Clairification about entrapment in the U.S.

In the U.S., entrapment basically no longer exists. In order to use entrapment as a successful defense, you have to prove that you did not have the option to not commit a crime.

If L.E. convinces you to do a crime, that is not entrapment. If L.E. points a gun to your head, you can use entrapment as a defense. If L.E. offers you a kilo for 5 dollars and swear they are not a cop, that is not entrapment. If L.E. threatens your family if you don't but that kilo, that may be entrapment.

L.E. giving you the opportunity to commit a crime isn't entrapment. It's only entrapment if you are being forced to commit the crime. Like you or your family will get hurt if you don't do it.

The last time a case successfully used entrapment as a defense, as far as I am aware, was in the 80's.

L.E. is never going to put themselves in a situation were entrapment would get someone off the hook.


Comments


[11 Points] Joebelowme:

wikibot what is entrapment?


[3 Points] stir_fried_abortion:

Stop talking about something you clearly are not knowledgeable about. The legal standard for entrapment involves whether a person was induced by LE to commit a crime, and whether that person was predisposed to commit the crime. Look up the case Jacobson v US (1992) and read up on what the Supreme Court said before you go spouting complete nonsense.

Entrapment has NOTHING to do with being forced by LE. If there is any evidence whatsoever of LE using duress or force to get someone to commit a crime, it would very likely never make it past a DA. Even if it did, a judge would throw it out before it got to a jury.

I have no idea where you're getting your information about entrapment, but you didn't make a single statement that was even close to accurate.

Read this for a quick primer: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/january-2012/avoiding-the-entrapment-defense-in-a-post-9-11-world


[3 Points] None:

You're correct and more people should know this. One minor nitpick -- it's not that you're given no choice but to commit the crime, it is that you committed a crime you would not have committed otherwise. It's more than a semantics issue by the way. Duress is when you have no other choice and is a defense in itself. If someone holds a gun to your head and makes you rob a bank; that's duress. If the police out you in a situation where your only option is to commit a crime, it's still duress.

There have certainly been cases where entrapment has been successfully argued since the 80's. That doesn't come up as a defense in trial; it's generally a pretrial argument to get charges reduced or dismissed. A lot of cases over the last decade have involved actual entrapment; a common one in the news is infiltrating mosques that are suspected to harbor terrorists and recruit members to attempt to commit crimes. There is an ugly, ugly recent case of this and I am unable to find a decent link via google as I happen to be in the Middle East right now and google is regional as fuck. I think TAL podcast did a story on it. The entrapment defense did not stick, and it's awful.

Nothing about controlled deliveries is entrapment, and that seems to be what people claim most often here. For a DNM purchase to be entrapment the police would have to send the drugs to the person unknowingly, then arrest them when it arrives. (CD or no)

I mention a lot I think people should take a night class on civics and the law on their area. So much utter bullshit rumor gets spread around online and not everyone takes the time to think it through. (Stop signs with white borders "don't count..." Clerical errors on traffic tickets voids them..." It gets repeated often enough people assume it to be the truth and I am positive every day someone out there is sorry they didn't learn their actual rights and laws instead of what forums tell them.


[2 Points] None:

It's not true that entrapment hasn't been successful since the eighties. Here is an example of a case thrown out for entrapment in 2013.


[1 Points] derechoprivado:

If this is true it's very sad. USA its supposed to be the country that invented modern law..

Here in my country, Spain, police can't buy or sell drugs without a judge warrant and even if they do it they'd had to explain in court why they didn't induce anybody to sell drugs etc.


[1 Points] AThrowawayAsshole:

Some lawyer did a cute little comic series defining various legal terms like this. If only I could remember the link.


[-1 Points] None:

[deleted]


[-3 Points] quitnever:

Morons say what about entrapment on possibly illegal site....