entrapment, how does this work

Hops

Hops

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
413
just curious how entrapments works if at all.. i've heard tale of if ask "are you in any way affiliated with the police or any other type of government agency" that they have to say yes or its entrapment

is this just a myth or does it hold true somewhat
 
'tis a myth.

there are differing standards for entrapment, depending on the place where a person is charged. some states place the burden of proving entrapment on the defendant. others place the burden of showing the lack of entrapment on the prosecution.
 
I figured as much, thanks for the info, just want to get more educated on legal aspects.

wonder how many people learn this the hard way
 
LEOs do not have to tell you they are cops if you ask. Think about how many cases would be compromised and how many cops would be killed. They don't want their cases to be compromised and they definitely don't want their officers to die. This myth has officially been busted.
 
It's a myth, and entrapment itself is very rarely effective as a legal defense.

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml

The mere presentation of an opportunity or request by an officer that an individual commit a crime does not qualify as entrapment. An officer may engage a citizen in conversation and ask to buy an illegal substance -- even if they have no reason to suspect the person of illegal activity.2 They may offer to sell an illegal substance and arrest the buyer after the sale.
Click to expand...
 
michael said:
it's a myth, and a really fucking stupid one at that.
Click to expand...

Seriously. How could there possibly be any such thing as an undercover cop if they had to identify themselves when asked? Ridiculous. I have actually had long arguments with people on this very topic, however.
 
Entrapment - the government must propose that you commit a crime.
You must not have the propensity to commit this crime.

You must express a desire to NOT commit the crime.

Only after establishing that you DO NOT want to commit the crime, and are elicited to do so (offering you $1,000,000 to jaywalk and you doing it is NOT entrapment. You have to say that it's not worth it. That you won't. And be able to prove that you WOULD NOT have done it if the government DID NOT PRESSURE you into doing so.), you commit the crime, and are then tried...

That's entrapment.
(A little extreme, but that's it. Best of luck proving propensity. That one's a bastard to prove.)
 
BodhiSvaha33 said:
entrapment itself is very rarely effective as a legal defense.
Click to expand...
^^^
the crucial point on entrapment. the majority rule, i think, breaks entrapment into two categories: (1) entrapement through misrepresentation, as in giving a false belief that the criminal acitivity was not illegal OR (2) inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. again, these are difficult to prove.
 
Banquo - something my mom keeps repeating to me (not to jack the thread or anything...) is that since I believed my actions to be illegal, they were illegal.

How does this hold up?

If you believe that you are murdering someone - and that it is a mercy killing - say they're possessed by the devil or something - and they NEED to die, it is for THEIR benefit.
You believe that since they are benefiting from your act, your act is not a crime.

(Granted... insanity may come into play... but aside from that...)
Does your belief that your acts were NOT a crime make them any less criminal?

Can my belief that dealing drugs WAS a crime make my acts (now believed to NOT be criminal) crimes despite the facts? (Assuming my facts are correct and my actions were not criminal?)


Easier...
You believe smoking tobacco is a crime.
You sneak a few puffs.

Does this mean you committed a crime because you BELIEVED you committed a crime, or does this mean that your actions are STILL not crimes because your acts were not illegal?
 
You believe smoking tobacco is a crime.
You sneak a few puffs.

Does this mean you committed a crime because you BELIEVED you committed a crime, or does this mean that your actions are STILL not crimes because your acts were not illegal?
Click to expand...
Nope, because crimes require criminal intent (a guilty mind) and a criminal act. If you committed an act that was not illegal, then there is no crime. (There are exceptions to the intent + act requirement. Strict liability crimes like sex with a minor, for example, do not require an intent to engage in underage sex.)

If you believe that you are murdering someone - and that it is a mercy killing - say they're possessed by the devil or something - and they NEED to die, it is for THEIR benefit.
Click to expand...
This is a question of necessity. It is a necessity that the law usually does not recognize as a defense to the killing of another. There are a few interesting cases on patient request for denial of life-saving medication. This is allowed. Assisted suicide usually is not.

Can my belief that dealing drugs WAS a crime make my acts (now believed to NOT be criminal) crimes despite the facts? (Assuming my facts are correct and my actions were not criminal?)
Click to expand...
Mistake of law is not a defense to a crime. I'm sure you've heard the old maxim -- "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law."

Mistake of fact, on the other hand, can be defense. For example, if you bought a television at Best Buy that was filled with heroin (which you were not aware of) and shipped it to your Uncle Jack as a wedding present, you could rightfully claim that you did not have the intent (guilty mind) necessary for the comission of a crime.
 
So not having knowledge of a law is not an acceptable defense...

That's kind of what I was getting at.

So having a mistaken belief than an act is criminal cannot make that act criminal.



That's what I thought.
Just wanted a second opinion.

(Of course, I want to delve into the corpus delicti thing, but alas...)
 
Can I suggest these additional examples for mistake of law and mistake of fact? They reverse Banquo's examples to show the opposite effect.

Mistake of law: You flash someone by opening your raincoat to reveal that you're wearing only underwear beneath. You think this is a crime, however it is not - a mistake of law. Result: You did not commit a crime.

Mistake of fact: You pick an empty pocket. You thought the pocket had a wallet in it - a mistake of fact. Result: You committed a crime.
 
>_<

You people can't make things easy, can you =P



So...
If I believed dealing drugs to be a crime, but can now prove that it is not a crime (that the laws are unconstitutional and/or do not apply to me (as my rights of property and contract have not been inhibited through due process of law), and are therefore invalid - not laws), my actions were not criminal despite criminal intent.

:P
Again - ASSUMING I can prove this and my facts are correct.
This would be the case.

U.S. Supreme Court
HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
201 U.S. 43
EDWIN F. HALE, Appt.,
v.
WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal.
No. 340.
Argued January 4, 5, 1906.
Decided March 12, 1906.
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.“

Corpus delicti - no rights were violated.
I have no criminal history - no due process to deprive me of my property rights.

I am being charged with the crime of possession of private property (drugs).
If this property was mine, any intent to use or distribute it was part of my unlimited right to contract.

The government cannot have the authority to prohibit these actions as any law against such acts would be in violation of my unalienable rights - something no individual has the authority to do, therefore NOT a right that a governmental privilege can be derived from.


PLEASE, poke holes.
I need this to be solid, or I need to plea to the charges against me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top