On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:18:17 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/27/10 13:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>   You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
>>> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
>>>
>>>   That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
>>> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.
>> 
>> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's
>> entrapment.  If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I
>> kill you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment.  If the
>> second party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then
>> it's not.
> 
> 	I think that still isn't covering all the angles Warp is talking 
about.
> What if it's an undercover cop who convinces (but doesn't coerce)
> someone to commit a crime?
> 
> 	I'd call that entrapment, as well. The usual criterion is "Would 
the
> person have been predisposed to commit the crime had the cops not
> approached him about it?"

Yeah, I would as well - your description is closest to what I was trying 
(and failing) to say.  That predisposition is an important part, I think, 
of the determination.  It's not a really clear definition (to me).

I may ask my cousin about that - I know he's on leave right now, but when 
he gets back in a couple weeks, I may drop him a line and ask him.

Jim

Post a reply to this message