Why is entrapment illegal?

[Doomguy]

Why is entrapment illegal? You'll be catching someone commiting a crime, which means they've probably commited a crime in the past or will commit one in the future. Making it illegal is inforcing the theory that humans are basically bad.

What is your opinion on this matter?

 

[crypticlogin]

<< ... or will commit one in the future. >>


That's a pretty tough one to prove unless they've left plans, and if that's the case you wouldn't need to entrap them to arrest or prosecute. My belief is that the basis of law enforcement isn't to catch people for the sake of catching people (isn't that the goal of entrapment?), but to protect yada yada blah blah.


edit: after reading what I wrote, I'm not sure I have my opinions fully established. I'll come back to it.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

entrapment is when law enforcement in some way causes one to break the law when they would not have broken the law if the law was not involved (theoretically)

sumpin like dat!

 

[notfred]

On a related note - why is it legal for the police to buy/sell drugs?

Oh, and Doomguy - I think you'll probably commit a crime in the furure, I guess we should give you a 5 year sentance, jsut in case. Sound fair?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

why do minors pay taxes?
why can minors be charged as adults?
why cant 18 year olds drink/gamble/etc?

bs man, bs.

if i get caught drinking, i'd like to see them "charge me as a 21 year old"

pisses me off to no end.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<entrapment is when law enforcement in some way causes one to break the law when they would not have broken the law if the law was not involved>>

We have a winner. I believe that Doomguy is confusing entrapment with a sting. In a sting, the person is not coerced by law enforcement into breaking the law. For an analogy, entrapment would be if there was a cop in the middle of an intersection who waves you through a red light, then tickets you for running a red light. The cop would have enticed you into doing something you would not normally do in that case. A sting would be a situation in which the cop was within sight of the light and watched you go through it, but did not wave you through the red light, then ticketing you for running the red light. There is a big difference in the between the two situations.

Zenmervolt

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

are you calling me a winner?

wow...thats never happened before...i feel this strange sense....is..it....good?

i am not....a loser....?

aahhahahahh, yeah i am

 

[jlee75]

well if a cop were posing as a prostitute and went and solicited or was solicited, the guy wouldn't have solicited sex if the cop had not been there. sure it may have been someone else but what if this was the guy's first time. a hot chick walks up to his car and he thinks, sure why not. If your definition of entrapment is if a cop is doing it, then this is entrapment. Sort of. But in these cases, the guy pays for the crime.

Entrapment is a grey area. You have cops posing as drug buyers, prostitutes, etc. If they weren't out there buying, who's to say that the guy would be out there selling.

Grey area. Hard to define. Constantly argued in court.

 

[Ciber]

hehe i dont see the point of a cop waving you thru a red light when he can just go up to you and giving a ticket for running 5 red lights, even though you did not....but what are the chances of you proving that cop wrong in court? if i was the judge i would believe the cop and not you

 

[Thegonagle]

I don't think the cops should be out there posing as prostitutes and drug dealers. I saw an episode of Cops (in Miami, I think) where a guy was saying no over and over to a female "prostitute," until she had finally lowered her price to two dollars, so they could arrest him. Entrapment was the word on my mind. I sure hope that one got thrown out in court. I feel similarly about them posing as drug dealers and going after the users, when it's the dealers who are the root of the problem.

OTOH, I think It's pretty slick when they pose as users/johns, and take a dealer or a prostitute off the street, which is far more important for the quality of life in a neighborhood.

 

[gopunk]

I feel similarly about them posing as drug dealers and going after the users, when it's the dealers who are the root of the problem.

OTOH, I think It's pretty slick when they pose as users/johns, and take a dealer or a prostitute off the street, which is far more important for the quality of life in a neighborhood.

so, in other words, you only like it when they throw people that are likely to be in the lower classes...

 

[Thegonagle]

<< so, in other words, you only like it when they throw people that are likely to be in the lower classes... >>


Not really. Catching and arresting a dude buying drugs or sex is a bit different than selling it to them for the sole purpose of arresting them. I call that entrapment.

I prefer they go after the dealers. I don't really enjoy being signaled by drug dealers. They make me feel uncomfortable. I don't know what motivates street dealers, but I know it's not morality. Will the MF just decide to rob me if I don't want his nasty drugs? I don't know but they don't care. When I resist (because I will), I could be shot or stabbed, because they're known to arm themselves, while I am not. I don't like drug dealers. That's why I feel this way.

 

[sandorski]

There was a classic example of entrapment in the late 70's early 80's. The guys name eludes me as does the name of the sports car he manufactured. Anyway, this guys company was about to go under and he was desparate. A team of cops(FBI I believe) comes to him with a proposal, deal drugs and make big bucks! He resists the idea, but after much pressure over an extended period of time, he finally succumbs. When the deal is about to go down he gets arrested and finds out that everyone involved in the scheme were cops! Entrapment is wrong for the simple reason that those who were to uphold the law first tempt someone, then use high pressure tactics if needed, then arrest the "criminal" even though there was little to no reason to suspect that person in the first place. The purpose of law enforcement is to make society safer through prevention of crime and the arrest of those who commit crime. It is *not* to determine who *might* commit a crime given the right circumstances(which is almost anyone/everyone) or simply making arrests.

