Here is a story from today’s New York Times about a man who was sold cocaine by an undercover agent in a sting operation that saw him promptly arrested for possession by other agents (he’s a congressman, actually, but that makes no difference to my question). The amount in question? $250 worth of coke.
Is this way that the law is enforced? You sell people drugs and then bust them for possession? I suppose the practice has passed legal muster, and does not constitute subornation (?suborning) but I still have to wonder if this is a) a good way to spend law enforcement dollars (sounds like there were two teams of agents involved in this one case involving only a couple of hundred bucks of cocaine), b) an effective way to fight crime in the first place, regardless of the expense, and c) morally okay - this gets back to whether he was suborned or not, but I would say that in this case, no crime would have been committed, or could have been committed, unless and until the agent sold him the drugs. Just seems ‘unfair’ to me - I can already hear people saying that if he hadn’t broken the law it wouldn’t be so unfair, or that law isn’t fair or not, it’s the law, tough! Please let’s not go down that route.
I think it would almost be a laughable practice except, of course, it’s ruining people’s lives. Really, ‘let’s sell this guy drugs and then bust him for possession’ - is that the best some drug agents can do?
Is the debate here about the wisdom of the drug war, or about this particular law enforcement technique? I think that the War on Some Drugs is a colossal waste of time, money, and lives. However, I don’t have a problem with the basic scenario of, “Hey, want to break the law?” “Sure!” “You’re under arrest.”
I am not a Lawyer (thank OG) but reading the wikipedia entry on entrapment it doesn’t sound that this would qualify. In order for it to be entrapment it has to be that the officers induced an otherwise law abiding person to break the law.
In this case it sounds like the Congressman had already expressed interest in owning cocaine and the officer just provided him with the opportunity. It would only be entrapment if the officer had offered the cocaine, the congressman had declined, and then the officer had then worked to convince him to buy the cocaine.
As far as it being a good use of resources, I think I agree that it probably isn’t for your run of the mill Joe Blow, which leads me to believe that the fact that he was a Congressman does actually make a difference to your question.
In my mind, this example shows why the ‘war’ is absurd. Exactly how society is made better/safer by arresting someone for possession when it was the cops who gave him the drugs is not something I could answer. Can anyone?
In terms of "want to break the law . . . ", I will not claim that this fellow was entrapped or suborned, or whatever. I assume it’s been well established many times before that it is not. Still, it strikes me as surreal - there would not have been a crime unless and until the cops gave him the dope.
Well, that’s almost certainly not true. If he had not been able to buy coke from these undercover cops, he would have eventually found someone else to sell him drugs. The crime would certainly have happened sooner or later, in circumstances where it would be much harder to catch the guy.
Imagine a similar sting, but with a different, more obviously dangerous controlled substance - weaponized anthrax, say, or enriched uranium. Would you view such a bust as “surreal,” or would you consider that a legitimate way to catch a dangerous criminal?
That’s a great question and forces me to be more precise in my thinking.
I guess, ultimately, it comes down to the specific illegal substance and the intent one has by possessing it. Some blow for personal use or some Semtex to blow up persons?
Obviously a difference yet, from a legal perspective, I admit, not so much. Still, common sense still has a role to play, no? Again, what’s the societal gain in preventing someone from getting anthrax, and is it greater and more clear cut than preventing someone from getting high with coke? I think the answer is clear.
I’d say in both cases the resources could be better applied in catching the fellow selling them.
A friend of mine in Little Rock was accosted by a rather insistent prostitute.
After politely refusing her services several times, he asked, “Are you a cop?”
She was, and she became very angry.
But that judgment is made by whether we have laws that prohibit possession of either of those substances, not the method by which the laws are enforced.
Let’s look at your dilemma from a slightly different perspective: I am looking to buy illegal substance A, and I find and buy it from someone. How are my actions more justifiable for seeking and buying that substance, if the person I bought it from was a cop?
Sure, but you’re going back to, “Are our anti-drug laws wise policy?” Which is entirely different from, “Is this a reasonable way to enforce our laws?” There’s nothing wrong with the way this guy was busted for a relatively small amount of drugs. There is something wrong with the legislative decision making process that made possessing a relatively small amount of drugs a serious enough offense to justify this level of legal enforcement.
If the cop hadn’t offered it to him, he wouldn’t have bought it (at that time) and would not have been busted (at that time). That’s one difference.
It is also possible, not likely but possible, that the person could have said to himself, “you know, I’ve been pushing my luck. That’s it! I’m going straight, starting now”. Then, he meets the cop and says, “okay, one more time . . .”.
This is really what incenses me. That’s where the ‘surreal’ comes from. I mean for $250 bucks of coke, sounds like they devoted ten times that in resources. Probably more.
If the cops somehow made him buy it, that is entrapment. If they simply gave him the opportunity to break the law, and he chose to, it’s still the criminal making the decision to break the law.
And in this specific case, it says RIGHT THERE in your cite that the guy who bought the cocaine first invited his friend and an undercover officer to his apartment to use cocaine. The two companions declined, and only then did the police officer offer to sell him more cocaine.
[QUOTE=KarlGauss]
Exactly how society is made better/safer by arresting someone for possession when it was the cops who gave him the drugs is not something I could answer. Can anyone?
[/QUOTE]
One less cokehound on the streets (or in the halls of Congress).
If you are saying that coke isn’t that bad so we shouldn’t be arresting people for buying it, that’s one argument. If you are saying that Miller’s description of these kinds of arrests in general aren’t worthwhile, I would disagree in principle.
Maybe it would be clearer if you said if you agree or disagree with the following bust scenario -
[ul][li]I’m a hit man. Got anyone you want killed?[/li][li]Come to think of it, I hate my mother. Here’s $500 if you shoot her.[/li][li]Youhavetherighttoremainsilent…[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
This gets back to my reply in post #8, above. IMO, it comes down to “societal gain” or “societal benefit”. I don’t really buy that we’re safer having busted one guy for what was obviously coke for personal use. In fact, we’re likely worse off since finite resources were squandered on nailing him rather than, say, bringing down a hit man.
I have to agree, though, that is quite a different argument than the ‘entrapment’ one (which I know it was not despite looking like it).
Well, there have been several cases where “terrorists” were busted after trying to buy explosives from the Feds. Sounds fine, except that in the instances I’ve seen the groups were utterly incompetent in every way and probably never would have accomplished anything. Not that I have any sympathy for the individuals arrested, but it seems like a bit of a waste of resources. Worse, it gives the Feds another example to justify intrusive surveillance. They can say “another terrorist cell caught” when they haven’t actually made anyone safer.
