3 ms·

Idk. If an undercover FBI agent can convince you to order C4 with intent to blow up infrastructure, who says someone else couldnt. Id rather it be an agent lock

Idk. If an undercover FBI agent can convince you to order C4 with intent to blow up infrastructure, who says someone else couldnt. Id rather it be an agent locking him up, than real seller, while an agent dont notice.

pxeger1 2y ago
But then the label "for attempting to destroy ..." is misleading, because a priori all they’ve really proven is he is susceptible to being convinced to attempt to destroy it. It seems to me your argument can be extended to justify any form of entrapment: "if an undercover police officer can convince you to buy a gun with the intent to rob someone at gunpoint, who says someone else couldn’t?"
- cma 2y ago
  They said he wanted to shoot it but decided that wouldn't do enough damage.
- MaxikCZ 2y ago
  Lets switch "attempting to destroy" for "attenpting to murder". If an undercover cop sells you a gun knowing you want to use it to murder your spouse, you should definetly be charged with both, illegal purchase of firearm and intent to murder, regardless whether you actually to managed to murder someone first. Does it matter that all someone (be it undercover cop or criminal) proved was you are able to be convinced to murder your spouse AND buy a gun? In my books you either charge the person at that point (for intent to murder), or it will be too late. Same applies to "suspectible to destroy". They proven their intent AND purchased C4... Shall we give them benefit of the doubt until it actually goes boom?
octopoc 2y ago
Let’s say, for sake of argument, that only 10% of crimes committed due to entrapment would have been committed without entrapment. Are you still okay with that outcome? At what percentage does entrapment become a good thing? 50%? We can use statistics and models to estimate this I think, it would just be a lot of work.
- MaxikCZ 2y ago
  I think you shouldnt get charged for crimes you didnt commit, but it shouldnt matter whether an undercover cop or criminal enabled you to achieve your criminal goal. I am sure many things can be prosecuted before they even happen (like intent to murder as oposed to murder itself), and those should apply regardless of who talks you into intending to carry out the crime
dpc_01234 2y ago
Encouraging someone to commit a crime seems quite immoral to me. Somehow the government always find a way to justify their immoral behavior, and I don't buy it.

pxeger1 2y ago

But then the label "for attempting to destroy ..." is misleading, because a priori all they’ve really proven is he is susceptible to being convinced to attempt to destroy it. It seems to me your argument can be extended to justify any form of entrapment: "if an undercover police officer can convince you to buy a gun with the intent to rob someone at gunpoint, who says someone else couldn’t?"

cma 2y ago
They said he wanted to shoot it but decided that wouldn't do enough damage.
MaxikCZ 2y ago
Lets switch "attempting to destroy" for "attenpting to murder". If an undercover cop sells you a gun knowing you want to use it to murder your spouse, you should definetly be charged with both, illegal purchase of firearm and intent to murder, regardless whether you actually to managed to murder someone first. Does it matter that all someone (be it undercover cop or criminal) proved was you are able to be convinced to murder your spouse AND buy a gun? In my books you either charge the person at that point (for intent to murder), or it will be too late. Same applies to "suspectible to destroy". They proven their intent AND purchased C4... Shall we give them benefit of the doubt until it actually goes boom?

octopoc 2y ago

Let’s say, for sake of argument, that only 10% of crimes committed due to entrapment would have been committed without entrapment. Are you still okay with that outcome? At what percentage does entrapment become a good thing? 50%? We can use statistics and models to estimate this I think, it would just be a lot of work.

MaxikCZ 2y ago
I think you shouldnt get charged for crimes you didnt commit, but it shouldnt matter whether an undercover cop or criminal enabled you to achieve your criminal goal. I am sure many things can be prosecuted before they even happen (like intent to murder as oposed to murder itself), and those should apply regardless of who talks you into intending to carry out the crime

dpc_01234 2y ago

Encouraging someone to commit a crime seems quite immoral to me. Somehow the government always find a way to justify their immoral behavior, and I don't buy it.