4 ms·

> can you really entrap someone into launching a surface-to-surface missile at a air base? AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the

> can you really entrap someone into launching a surface-to-surface missile at a air base? AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the violent acts to actually occur), they just are involved in planning them. Can you entrap a vulnerable person into participating in a plot, by making them feel important or valuable or threatened or as if their problems will be solved, or by making them feel that they are otherwise going against the group social norms? I'd say: Definitely yes. Consider that humans are generally easily, predictably persuadable: * Many human trafficking victims are 'entrapped' by their pimps, unwilling to leave and persuaded that the pimps love them - it's not an anomaly but standard procedure for the pimps, who seek out vulnerable young women. * In another field, there is research that a large number of confessions, even to serious crimes, are false. People somehow break down after hours of interrogation and confess to things that never happened. * Soldiers in large numbers are trained to kill, and often for very bad causes (look at militaries around the world and throughout history). * Look up Stanly Milgram's famous experiments where people were persuaded to torture others.

humanrebar 10y ago
> Consider that humans are generally easily, predictably persuadable That may be true, but it undermines much of the legal code. A 'predictably persuadable' person can be talked into giving someone a ride, that person commits a homicide in the commission of a robbery, and then the 'predictably persuadable' person is legally responsible for the murder as well. So, you may be correct that we need a more sophisticated understanding of mens rea into our legal code, but the premise of your objection is fairly far-reaching. We should be deliberate and thoughtful about embracing it fully, even if it is true and fair.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I agree regarding how it applies to the legal code (EDIT: though the law has allowances for these things too), but at the same time we need to be realistic; the legal code isn't reality. And we need to be responsible: We can't just say that because it's legal then it's ok. The FBI has a choice; it doesn't need to pursue these people. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute. Juries can temper their conclusions and judges can temper their sentences. Etc.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > We can't just say that because it's legal then it's ok. Absolutely. I say this all the time. > Prosecutors can decline to prosecute. But prosecutors can also choose to prosecute. When there's that much give in the legal code (giving a ride falls between 'no charge' and the death penalty), there's a lot of room for abuse and corruption. It might be worth giving up the ability to execute people for guarding (terrorist) warehouses for the assurance that we are governed by laws and not by (fickle, prejudiced, and corruptible) men.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Absolutely. I say this all the time. well you are not doing anything to improve the laws and society then. Given than logic we'd still have slavery and sodomy laws among other things...
- kiba 10y ago
  The legal code and the justice system need overhauling for a whole bunch of other reason, anyway.
- ashearer 10y ago
  None of GP's points would necessarily absolve a suggestible accomplice of a crime that actually occurred. The FBI's cases, on the other hand, were entirely fictitious except for the suggestible person. It would certainly be a strong case if a suspect had actively sought the final ingredients of a self-planned act of terror, which would have killed people had the FBI not responded to the call first with fake equipment. But the objection in these cases is that when you subtract the FBI-provided motivation, plans, and equipment, all that's left are the person's own suggestibility and weak moral compass. Those don't constitute a criminal act in themselves. Experts could argue that they aren't likely to have ever resulted in one. The religious targeting aspect is even more unfair. As far as I know, the FBI isn't spending similar time and resources to identify disaffected and suggestible non-Muslims, and then convincing them of the glory and honor awaiting them if only they would help push a button to bomb a local mosque. Edit: In the above example, the "predictably persuadable" person isn't criminally responsible for murder if the ride was given to an FBI agent, and there was no actual robbery or murder.
outworlder 10y ago
> AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the violent acts to actually occur), they just are involved in planning them. Without any concrete actions, how does this so called "planning" differ from bragging?
zaroth 10y ago
> AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the violent acts to actually occur), they just are involved in planning them. In some cases they attempt to explode what they think are real bombs. I've read that conspiracy charges do not always require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unless it's a government agent who suggests it. In those cases an overt act in furtherance is always required. The cases I recall involved fake-bombs that the suspect tried to detonate. [1] Some other responses down thread include much more dubious actions by the co-conspirators which shines a much more concerning light on this FBI practice. [1] - https://news.vice.com/article/isis-fake-bomb-terrorist-fbi-sting-miami-synagogue https://news.vice.com/article/isis-fake-bomb-terrorist-fbi-s... Also, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris...
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Some are real bombs. Like 1993. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWKbbNKuc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWKbbNKuc8

