Transactional immunity referred to the witness cannot

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 9 pages.

Transactional immunity referred to “the witness cannot be prosecuted for any offense related to the subject matter of his/her testimony” (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 173). However, “Congress concerned is that total immunity hampered federal efforts to combat crime,” and amend the protection that has been implemented (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 173). The use of immunity- allows “the statements made by the witness may not be useful in subsequent prosecutions,” but “the witness can be prosecuted for crimes about which they testified” whenever “the evidence is used to convict them ignorance” and mistake of the laws (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 173). In my opinion, I differently think that the general level of fairness of witness immunity to the defense is considered a good defense. The reason why I think that it is a good defense is that the person is protected under the 5th Amendment, and they are not compelled to answer any question that might be incriminating. The two elements of the defense of entrapment. Support or critique the value of the defense within the criminal law system in the United States. Entrapment is “the defense that a law enforcement officer used excessive temptation” or “urging to induce the defendants to commit a crime wrongfully they would not have ordinarily committed” (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 185). The two elements of entrapment are “lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct," and “the improper government inducement of the crime (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 189).
Running Head: CRIMINAL DEFENSES AND PUNISHMENTS 7 The value of defense within the criminal law system in the United States is significant because the courts should “recognize that law enforcement officers” have the ability to “create an ordinary opportunity” that might provoke a “person to commit an offense if the criminal intent” or “if it is willingness originated in the mind of the defendant” (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 190). For example, the Hampton v. United States case, “the court held the entrapment defense” could not be applied because the “defendant who sold illegal drugs to” an undercover cop, was a government informer, or he acted as the government who “supplied the drug sold” (Gardner & Anderson, 1, p. 190). Therefore, the courts determine that the defendant has the right to prove that he did not have any criminal intention toward selling drug until a law enforcement agent planted the drugs, Argue for or against the “Three Strikes” Laws The “Three Strikes” are laws that “impose mandatory prison sentences for repeated offenses” (Kamiar, 3). It is also “designed to deter crime by considerably increasing prison sentences for repeat criminal offenders (Kamiar, 3). It “applied to subsequent conviction after an individual’s” who have “a previous felony conviction,” or "a conviction that requires serving at least one year in prison"(Kamiar, 3). There are three why the three strikes laws are among the harshest in the states of California:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture