On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:09:00 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> Entrapment is a cop, or another official of the state, convincing a
>> person to commit a crime by using their position as part of the state
>> to influence the person. In the case of an undercover cop, no
>> entrapment because the person is not unduly influenced.
> 
>   So you are saying that if a cop identifies himself as a police officer
> and then lures someone to commit a crime, it's entrapment, but if the
> cop does not identify himself as such, then it's not entrapment?
> 
>   I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any other
> country.

That's pretty much the textbook definition from what I understand.

If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.

If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime 
without my urging, then it's not.  So, an undercover cop posing as a drug 
dealer who has a "customer" who freely seeks out the cop and buys illegal 
drugs hasn't been entrapped, because it was their choice.

The bottom line is that it depends on whose choice it was to commit the 
crime.  If it's the cop's choice for the 'target' to commit a crime, then 
it's entrapment.  So, for example, an undercover cop selling drugs to 
willing customers isn't entrapment; the undercover cop ordering a hit on 
someone would be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message