humanrebar 10y ago

> Consider that humans are generally easily, predictably persuadable That may be true, but it undermines much of the legal code. A 'predictably persuadable' person can be talked into giving someone a ride, that person commits a homicide in the commission of a robbery, and then the 'predictably persuadable' person is legally responsible for the murder as well. So, you may be correct that we need a more sophisticated understanding of mens rea into our legal code, but the premise of your objection is fairly far-reaching. We should be deliberate and thoughtful about embracing it fully, even if it is true and fair.

hackuser 10y ago
I agree regarding how it applies to the legal code (EDIT: though the law has allowances for these things too), but at the same time we need to be realistic; the legal code isn't reality. And we need to be responsible: We can't just say that because it's legal then it's ok. The FBI has a choice; it doesn't need to pursue these people. Prosecutors can decline to prosecute. Juries can temper their conclusions and judges can temper their sentences. Etc.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > We can't just say that because it's legal then it's ok. Absolutely. I say this all the time. > Prosecutors can decline to prosecute. But prosecutors can also choose to prosecute. When there's that much give in the legal code (giving a ride falls between 'no charge' and the death penalty), there's a lot of room for abuse and corruption. It might be worth giving up the ability to execute people for guarding (terrorist) warehouses for the assurance that we are governed by laws and not by (fickle, prejudiced, and corruptible) men.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Absolutely. I say this all the time. well you are not doing anything to improve the laws and society then. Given than logic we'd still have slavery and sodomy laws among other things...
kiba 10y ago
The legal code and the justice system need overhauling for a whole bunch of other reason, anyway.
ashearer 10y ago
None of GP's points would necessarily absolve a suggestible accomplice of a crime that actually occurred. The FBI's cases, on the other hand, were entirely fictitious except for the suggestible person. It would certainly be a strong case if a suspect had actively sought the final ingredients of a self-planned act of terror, which would have killed people had the FBI not responded to the call first with fake equipment. But the objection in these cases is that when you subtract the FBI-provided motivation, plans, and equipment, all that's left are the person's own suggestibility and weak moral compass. Those don't constitute a criminal act in themselves. Experts could argue that they aren't likely to have ever resulted in one. The religious targeting aspect is even more unfair. As far as I know, the FBI isn't spending similar time and resources to identify disaffected and suggestible non-Muslims, and then convincing them of the glory and honor awaiting them if only they would help push a button to bomb a local mosque. Edit: In the above example, the "predictably persuadable" person isn't criminally responsible for murder if the ride was given to an FBI agent, and there was no actual robbery or murder.

outworlder 10y ago

> AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the violent acts to actually occur), they just are involved in planning them. Without any concrete actions, how does this so called "planning" differ from bragging?

zaroth 10y ago

> AFAIK these people don't commit the crimes (the FBI doesn't want the violent acts to actually occur), they just are involved in planning them. In some cases they attempt to explode what they think are real bombs. I've read that conspiracy charges do not always require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unless it's a government agent who suggests it. In those cases an overt act in furtherance is always required. The cases I recall involved fake-bombs that the suspect tried to detonate. [1] Some other responses down thread include much more dubious actions by the co-conspirators which shines a much more concerning light on this FBI practice. [1] - https://news.vice.com/article/isis-fake-bomb-terrorist-fbi-sting-miami-synagogue https://news.vice.com/article/isis-fake-bomb-terrorist-fbi-s... Also, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris...

jakeogh 10y ago
Some are real bombs. Like 1993. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWKbbNKuc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWKbbNKuc8