Write a Case Brief of the U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Alvarez – Machain following the IRAC format.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Facts:
In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the petitioner, Humberto Alvarez-Machain, was a Mexican citizen who was allegedly involved in the kidnapping and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent. The respondent, the United States government, sought to extradite Alvarez-Machain to the United States to stand trial for his involvement in the crime. Alvarez-Machain was abducted from Mexico by a group of Mexican nationals, with the assistance of U.S. agents, and brought to the United States to face trial. Alvarez-Machain argued that his abduction violated international law and the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico.
Procedural History:
The case began in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where Alvarez-Machain was indicted for his role in the kidnapping and murder. The district court dismissed the indictment, finding that the abduction violated international law and the extradition treaty. The United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s decision. The case then reached the United States Supreme Court.
Issue:
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the abduction of Alvarez-Machain by U.S. agents from Mexico violated international law and the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico.
Rule(s):
The relevant rule of law in this case was whether a violation of international law and an extradition treaty would render a criminal prosecution unconstitutional.
Application/Analysis:
In its analysis, the Supreme Court first examined whether the abduction of Alvarez-Machain by U.S. agents violated international law. The Court held that while the abduction may have been a violation of international law, it did not render the subsequent criminal prosecution unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that even if the arrest violated international law, it did not preclude the United States from exercising its jurisdiction over Alvarez-Machain for his alleged crimes.
The Court further considered whether the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico was violated by the abduction. The Court concluded that while the treaty prohibited the “unlawful seizure” of individuals, it did not specifically address abductions by one country’s agents from another country’s territory. Therefore, the Court held that the treaty did not prohibit the United States from abducting Alvarez-Machain for prosecution.
Ultimately, the Court found that neither international law nor the extradition treaty prohibited the United States from prosecuting Alvarez-Machain for his alleged crimes.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the abduction of Alvarez-Machain by U.S. agents did not violate international law or the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. The Court ruled that Alvarez-Machain could be prosecuted for his alleged crimes in the United States.
In my opinion, I agree with the court’s holding in this case. While it is important to respect international law and uphold extradition treaties, in this particular case, it was necessary to bring Alvarez-Machain to justice for his alleged involvement in a heinous crime. The Court’s decision ensures that individuals who commit crimes against U.S. citizens can be held accountable, regardless of their location or nationality.
