Perry v. New Hampshire - Term Paper Example

The paper tells that the purpose of the criminal law in the US is to exactly give a fair trial for every person who will be or charged with criminal offenses. This has to be secured by the Sixth Amendment allowing defendants to have access to his or her right to counsel, secure defense witnesses and cross-examine the prosecutions. The jurisdiction of the criminal law is thus so strong in the case of Perry v New Hampshire because it ensures both the defendant and prosecutor the ability to provide their evidences as this is the ultimate way to deal with both parties a reasonably fair or unbiased procedure in the proceedings of the case.

However, the criminal law is careful with accepting evidences. Thus, its power should not be undermined with suggestive circumstances such as found in the case of Perry v New Hampshire. Any form of involvement of an individual in the crime will make him or her culpable for it, the essence of accomplice liability. Involvement may be in a form of intentional sharing of information, advices, encouragement and so on. The very point of these actions is to provide something that will aid for the initiation of the crime.

In the case of Perry v. New Hampshire, the former tried to amend the verdict of the state because of his right or privilege to amend. After the amendment, Perry was able to prove that the identification of him in the crime was tainted because of suggestive circumstances. Whoever intentionally included Perry in the crime must be able to find his accomplice and use him or her in court in order to counteract the defendant’s subject of amendment.. The very point of these actions is to provide something that will aid for the initiation of the crime.

In the case of Perry v. New Hampshire, the former tried to amend the verdict of the state because of his right or privilege to amend. After the amendment, Perry was able to prove that the identification of him in the crime was tainted because of suggestive circumstances. Whoever intentionally included Perry in the crime must be able to find his accomplice and use him or her in court in order to counteract the defendant’s subject of amendment. For this reason, accomplice liability is a strong factor to weaken the defense of Perry because of the accountability of the said person due to his or her knowledge about the whole crime with the actual perpetuator.

However, regarding this, Perry could potentially find another case source and that would be the case of Simmons v. United States, 390 US 377, 384 (1968). He could potentially expound this leading to proving that eyewitnesses or even the accomplice the possibility of being made under suggestive circumstances. Criminal liability refers to the responsibility of an act to harm the society which could be prosecuted by the government. The case of Perry is subject of government’s prosecution. However, the government did not eliminate his right to amend the initial verdict and so the Supreme Court would be the last to interpret his entire case.

In this amendment, Perry had the privilege to counteract the claimed act against him to harm the society that is subject of government’s prosecution. Since proven not guilty, Perry therefore should not be obliged to carry a criminal liability. Various elements in crimes Actus reus means guilty act, or the actual element of the crime and this has to be proven beyond reasonable