Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Punishment is believed to be one of the most efficient methods of ensuring the individual’s reconsidering of one’s actions after breaching the law. The punishment as a notion is then divided into some major types according to the scope of a committed crime. Hence, some of the punishments issued after conviction include fines, mandatory counseling, treatment facilities placement, incarceration, the death penalty, house arrest, and hours of community service. All of the aforementioned types are closely correlated with the type of crime committed since their major goal is not to make a person feel uncomfortable. They are designed to make sure that he or she takes responsibility for one’s actions and accounts for such actions’ potential damaging outcomes in the first place.
Over the genesis of the war on drugs, the issue of drug suppliers’ punishment measures has been discussed across the state. In the following case, the death from drug ingestion is a prime example of a drug-induced homicide – one of the most controversial laws when it comes to illicit drug dealing. In fact, drug-induced homicide was legitimate across the US states in the 1990s, when at the beginning of the 21st centuries it was contained in most areas. The case of overdose is, de jure, not a supplier’s or creator’s responsibility. Once the drug is supplied to a user, he or she is supposed to take responsibility for its further utilization. However, they should be, by all means, charged with illicit drug dealing in the first place. According to the Ex Post Facto laws, this particular illicit drug creator’s charges might be aggravated considering the fact of the person’s death.
Reference
Duxbury, N. (2013). Ex Post Facto Law. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 58(2), 135–161. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.