Question

Paul is arrested for insider trading; this is the illegal practice of
trading on the stock market to make money with confidential
information. Paul is sentenced to 15 years in prison, which is a
fairly typical punishment for this crime. Paul has been in prison
for 14 years and is nearing his release, a new judge has to grant
his official release, but believes the earlier judge was too light on
his punishment. He rules that Paul also has to pay a fine of
$500,000
What amendment might Paul argue was just violated? Why?

Answer 1

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

Explanation:

Answer 2

Considering the scenario described above, the amendment that Paul might argue was just violated is Fifth Amendment.

• This is because the Fifth Amendment stated, among other things, that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

• Thus, should the new judge ruled that Paul also has to pay a fine of $500,000, that means he is subjected to the same offense twice, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Hence, in this case, the correct answer is Fifth Amendment, which prohibits such actions from the new Judge.

Learn more here: https://brainly.com/question/1782796