On 01/26/10 13:04, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

	Umm...OK. That's different from what I was thinking in my example.

	The only difference in what you're saying is that he/she states openly
that he/she is a cop.

	I still find it wrong to go undercover, and then /convince/ someone to
commit a crime, and then charge him for it. I think the utility of
undercover cops should be restricted to uncovering _existing_ or _past_
crimes, and certainly not crimes that the undercover person initiated.

	Why should the cops be allowed to do this, and yet ordinary people not?

	Reminds me of a case (in the US) where someone was on trial - accused
of trying to indirectly recruit terrorists by posting fatwas that
advocate violence on his web site (he never _himself_ advocated it, he'd
just post the stuff). All the defense had to do was point out that the
prosecution's own expert witness had the same or similar material on his
web site (for "research" purposes), and ask why he wasn't being tried.
The case unraveled and the guy was acquitted.

	Now, looking up Wikipedia, it seems that the person need not identify
himself as being a cop to make it entrapment:

"Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435
(1932)) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory
worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated
entreaties to get him some liquor."

	However, reading the rest of the article, it seems that there has been
no definitive criterion in the US for this - often leaving it up to the
jurors to decide.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message