5 ms·

This isn't very dissimilar to being an undercover detective. If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals

This isn't very dissimilar to being an undercover detective. If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives. While I agree its unsettling that government agents could be committing crimes legally, I can also see the argument for leniency if it helps them penetrate further into criminal enterprises and bring them down more effectively.

kombucha2 9y ago
"Are you a cop? You have to tell me or else it's entrapment!!" ;)
- e12e 9y ago
  Apart from (parts of?) the US - most civilised countries have strong rules against entrapment. It's eg unlikely the first twin tower bomber could've been found guilty, as FBI initiated the plan and provided the explosives. That doesn't mean police can't do "minor" entrapment in order to roll up a big case; it just means they can expect to sentence people for those acts. As for a litmus test, I believe maiming or killing bystanders would qualify against most police officers (the trick, then is to make sure the "victim" isn't a carefully placed undercover asset...). Now, assume a ring of human traffickers have the rape and killing of a victim as part of the initiation process: are there circumstances where we would condone branches of our government to participate in order to bring down such an organisation? I lean strongly towards no; but as has been seen from Japan under us administration to kfor in Kosovo - using war criminals and military/intelligence personell as part of heinous organised crime is a feature of our current world order. How do we fight it?
  - amygdyl 9y ago
    No anti entrapment rule or law in the UK.
    - amygdyl 9y ago
      My statement of law which is now probably not visible was moderated down _after I replied to the response saying I was incorrect, therefore after I established in fact that there is no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK. There's two parts in English law, statute and case law. Case law such as I cited in my clarification that supports my original comment, obviously is the outcome of a trial. Because we use a case law system, rather than try to codify the precise outcomes in all events, the established case law is necessarily representative of only the similar cases. This case law precedent I cited is very well established without any substantial challenge. My citation says that entrapment as a rule only counts for [very strong] mitigation in sentencing, but otherwise is not a defense. For the law to prohibit entrapment, then the fact of entrapment must itself be a complete defense to any crime discovered pursuant to entrapment. Because you cannot rely on the fact of entrapment to acquit you of a crime consequently committed, there is therefore no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK. If anything, the case law precedent set out in my citation above actually encourages the use of entrapment! Will moderators please take note that the kind of erasure of the simple but deceptive arguments above actually risk false conceptions that could result in a reader's loss of liberty and worse. This is a dangerous revisionist moderation inconsiderate of human liberties and the quality and consistency of logic one expects of this commentariat. I am disinterested in the moderation in affect upon myself, but thoroughly disquieted by the danger of effect of so seemingly innocent a editorial complication.
    - quietbritishjim 9y ago
      There certainly is! The bar is quite high though; it's not enough for a police officer to have given you an opportunity to commit a crime, they really have to have tricked someone into it who wouldn't reasonably be expected to normally commit a crime.
      - amygdyl 9y ago
        You mean under PACE? I was after a act addressing the issue directly (or revision of another act) or else a clear statute standing alone with a unencumbered commencement order. I have had the debate while cuffed to a young officer gleefully chirping no such law exists, and I replied as pretty much you have to me. This below is clarification and I believe supports my originally intended declaration, however I don't think I sufficiently eliminated ambiguity in lay terms from my wording, adequate to claim correctness absolute: <quote>It is established case law that, while offering significant mitigation at sentence, there is no defence of entrapment in English law (R v Sang [1980] AC 402). However, it is also considered to be an abuse of court process for agents of the state to lure citizens into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. State-created entrapment of this sort will result in a stay of proceedings.</quote> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapment/55972.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapmen...
pjc50 9y ago
On the other hand, if there aren't any rules then the security services can simply murder dissidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane Edit: another recent scandal; is it OK for undercover police to have long-term sexual relations with the people they are informing on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relationships_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio... Until reading that I hadn't been aware that questions had been asked in the Bundestag about Mark Kennedy; understandably Germany takes a view of both (a) secret police and (b) foreigners committing arson.
- dictum 9y ago
  One of the most fascinating things (in a repulsive way) I've heard of intelligence agencies doing is keeping an abuse ring running so the participants can be blackmailed. The MI5 may have done that: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/belfast-boys-home-kincora-abuse-victim-wins-legal-bid https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/belfast-boys...
- baddox 9y ago
  I’ll go a step further and say that I am strongly in favor of erring way on the side of less legal immunity for undercover agents. I don’t think a world with no undercover agents (especially domestic agents; foreign operatives is a bit of a different ballgame) sounds particularly horrible, but a world with domestic agents with significant immunity is pretty much the definition of dystopia.
coldtea 9y ago
>If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives. They could always ask them to kill a random person. So, should that be allowed?
- timthorn 9y ago
  That might have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeknife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeknife
- pjc50 9y ago
  Yeah, that definitely happened on a number of occasions. I doubt the truth will ever come out, but there are various lists of various levels of plausibility. Both in NI where the security services were routinely shooting people (and in one case blew up a band) and on the mainland which is usually thought of as less of a lawless free-for-all.

kombucha2 9y ago

"Are you a cop? You have to tell me or else it's entrapment!!" ;)

e12e 9y ago
Apart from (parts of?) the US - most civilised countries have strong rules against entrapment. It's eg unlikely the first twin tower bomber could've been found guilty, as FBI initiated the plan and provided the explosives. That doesn't mean police can't do "minor" entrapment in order to roll up a big case; it just means they can expect to sentence people for those acts. As for a litmus test, I believe maiming or killing bystanders would qualify against most police officers (the trick, then is to make sure the "victim" isn't a carefully placed undercover asset...). Now, assume a ring of human traffickers have the rape and killing of a victim as part of the initiation process: are there circumstances where we would condone branches of our government to participate in order to bring down such an organisation? I lean strongly towards no; but as has been seen from Japan under us administration to kfor in Kosovo - using war criminals and military/intelligence personell as part of heinous organised crime is a feature of our current world order. How do we fight it?
- amygdyl 9y ago
  No anti entrapment rule or law in the UK.
  - amygdyl 9y ago
    My statement of law which is now probably not visible was moderated down _after I replied to the response saying I was incorrect, therefore after I established in fact that there is no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK. There's two parts in English law, statute and case law. Case law such as I cited in my clarification that supports my original comment, obviously is the outcome of a trial. Because we use a case law system, rather than try to codify the precise outcomes in all events, the established case law is necessarily representative of only the similar cases. This case law precedent I cited is very well established without any substantial challenge. My citation says that entrapment as a rule only counts for [very strong] mitigation in sentencing, but otherwise is not a defense. For the law to prohibit entrapment, then the fact of entrapment must itself be a complete defense to any crime discovered pursuant to entrapment. Because you cannot rely on the fact of entrapment to acquit you of a crime consequently committed, there is therefore no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK. If anything, the case law precedent set out in my citation above actually encourages the use of entrapment! Will moderators please take note that the kind of erasure of the simple but deceptive arguments above actually risk false conceptions that could result in a reader's loss of liberty and worse. This is a dangerous revisionist moderation inconsiderate of human liberties and the quality and consistency of logic one expects of this commentariat. I am disinterested in the moderation in affect upon myself, but thoroughly disquieted by the danger of effect of so seemingly innocent a editorial complication.
  - quietbritishjim 9y ago
    There certainly is! The bar is quite high though; it's not enough for a police officer to have given you an opportunity to commit a crime, they really have to have tricked someone into it who wouldn't reasonably be expected to normally commit a crime.
    - amygdyl 9y ago
      You mean under PACE? I was after a act addressing the issue directly (or revision of another act) or else a clear statute standing alone with a unencumbered commencement order. I have had the debate while cuffed to a young officer gleefully chirping no such law exists, and I replied as pretty much you have to me. This below is clarification and I believe supports my originally intended declaration, however I don't think I sufficiently eliminated ambiguity in lay terms from my wording, adequate to claim correctness absolute: <quote>It is established case law that, while offering significant mitigation at sentence, there is no defence of entrapment in English law (R v Sang [1980] AC 402). However, it is also considered to be an abuse of court process for agents of the state to lure citizens into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. State-created entrapment of this sort will result in a stay of proceedings.</quote> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapment/55972.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapmen...

pjc50 9y ago

On the other hand, if there aren't any rules then the security services can simply murder dissidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane Edit: another recent scandal; is it OK for undercover police to have long-term sexual relations with the people they are informing on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relationships_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio... Until reading that I hadn't been aware that questions had been asked in the Bundestag about Mark Kennedy; understandably Germany takes a view of both (a) secret police and (b) foreigners committing arson.

dictum 9y ago
One of the most fascinating things (in a repulsive way) I've heard of intelligence agencies doing is keeping an abuse ring running so the participants can be blackmailed. The MI5 may have done that: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/belfast-boys-home-kincora-abuse-victim-wins-legal-bid https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/belfast-boys...
baddox 9y ago
I’ll go a step further and say that I am strongly in favor of erring way on the side of less legal immunity for undercover agents. I don’t think a world with no undercover agents (especially domestic agents; foreign operatives is a bit of a different ballgame) sounds particularly horrible, but a world with domestic agents with significant immunity is pretty much the definition of dystopia.

coldtea 9y ago

>If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives. They could always ask them to kill a random person. So, should that be allowed?

timthorn 9y ago
That might have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeknife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeknife
pjc50 9y ago
Yeah, that definitely happened on a number of occasions. I doubt the truth will ever come out, but there are various lists of various levels of plausibility. Both in NI where the security services were routinely shooting people (and in one case blew up a band) and on the mainland which is usually thought of as less of a lawless free-for-all.