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.

> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message