3 ms·
The entrapment defense is pretty much non-existent. The thing is that it's perfectly fine to entrap someone who is willing to commit the crime anyway. A governm
by JackC 12y ago
The entrapment defense is pretty much non-existent. The thing is that it's perfectly fine to entrap someone who is willing to commit the crime anyway. A government agent can give you everything you need to commit a crime, beg and plead and nag you to commit the crime, and still prosecute you for doing it -- because it's your job not to commit crimes even when you have means and motive to do so.
What's against the rules is to make someone commit a crime who is unwilling. But you, the defendant, pretty much have to admit you decided to commit the crime in order to convincingly offer an entrapment defense in the first place. ("I wasn't going to do it, but then the government did A, B, and C ...") So how do you also convince the jury that you did it unwillingly? Basically, A, B, and C have to be so compelling that the jury is convinced they themselves would have done the same thing in those circumstances. Short of "the undercover cop pointed a gun at me and ordered me to do it," it's a tough sell.
- Retric 12y agoThe bar is not quite that high. I recall hearing about a case where the cops suspected someone so they sent a fair amount of advertisements for an illegal product to their house. The defense basically said, they did not bite the first time or the second, but after a while curiosity got the best of them. The important thing to note is they passed up several opportunity's before trying to commit the crime. In this case, as long as the cops don't actively advertise people probably can't use the entrapment defense. But, if they setup a large ad-words account then in theory that's a problem. However, If the jury finds that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime that he committed, the defendant will not be allowed to use the entrapment defense, no matter how extensive police participation was in inducing the defendant to commit the crime on this particular occasion. So, if the prosecution demonstrates someone is a habitual drug user then the cops can advertise freely. But, if they cops advertise and someone that's been clean for a few months/years calls them up that's a gray area that depends on the jury's interpretation.
- dubfan 12y agoYou're probably referring to Jacobson v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States
- EGreg 12y agoI see, so cops can force a drug user to take drugs they brought in front of them, then the DA can get a conviction? Or they can force a pedophile to molest a child by threatening them, and then use the argument that they were predisposed already?
- chc 12y agoIf they needed to force the person, that person was plainly not predisposed to take the action in question.