Micheal’s rantings, ravings, and general banter

As someone who has some education and experience with the Criminal Justice system, I find it annoying when people don’t understand certain things and try to use them to their advantage. Entrapment is one of them.

Now, I’m not talking about not understanding the law. I’m talking about people that think they understand the law and then try to use it as an excuse to get out of a ticket.

Here’s what entrapment is: An officer asks you to put a suitcase full of cocaine and carry it to another part of town. You do so, only to get stopped by that police officer and arrested. In other words, entrapment is when you are asked/told to do something you would not normally do, then get arrested for it.

Here’s what entrapment is not: You are driving along down the interstate speeding, and an officer is hiding behind a billboard. You are pulled over for speeding and issued a citation. This is where people try to use entrapment. Another example is when police setup bait cars for people to steal and then arrest them. “But that is entrapment!” you say. No, it isn’t. The catch here is that you are not being asked to do anything you would not normally do. If you are not the type of person to steal cars, then you won’t give it a second thought. You’ll just keep on going about your day. However, those who are the type to steal cars, well, will. What police are doing is nothing different from what the criminals would day anyway, but are hoping to stop auto thefts by using these special vehicles.

So now that I’ve given you my interpretation of entrapment, I’m going to back it up with proof. Wikipedia states: “Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed.” Slate says: ”

In most states, a successful entrapment defense requires the defendant to prove three things:

1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime. Courts have traditionally maintained a high burden of proof for inducement. Simply affording the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement. For inducement to be proved, officers must have used coercive or persuasive tactics.
3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so. If an undercover cop bought cocaine from a person carrying a kilogram of the drug, the seller could not plead entrapment, even if coercion were involved in the sale, since his intent to sell was clear. Most courts also allow a defendant’s predisposition to be demonstrated through prior conduct or reputation.”

As you can see, I was right. Aren’t you glad you took the time to read this? You just learned something.