Entrapment

C

CreativeRandom

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
3,108
How does this law work? I thought that it could work, say, if an undercover cop or CI is trying to bust you, and you ask "are you a cop", they must reveal they are a cop to you otherwise its illegaly obtained info on what they get.

Yet i saw a show recently on cops about prostitute stings. Every prostitute asked the undercover cop, "are you a cop", and he said no. At the end of the show, they commented how funny it was that prostitutes always asked that, because he said he doesnt need to tell them that, and it isn't illegal for him to lie.

So how does entrapment actually work? Is there anyway to stop a CI or undercover from busting you besides not talking, not doing an illegal crime, or using good judgement?
 
Many moons ago, a creative lawyer actually "earned" his fee by convincing a judge that since his client had the wherewithal to ask the infamous question, "Are you a cop?", and the cop lied and said "no" that his client was "entrapped" and was freed of bondage (Damn the man!).

Unfortunately (I guess), that infamous loop-hole has been slammed shut tighter than...[enter humorous response here]. There may be some state out there that still holds true to this defense, but I do not know of one.
 
So entrapment doesn't work in any way for us, and undercovers will screw us, as will CI's. Fun.

Good judgement...
 
entrapment is very legal. this is the best explanation of it ive ever found, and from a very credible source:
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml


potted-
when has it EVER been an infamous loophole? according to this information, this defense is completely uncommon. it has rarely ever been successful enough to be infamous or a considerable loophole, nor has it been used in any particular state successfully.

"While a claim of "entrapment" by police can be used as a defense in a criminal case, it is both uncommon and rarely successful. Additionally, police entrapment itself is not illegal -- just potential cause for a not-guilty verdict.

Loosely defined, entrapment is a situation in which, if not for the actions of the police officer or police informant, the defendant would not have committed the crime. This defense is generally only successful in situations where law enforcement officers create a criminal plan, plant the idea of that plan into an otherwise innocent person's mind, and then instigate the plan for the purpose of prosecuting the suspect.

even in cases where the government does induce a crime, evidence that the defendant was "predisposed" to committing the crime is likely to undermine an entrapment defense. If the prosecution can show that the defendant agreed to participate too quickly or had a record of similar crimes in the past, the entrapment defense rarely succeeds.
 
Last edited:
CuriousCub said:
entrapment is very legal. this is the best explanation of it ive ever found, and from a very credible source:
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml


potted-
when has it EVER been an infamous loophole? according to this information, this defense is completely uncommon. it has rarely ever been successful enough to be infamous or a considerable loophole, nor has it been used in any particular state successfully.

"While a claim of "entrapment" by police can be used as a defense in a criminal case, it is both uncommon and rarely successful. Additionally, police entrapment itself is not illegal -- just potential cause for a not-guilty verdict.

Loosely defined, entrapment is a situation in which, if not for the actions of the police officer or police informant, the defendant would not have committed the crime. This defense is generally only successful in situations where law enforcement officers create a criminal plan, plant the idea of that plan into an otherwise innocent person's mind, and then instigate the plan for the purpose of prosecuting the suspect.

even in cases where the government does induce a crime, evidence that the defendant was "predisposed" to committing the crime is likely to undermine an entrapment defense. If the prosecution can show that the defendant agreed to participate too quickly or had a record of similar crimes in the past, the entrapment defense rarely succeeds.
Click to expand...

I have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, and this guy has his facts straight. Entrapment is much more than an undercover cop denying his true identify and whatnot. Many people are obviously confused as to what entrapment actually is, and many feel they are victims of entrapment when it is not justified. True entrapment is illegal and very uncommon.
 
right, most entrapment situations are sting operations and the cops are undercover as the only way to catch sly criminals. to say there is a difference between "entrapment" and "true entrapment" furthers the confusion and strengthens the myth of entrapment. Entrapment is what it is, which is "To catch in or as if in a trap. " It's an "i got'cha!" technique, if you will.

Entrapment as a defense, instead of the law enforcement technique that it is, would be *redefining* entrapment, it would NOT make it "true entrapment," as there is no such thing as false entrapment and true entrapment, legally or otherwise. Redefining it changes what entrapment really is, as well as REVERSING what it is, making it out to be a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. So that is the difference --when using entrapment as a defense, you are just attempting to redefine it. Entrapment does not have double meanings in its original form.
 
Last edited:
"Predisposition" has alot to do with character. A famous case where a defendant beat the government using entrapment as a legal defense, was with automaker John De Lorean.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/John De Lorean

Now if John DeLorean was just anyone off the street with a prior conviction for a drug related offense, it would bee pretty easy to prove predisposition.

In America, freedom is a relative term. In reference to how much one can afford?
 
unfortunately, entrapment as a defense is nearly doomed to fail. I could imagine certain circumstances, but they would be extreme and not necessarily fall into the category of your typical (or even atypical) bust. In my opinion, the only use asking whether someone "is law enforcement" would be to watch their response and gauge for yourself whether they are johnny fuzz or not--unfortunately, these guys do this for a living and can easily fake out the best of the best. It is always safe to assume, when committing crimes, that everyone is the law, and work from there. Remember, you can never be too paranoid in this game.

And, ps, someone who may not be law enforcement can just as easily be the person that brings you down. So many things against the lawbreakers these days, damn it.

swybs
 
So entrapment is when the cop threatens you to commit the crime. That means unless the cop threatened you, your busted.

That's what I understand from this. Otherwise your busted.
 
no no no. lemme see if i can explain this. Entrapment is where an undercover cop or someone working for the cops is with you, trying to bust you. at first you don't want to commit the illegal crime. they say something, egg you on, to try to make you do the crime. you do it because they egged you on. thats entrapment. So, in theory, you would not have committed the crime if it were not for the police being there with you, egging you on.

(I too, am a criminal justice major)
 
exactly.....basically it comes down to a cop either threatening you, somehow forcing you, or otherwise encouraging you toi commit a crime you previously (before meeting said law enforcement) would not have committed. A mere opprotunity to break the law is not considered entrapment, such as resverse stings where cops pose as drug dealers and/or prostitutes. By just being there, they have not coerced you into buying sex/drugs from them, they just merely gave you an opprotunity to do something you would have normally done.
 
^^yep yep. though, most cops wouldn't even think of outright threatening you. its too obvious and will most certainly end up with the case being dismissed, which they don't want. if they do try to use entrapment, it would be more subtle.
 
Didn't any of you read that site? the last 3 posts here all support the MYTH of what entrapment is and are all wrong.

"Entrapment is where an undercover cop or someone working for the cops is with you, trying to bust you. at first you don't want to commit the illegal crime. they say something, egg you on, to try to make you do the crime. you do it because they egged you on. thats entrapment. So, in theory, you would not have committed the crime if it were not for the police being there with you, egging you on."


No, entrapment is proving you WOULD have commited the crime regardless of the police being there! a dealer sells to any interested buyer--he does not know the buyer is a cop. i know of 2 people that got busted over this recently. they had no clue who they were selling to, but sold anyway, and that's how entrapment is so effective--it catches criminals doing something they would be already doing any way.
Posting a message on where to buy drugs, and a bunch of people arrive and buy them from cops, and then all get arrested. That is a sting operation, which is entrapment. Entrapment is better known as a sting operation. People are going to go there to buy drugs ALREADY KNOWING its a criminal offense. No one forced them to go there and buy them.


Cops don't even have to egg you on to commit the crime. creating the opportunity for a crime to be committed IS ENTRAPMENT, that's why entrapment is legal. An undercover cop getting a hooker or buying drugs from you is entrapment. Forcing/coercing/harrassing somebody into a crime IS NOT ENTRAPMENT, that is police harrassment/brutality/etc and is not legal. Entrapment does not legally have double meanings. People attempt to prove that it does only in the form of criminal defense, and as we all know by now: that rarely succeeds.

for the last time: ENTRAPMENT IS ABOUT CATCHING PEOPLE ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME ON THEIR OWN ACCORD, OR ALREADY IN PROCESS OF COMMITING THE CRIME ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. That's it. The whole point of entrapment is that the cop does not have to go to ANY LENGTH to find out that a crime's been committed because it's already happening and/or about to be happening WITHOUT the cop's influence.

To reduce any misc. confusion: entrapment isn't a law. It's a legal law enforcement technique. The law on entrapment shares the same law on all law enforcement techniques and police conduct: it is illegal to force people into committing crimes in any way or form.
 
Last edited:
^ What are you talking about? CuriousCub you really don't have ANY idea what you're talking about, less the part where you're AGREEING with the 3 posters above your last post. Even though you don't THINK you are.

CuriousCub said:
right, most entrapment situations are sting operations and the cops are undercover as the only way to catch sly criminals. to say there is a difference between "entrapment" and "true entrapment" furthers the confusion and strengthens the myth of entrapment. Entrapment is what it is, which is "To catch in or as if in a trap. " It's an "i got'cha!" technique, if you will.

Entrapment as a defense, instead of the law enforcement technique that it is, would be *redefining* entrapment, it would NOT make it "true entrapment," as there is no such thing as false entrapment and true entrapment, legally or otherwise. Redefining it changes what entrapment really is, as well as REVERSING what it is, making it out to be a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. So that is the difference --when using entrapment as a defense, you are just attempting to redefine it. Entrapment does not have double meanings in its original form.

Didn't any of you read that site? the last 3 posts here all support the MYTH of what entrapment is and are all wrong.

No, entrapment is proving you WOULD have commited the crime regardless of the police being there! a dealer sells to any interested buyer--he does not know the buyer is a cop. i know of 2 people that got busted over this recently. they had no clue who they were selling to, but sold anyway, and that's how entrapment is so effective--it catches criminals doing something they would be already doing any way.
Posting a message on where to buy drugs, and a bunch of people arrive and buy them from cops, and then all get arrested. That is a sting operation, which is entrapment. Entrapment is better known as a sting operation. People are going to go there to buy drugs ALREADY KNOWING its a criminal offense. No one forced them to go there and buy them.

Cops don't even have to egg you on to commit the crime. creating the opportunity for a crime to be committed IS ENTRAPMENT, that's why entrapment is legal. An undercover cop getting a hooker or buying drugs from you is entrapment. Forcing/coercing/harrassing somebody into a crime IS NOT ENTRAPMENT, that is police harrassment/brutality/etc and is not legal. Entrapment does not legally have double meanings. People attempt to prove that it does only in the form of criminal defense, and as we all know by now: that rarely succeeds.

for the last time: ENTRAPMENT IS ABOUT CATCHING PEOPLE ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIME ON THEIR OWN ACCORD, OR ALREADY IN PROCESS OF COMMITING THE CRIME ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. That's it. The whole point of entrapment is that the cop does not have to go to ANY LENGTH to find out that a crime's been committed because it's already happening and/or about to be happening WITHOUT the cop's influence.

To reduce any misc. confusion: entrapment isn't a law. It's a legal law enforcement technique. The law on entrapment shares the same law on all law enforcement techniques and police conduct: it is illegal to force people into committing crimes in any way or form.
Click to expand...


Using the state that you and I live in as an example ... lemme clear a few things things up for ya, sweetcakes:

Washington St. RCW

RCW 9A.16.070
Entrapment.
(1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that:

(a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and

(b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.

(2) The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime.


Many people in this thread have already accurately defined "entrapment".
 
Last edited:
Yea...Entrapment is a real defense in the same way that insanity is, but its just extremely difficult to prove. I think CuriousCub has it reversed. Dealing to a cop is not entrapment. Entrapment is being forced into comitting a crime by a law enforcement official.
 
Last edited:
yea, damn man, do a simple google search and it will prove to you that we are right.
 
No kidding....why are people trying so hard to make something so easy so complicated!??!!? A simple search will back up our definitions of entrapment, at least from a legal standpoint, which is really the only viewpoint that counts
 
CuriousCub said:
entrapment is very legal. this is the best explanation of it ive ever found, and from a very credible source:
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml


potted-
when has it EVER been an infamous loophole? according to this information, this defense is completely uncommon. it has rarely ever been successful enough to be infamous or a considerable loophole, nor has it been used in any particular state successfully.

"While a claim of "entrapment" by police can be used as a defense in a criminal case, it is both uncommon and rarely successful. Additionally, police entrapment itself is not illegal -- just potential cause for a not-guilty verdict.

Loosely defined, entrapment is a situation in which, if not for the actions of the police officer or police informant, the defendant would not have committed the crime. This defense is generally only successful in situations where law enforcement officers create a criminal plan, plant the idea of that plan into an otherwise innocent person's mind, and then instigate the plan for the purpose of prosecuting the suspect.

even in cases where the government does induce a crime, evidence that the defendant was "predisposed" to committing the crime is likely to undermine an entrapment defense. If the prosecution can show that the defendant agreed to participate too quickly or had a record of similar crimes in the past, the entrapment defense rarely succeeds.
Click to expand...

I think you are understanding the opposite of my post.
 
That is entrapment defined as a defense, which the Erowid site points out is not how entrapment is or should be defined. Why would they (the erowid link) say this if not true, j33buscr1p3s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top