Question Details

[solution] »

I highlighted the areas where i think it needs to be sighted correctly letting the reader/teacher


Description

Answer Download


The Question

I highlighted the areas where i think it needs to be sighted correctly letting the reader/teacher know where this information came from (). If you can please repair the areas.


Running head: CRIMINAL LAW 1 Criminal Law

 

xxxxxxx

 

CJA/305

 

July 18, 2016

 

xxxxxxxx CRIMINAL LAW 2

 

Criminal Law The realities of the case are as per the following. The Respondents Luis Sánchez Valle

 

and Jaime Gómez Vazquez each sold a firearm to a covert cop. They were arraigned for

 

unlawfully offering guns infringing upon the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000 by Puerto Rican

 

prosecutors. While those charges were pending, government-amazing juries likewise arraigned

 

them, in view of the same exchanges, for infringement of undifferentiated from U. S. weapon

 

trafficking statutes. They conceded to the government charges and moved to reject the pending

 

Commonwealth charges on twofold peril grounds.

 

The trial court for every situation released the charges and rejected prosecutors'

 

contentions that Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for twofold danger

 

purposes thus could bring progressive indictments against every litigant. The Puerto Rico

 

Court of Appeals merged the cases and turned around the said holding. The Supreme Court of

 

Puerto Rico allowed survey and expressed that in accordance with the trial court, the Puerto

 

Rico's firearm deal indictments disregarded the Double Jeopardy Clause. It was at long last held

 

that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from progressively

 

indicting a solitary individual for the same behavior under equal criminal laws.

 

The aspect of double jeopardy makes the case interesting. Double jeopardy is where a

 

person (accused) is subjected to the same offence twice, which may lead to double punishment. It

 

is prohibited by the constitution. The Fifth Amendment of United States provides, "No person

 

shall ? be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This

 

provides a clause, which prohibits state as well as federal governments prosecuting people for

 

the same crime. The double jeopardy clause actually bars both Puerto Rico and United CRIMINAL LAW 3 States from prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal

 

laws, Rudstein, D. S. (2004).

 

While Puerto Rican prosecutors' arraigned respondents for illicitly offering guns

 

infringing upon the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000, government great juries additionally

 

arraigned them, in view of the same exchanges, for violations of comparable to U. S. weapon

 

trafficking statutes. Both litigants conceded to the government charges and moved to reject

 

the pending Commonwealth charges on twofold risk grounds. The Supreme Court of Puerto

 

Rico allowed survey and held, in accordance with the trial court, that Puerto Rico's firearm

 

deal arraignments disregarded the Double Jeopardy. The respondents at last got equity as really

 

required.

 

The sources of law as established in the case include the constitution, common law (case

 

precedents) and the statutes and ordinances. The Fifth Amendment of United States

 

Constitution provides that "No person shall ? be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice

 

put in jeopardy of life or limb." The Supreme Court considered various precedents before

 

deciding this case. For example, they borrowed the test in United States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S.

 

313, 320 (1978), that is whether the prosecutorial forces of the two purviews had free starting

 

points or, said then again, whether those forces get from the same "extreme source, for the same

 

to amount to double jeopardy. In addition, the Court looked into other statutes enacted to

 

supplement criminal law. For example, the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000 under which the

 

Respondents were indicted.

 

The purposes of criminal law include deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and

 

rehabilitation. Deterrence refers to punishing the offenders with the aim of deterring them from

 

committing the crime again. Retribution aims at inflicting some pain to the offenders so that they CRIMINAL LAW 4 desist from the crimes. In incapacitation, the offenders are actually locked up so that they cannot

 

be able to commit the offences again. Lastly, in rehabilitation the offenders are committed to

 

facilities that will help them change their antisocial behavior. The main purpose for the jeopardy

 

clause as discussed above is to avoid situations where the accused persons are subjected to

 

double punishment. This would be in cases of retribution and incapacitation, which are basically

 

elements in deterrence.