 

[Viper GTS]

You're thinking of Delorean.

Great cars, only problem is they sucked the lines right off the road.



Viper GTS

 

[NakaNaka]

the premise is that they wouldn't of committed the crime. That example about the businessman is perfect. If you go to a guy (and yoru a cop) and say $500 buys me and that hotel room for the night that's not entrapment. But making the guy really believe she (the cop) likes him and then slips in the money and then is like c'mon it will be worth your while don't worry no one will know and pushes him to do it even though he doesn't want to at first. That's entrapment

Note: That example is from The Practice.

 

[gopunk]

Catching and arresting a dude buying drugs or sex is a bit different than selling it to them for the sole purpose of arresting them. I call that entrapment.

that's not entrapment, it's only entrapment when you coerce them into buying whatever it is. if you're just standing there and they come up to you asking for drugs or sex, that's not entrapment.

That's why I feel this way.

yea, i don't feel any attachment to drug dealers either, but i don't understand why you would want to go after the prostitutes instead of johns. i'd rather see the johns go personally. sure you can arrest a few prostitutes, but they'll be back once they get out of jail... whereas a lot of johns are going to lose their reputation, family, job etc. the arrest of a john will scare the other johns into remission... more so than the arrest of a prostitute would scare another prostitute, since the johns have more to lose.

not that i condone the practice of outlawing prostitution... i'm just saying, i think going after the johns is a much better method. the only reason i made my earlier statement, is because it seems that a lot of people tend to side with whichever side is more similar to them... and obviously, the people buying drugs and the johns are going to be a lot closer to your "average" person than a drug dealer or prostitute.

 

[pulse8]

On another note:

I do like it when the police send out mailings to criminials with warrants out for their arrest saying that they are invited to some sort of special event.

Then when they show up, they arrest them.

That amuses me to no end.

 

[Bernie2]

The theory is that the person might not have committed the crime except for the enticement by the law enforcement agency. The person may or may not have committed the crime anyway. We live in a free society and restrainst on law enforcement is one of the things that separates us. There are consequences to this such as not as many criminals are caught as would otherwise be the case and free societies are gonna struggle with these issues.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<hehe i dont see the point of a cop waving you thru a red light when he can just go up to you and giving a ticket for running 5 red lights, even though you did not....but what are the chances of you proving that cop wrong in court? if i was the judge i would believe the cop and not you>>

You miss the point. I understand that the situation I used as an example is highly unlikely to occur in real life, however, it does a very good job (if I do say so myself) of drawing the distinction between a "sting" and "entrapment".

Zenmervolt

 

[gopunk]

On another note:

I do like it when the police send out mailings to criminials with warrants out for their arrest saying that they are invited to some sort of special event.

Then when they show up, they arrest them.

That amuses me to no end.

yes those are very cool... i saw a tv show where they did that, they told them they had won a sweepstake, and they had to go there to collect it. the look of joy turning to shock, then sadness/anger is priceless

 

[Thegonagle]

<< On another note:

I do like it when the police send out mailings to criminials with warrants out for their arrest saying that they are invited to some sort of special event.

Then when they show up, they arrest them.

That amuses me to no end. >>

Actually, that's kind of funny. Then again, they ARE already criminals with warrants.

gopunk,

I?d better clarify by breaking down the two issues.

It was neighborhood grassroots efforts directed at johns that shut down most of the ?massage? parlors here in the city. It was simple and really quite amusing, what they would do. People hanging out outside the ?massage? parlors and ?health clubs,? some with cameras, would record the john?s license plate and take pictures. Then for $4.50, they would go down to the transportation building in St. Paul and buy a copy of their vehicle?s registration records. If the vehicle had a co-owner, it was usually the wife. Then they would mail a letter to the john?s wife along with the pics. Word travels surprisingly fast in a mid-sized city like Minneapolis. They were forced out of business one by one over a period of several years.

In the case of prostitution, going after the johns is a fairly effective tactic, yet if you saw the episode of Cops that I refer to, you might think that the cop was going a little too far.

In the case of drug dealing, I just don?t think it?s worth it for them to go after the users. If the cops get the dealers, the users keep walking, hopefully not bothering anybody, except for their wimp ass, petty crimes like breaking into cars and washing machines and crap like that to support their habit when they get desperate. IMHO, the cops should go after the supply first, instead of standing there, busting addicts. All their presence does in that case is cause the real dealers to walk six block and establish a new corner, still free to supply drugs, terrifying the normal citizens around the area.