Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior. Case Example 2. Berry testifies that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief.
I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs.
She immediately arrested me. States employ either an objective or a subjective standard to determine whether entrapment occurred. Case Example. Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution.
In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime.
A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions. Entrapment law is a leash intended to curb outrageous conduct by police officers and other public officials. An entrapment defense does not arise if private individuals convince defendants to commit crimes. For example, in the scenario involving Jim and Snitch, assume that Snitch is a private person and not an undercover government agent. In that case, Snitch's actions could not constitute entrapment under either an objective or a subjective standard.
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Thus, defendants have the burden of convincing jurors "by a preponderance of the evidence " that government agents' actions rose to the level of entrapment.
In a state that employs an objective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in a not guilty verdict. In a state that employs a subjective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in the burden of proof shifting back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty because the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime -- not the government agent's actions -- prompted the defendant to commit the crime.
California objective standard state : Entrapment is a defense if conduct by law enforcement agents that would likely induce a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime induced the defendant to commit a charged crime. The defendant has the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Law enforcement agents are allowed to provide opportunity for the commission of a crime, but they cannot induce people to commit crimes by engaging in overbearing conduct such as badgering, coaxing or cajoling, importuning, or other acts likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
Florida subjective standard state : Defendants who allege entrapment have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a government agent induced the defendant to commit a charged crime. Defendants also have to offer evidence that they were not predisposed to commit the crime. If a defendant offers evidence of lack of predisposition, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.
For everything you've ever wanted to know about the criminal justice system -- from searches to sentencing -- get The Criminal Law Handbook by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman Nolo. And if you need more personal help after an arrest or other run-in with the criminal justice system, use Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find an experienced criminal law attorney near you.
The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.
The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. What Is Entrapment? Entrapment happens when police officers coerce or induce someone into committing a crime. Learn more. Entrapment vs. Opportunity The key aspect of entrapment is this: Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime.
Assessing an Entrapment Defense: Subjective and Objective Standards States employ either an objective or a subjective standard to determine whether entrapment occurred. What is wrong with entrapment?
Paul M. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 1 Paul Hughes University of Michigan, Dearborn. Proactive law enforcement techniques such as sting operations sometimes go too far, resulting in innocent people being "entrapped" into committing crime. Fortunately, the criminal law recognizes entrapment as a defense to a criminal charge.
There is, however, much confusion about entrapment. Since all proactive law enforcement violates the autonomy of those subject to it, it undermines moral agency and criminal liability.
Although this is sometimes justifiable, proactive law enforcement that does so in a way that constitutes entrapment is not. Autonomy in Applied Ethics in Applied Ethics. Policing in Applied Ethics. Edit this record. Mark as duplicate. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. Download options PhilArchive copy.
From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy 0-onlinelibrary. Configure custom resolver. Christopher Nathan - - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 3 Self-Restraint and Morality. Yotam Benziman - - Manuscrito 43 3 Temptation, Culpability and the Criminal Law. Hughes - - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 2 — Hughes - - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 2 Entrapment in the Net?
Cognitive Psychology, Entrapment, and the Philosophy of Mind.
0コメント