 

The jurisdiction of criminal law as depicted in this case includes the trial courts, the Court

 

of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The aspect of review of criminal cases by the Supreme Court

 

has also been established by the case. It has also become apparent that while the United States

 

had power to define and enact criminal laws it did not have power to subject respondents in this

 

case to double jeopardy as that is violating individuals rights enshrined in the constitution.

 

Accomplice liability refers to situations where an accomplice faces the same degree of

 

guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the crime including the terms of

 

imprisonment. The key determining factor considered is whether the individual intentionally and

 

voluntary encouraged or assisted in the commission of crime or otherwise failed to prevent it,

 

Heyman, M. (2015). The Respondents, Luis Sánchez Valle, and Jaime Gómez Vazquez, each

 

sold a firearm to a covert cop. So both Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vazquez will be

 

punished equally with the undercover police for any crime committed by the undercover police

 

officer using the gun.

 

Criminal risk alludes to obligation that emerges out of violating a law or carrying out a

 

criminal demonstration. Under criminal obligation, a man is subject, or mindful, for a

 

wrongdoing when he/she has acted with criminal aim instead of acting incidentally or without

 

the capacity to act purposely, Uhlmann, D. M. (2013). Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez CRIMINAL LAW 5 Vazquez confessed for infringement of similar to U. S. firearm trafficking statutes. This therefore

 

means they are liable for this offense, which they committed as it, was not accidental as there is

 

the presence of criminal intent.

 

Actus Reus is the unlawful omission or act supposed to occur or that has occurred. It is the

 

physical act of the crime committed. This may likewise add to the premise of criminal risk. Luis

 

Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vazquez confessed for violations of practically equivalent to U.

 

S. weapon trafficking statutes since they were included in firearm trafficking, which is an illicit

 

go about and also a wrongdoing demonstration. By confessing they recognized to have submitted

 

the demonstration.

 

On the other hand, mens rea also referred to as criminal intent refers to the mental intention.

 

It is the mental state of defendants during the time at which he/she committed an offense. It is the

 

guilty mind. It actually varies depending on the nature of a given offense. They must proof in

 

court of law that the murder for example or any criminal act, someone committed knowingly, or

 

willingly, or recklessly, there must be an aspect of motive also. Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime

 

Gómez Vazquez were aware that the activity they were undertaking was illegal and that those

 

guns they illegal being sold would obviously be used for criminal purposes. Thus, they had the

 

clear intention to do the illegal act.

 

Concurrence includes both the criminal act and the criminal intent. In general, the both

 

acts must always coexist but the criminal intent must precede the criminal act or rather makes or

 

cause the act to happen. Concurrence is present in this scenario. The Respondents had both the

 

actus reus and the mens rea.

 

Double jeopardy is prohibited in the constitution. Sources of criminal law include

 

constitution, common law, statutes, and ordinances. The main purpose of criminal law is CRIMINAL LAW

 

deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. There is jurisdiction of criminal law,

 

and criminal liability and accomplish liability together with all elements of crime must be

 

determine in a criminal case before sentencing or acquittal. 6 CRIMINAL LAW 7 References

 

Rudstein, D. S. (2004). Double jeopardy: a reference guide to the United States constitution (No.

 

9). Greenwood Publishing Group. Heyman, M. (2015). Due Process Limits on Accomplice Liability. Minnesota Law Review, 99(3). Uhlmann, D. M. (2013). Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements and the Erosion

 

of Corporate Criminal Liability. Maryland Law Review, 72(4).

 


Solution details

Solution #000176055

[solution] »

I highlighted the areas where i think it needs to be sighted correctly letting the reader/teacher.zip

Uploaded by: Tutor

Answer rating:

This paper was answered on 14-Oct-2020

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Oct 14, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

BEST TUTORS

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

STUCK WITH YOUR PAPER?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.

Order Now