Police entrapment

Post Reply New Topic

Just an observation: the police used to use a tactic called "entrapment." The courts said that entrapment was illegal. So the police changed the name to "sting operation." Apparently that was enough to satisfy the courts.

Entrapment is quite different than a sting operation. I won't deny there are some loop holes in our system, and there are some corrupt people out there, but these are 2 different things. Anyway, entrapment is a DEFENSE against a sting operation or being culled into admitting/committing a crime.

entrapment: the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it (Merriam Webster)

But where is the line drawn?

From 60 Minutes years ago - there was an NYPD unit in the subways, getting themselves mugged for purposes of prosecution of the mugger. They were accused of entrapment and banned.

What was construed as entrapment? Carrying a ghetto blaster on their shoulder. Wearing a shoulder strap purse and letting it fall to the back.

Around here, that's normal behaviour. Maybe in NYC, it's insanely dangerous, so inviting as to make it illegally irresistable to grab said items.

The thing that bugs me the most about the entrapment problem is that it defies personal responsibility.

Here's another I just remembered. A guy in a bar, another guy begging for a connection. Guy#1 keeps saying I Don't Know and Guy#2 won't stop. Goes on for an hour. Finally Guy#1 leaves, comes back, says 'Go to the mens room' - and gets arrested for pushing drugs. That was going too far, imho.

The line has to be drawn at "no entrapment". If we allow it for any reason, then we have allowed it, and it is much easier to expand an already existing police power than to create one from scratch. Past history demonstrates that the government, once given a power, will always expand its use.

Um. That's not the line I meant. I'm looking for a defining line between legal (admissible evidence) and illegal (inadmissible evidence). The courts have made entrapment illegal, but what is entrapment? Also what should it be?

My definition of entrapment would exclude approaching the entrapee without invitation.

In the example above, the NYPD wasn't approaching anybody - they were plainclothes riding the subway, minding their own business, and getting mugged. I think that's not entrapment.

In the other example, the PD approached the man and asked him to commit a crime - that's entrapment and should not be admissible in Court.

Someone I knew got busted in one of those underage sex-solicitation stings on the internet and tried to claim entrapment. I thought that was stupid because he approached the undercover cop and started all the nasty conversations. Then his lawyer tried to claim that there was no crime because he wasn't actually talking to an underage person. I don't understand how the lawyer could have even tried both those defenses - knowing what the chat logs said and knowing that by law you only have to think you're talking to an underage person.

Same idea as having a cop walk around looking like a hooker or looking like a "vulnerable" person in the subway. I don't see it as a problem if the cops let the criminals come to them.

Janicka - yes, that's the kind of thing I'm trying to get at. I agree with what you said. It's sort of a question of who started it.

In law enforcement, a sting operation is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime by means of deception. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing.


Examples

Purchasing illegal drugs to catch a supplier
Deploying a bait car (also called a honey trap) to catch an auto thief
Setting up a seemingly vulnerable honeypot computer to lure and gain information about crackers.
Posing as someone who is seeking child pornography to catch a supplier
Posing as a supplier of child pornography to lure a child molester
Posing as a child in a chat room to lure a child molester
Police arranging someone under the legal drinking age to ask an adult to buy alcoholic beverage for him or her


...from wikipedia


I consider all of those examples to be illegal entrapment. Our government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging people to commit crimes, and then arresting them when they do.

Ed, maybe I should go back to the original post. Are we talking about whether entrapment is the same thing as sting operation? Sorry, I missed the point, I was on about entrapment.

I think the difference is how many participants are already in play. For entrapment, there are none, until the PD starts something. For a sting operation, the PD sneaks in on an existing crime operation, all players active before the PD gets there. I don't they're the same at all.

It's kind of hard to use examples about child porn. I don't care what they have to do to put those people away. I can't be objective at all. If I had to sacrifice my personal freedom to save a child, I would. I think sellers and buyers of child porn should be put away forever and I don't care how they catch them. And they should *not* release them. Ever.

so they start with the child molesters... then the pot dealers... before you know it, they're coming for... you!