I highlighted the areas where i think it needs to be sighted correctly letting the reader/teacher
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
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
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
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).
Notice: Undefined index: payment_status in /home/aceyourh/studycourse.fun/wp-content/themes/premier/page-templates/paper-detail.php on line 248
This question was answered on: Oct 14, 2020
This attachment is locked
We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)
Notice: Undefined variable: ip_country in /home/aceyourh/studycourse.fun/wp-content/themes/premier/page-templates/paper-detail.php on line 456
Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order
We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.