Criminal Justice Assignment

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceCriminal Justice Paper

Criminal Justice Essay

Case Title

Charles Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)

Facts

The petitioner sold heroin to  DEA agents. It was a government informant who had supplied him with the heroin. Mr. Hampton was charged with a federal offense of distribution of heroin contrary to 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (Hampton v. United States [1976]). The District Court convicted him and the Court of Appeals affirmed despite Hampton's argument that he was entitled to the entrapment defense despite his predisposition to commit the crime. The petitioner had also argued that his due process right was violated by the outrageous conduct of government agents of supplying him with a drug and then arresting him. The US Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the government violated the petitioner’s due process rights by supplying him with heroin and charging him with a federal offense
  2. Whether the applicant’s predisposition to commit the crime in question made an entrapment defense unavailable to him

Decision

The police action did not violate the defendant’s due process rights and his disposition to commit the crime made it impossible for him to successfully plead the defense of entrapment.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the petitioner was simply an unwary offender who had readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate a crime, hence this predisposition was fatal to his entrapment defense. The court’s reasoning was also that as stated in Sherman v. United States (1658) and  Sorrells v. the United States (1932), the focus of the entrapment defense is the defendant's predisposition or intent to commit the crime in question and not on a government agent's conduct or misconduct. ..............GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY