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.