I can see the how it is convenient for cops to use such techniques to catch people who do things that are against the law.
However, laws are not necessarily right or correct, in the moral sense. This argument aside, do you agree with cops pretending to be drug dealers and selling substances to people and then arresting them for breaking the law?
What about when prostitution is also used by cops to catch potential offenders?
What do you guys think about this whole technique in general?
What you describe is not entrapment in the legal sense. If the state compels a person to break a law that the person would not otherwise be inclined to break, then you have the defense of entrapment. Some states, in their assessment of whether entrapment has occurs, focus on the acts of the state, others on the preexisting inclination of the individual.
In the example you use, the person is inclined to buy the drugs whether or not it is the cop who sells them. The same is true in the prostitution scenario. Giving a person the opportunity to break the law is not the same as compelling them to do so.
I really hope this doesn’t descend into a discussion of what a bunch of fascist thugs all cops are, as some legal discussions have. I am merely explaining the law as it relates to the legitimate defense of entrapment.
I see.
I suppose my views on both issues shapes my views on these practices.
For issues such as drugs (and especially if they are soft-drugs), or consensual prostitution, I see the cops actions as wrong.
However if the same techniques can be used to stop an act of murder or “terrorism” then I would support this technique, even if in essence it’s doing the same thing.
Yeah, the CateAyo beat me to it. “Entrapment” by definition is when law enforcement unduly influences a law abiding person into committing an act they probably never would have been at all inclined to commit.
For example, not long ago on Fark, there was a report of an undercover cop posing as a prostitute who got into the car of a little, old man who was in his car after a late shift and getting ready to go home. He got scared and gave her some cash, not asking for a sex act, but because he was scared of this “crazy crackwhore who jumped into his car”, and he thought if he just gave her the money she wanted she would leave. He was then arrested for soliciting, but the charges were thrown out because the courts believed him. He wasn’t soliciting, he more or less thought he was being mugged.
The courts said the police officer erred by getting into his car uninvited, because then the old guy was afraid for his personal safety.
The cops are just enforcing the laws. Your problem is with the legislature, not the cops.
IMHO, I don’t think it would be a particularly viable technique at all. It would be very unlikely for there to be a situation in which a normally law-abiding citizen could be reasonably coerced into being a willing participant in a capital crime.
No.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Seconding Telemark - if the you have a problem with the law, then you have a problem with the law. If you don’t, you don’t. Either way ‘faux-entrapment’ (which is to say, sting operations) are as valid a way to catch crooks who are breaking a law as any other way is, regardless of the merit of the law itself.
Put simply, it’s not any worse to catch a drug-buyer with a sting operation than to do it by following them around or by following leads or whatever.
Yes, I think the OP misspoke (miswrote?) and meant “sting” rather than “entrapment”.
We know, but he has no problem with sting operations if it’s a crime he feels is worth it. He just has a problem when the technique is used on crimes he doesn’t think count.
No, my problem is with both of them on these issues.
Arresting someone for coming up to them and selling them weed is pretty pathetic. Same goes for “police prostitutes” who entice potential costumers.
There are more serious issues to address in the community than this, surely.
Yes, I misspoke, If any Mod could change the title from “entrapment” to “sting”, It would be appreciated.
Is done.
It appears that you have a problem with enforcement of certain types of laws. How they are enforced appears to be secondary.
I’m not a huge fan of it but I’m not sure how to deal with adults preying on children. I have no use for these people.
Indeed. Aren’t there enough actual law breakers, with no need to hunt down potential ones?
Police don’t get to decide what issues they address and don’t address. The police have a boss, usually a Police Chief or a Commissioner. This person is responsible to a politically elected individual, a mayor, a state governor et cetera (or in the case of many county sheriffs the head of the police department is directly elected.)
Even if a Police Chief or Commissioner doesn’t feel running stings for drug enforcement is wise, a lot of times they have to do what their political bosses tell them to do, usually it’s very much a “stats” game. Mayors want to say they increased the number of arrests or reduced crime, so the police departments have to do what they are told. The actual police running the stings are so low on the totem pole their philosophical feelings on the matter are more or less irrelevant.
So they shouldn’t arrest someone breaking the law? Do you really want a police force that picks and chooses what laws to enforce?
Ahh, missed that last post!
Think in terms of junkies shooting up in the alley behind your house or prostitutes working the sidewalk in front of your house.