime. We propose that it is a better measure of harm caused by the crime than average actual sentences, which are offender-focused and thus substantially affected by previous offending history.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Consensus proposes creation of seven statistics for counting crime, usefully including separation of historic crime reports, creation of a harm detection fraction and separation of public reported crime and those detected by proactive police activity, with the aim of providing the public with a more reliable and realistic assessment of trends, patterns and differences in public safety.
Counting crime by harm is an idea that has spread beyond the United Kingdom with indices published for Denmark (Andersen and Mueller-Johnson, 2018), Sweden (Karrholm et al. 2020), Western Australia (House and Neyroud, 2018), California (Mitchell, 2017), New Zealand and other countries.”
Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing. Available at: https://www.cambridge-ebp.co.uk/the-chi Accessed on: June 30, 2024.
Consider the following statements:
I - It must be reliable.
II - It must be easily understandable by the public.
III - It must be democratic.
IV - It must be adopted at high cost to the harmful offenders.
According to the text I, which of the statements are NOT mentioned as a requirement for a legitimate measure of harm, according to Sherman, Neyroud, and Neyroud?
Provas
Caderno Container