On 26-1-2010 22:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 26-1-2010 22:12, Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
>>>>> to arrest the people who buy them) would be, wouldn't it? Or a cop posing
>>>>> as a prostitute to arrest people who try to buy her services (at least in
>>>>> places where that's illegal).
>>>> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Basically, if he 
>>>> says "I'm a cop, and this is OK, I authorize you to do this", then it would 
>>>> be entrapment.
>>>   Wouldn't that mean that the police can lure anybody to do a crime with
>>> impunity as long as they don't identify themselves as the police?
> 
>> Yes, at least in the US.
> 
>   That seems to make the whole "entrapment" notion kind of moot.

Not really. A policeman cannot say to somebody: "my friend here needs 
weed for medicinal purposes and if you can get him that, I'll look the 
other way" and then arrest. But he is allowed to say "I need it as 
medicine" as long as he is not identifiable as an officer.

We might think that is almost the same, but in the US the concept is 
apparently that in the latter case the person framed would under other 
circumstances also perform this crime.

> 
>> From your question I assume that this is not the case in Finland.
> 
>   Recently there was a law proposal to allow undercover police officers to
> perform minor crimes (such as pilferage) to keep their disguise while
> undercover (the losses to the victim being compensated by the government
> afterwards). I don't remember if it passed or not.
> 
>   I suppose that tells something about how limited the actions of law
> enforcement is.

Sort of the same as here.

Post a reply to this message