Talk:Entrapment

Start class

Classed according to START class criteria.

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myths

I think that it is a widely held (and probably incorrect) belief that asking "Are you a cop?" is protection from entrapment, I feel like the article should address this. Timan123 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, someone telling me this myth was the reason I viewed this article, it should at least mention it. It's such a stupid myth to, thinking cops can't lie about being cops...bollocks Rpm2005 (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2011 but if you commite entrapment they will send you to area 51. (UTC)

They're not supposed to lie--they are required by law to answer truthfully--but, name a cop who Does....70.176.118.196 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. They are not required by law to answer truthfully. You are incorrect. 24.231.223.202 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the law is entrapment?

What legal authority (US Constitution; US Supreme Court; Federal Law; state-level authorities?) makes entrapment a crime?

I'm not sure what the correct form is for pointing out an inconsistency, but in the article for abscam it says the conviction of richard kelly was overturned in 1982 thanks to an entrapment defense.

But in entrapment the statement "the defense of entrapment was unsuccessful in the Abscam operation in which several members of the United States Congress were convicted of accepting bribes." says that entrapment was unsuccessful in all cases.

I don't know which is correct. I'm cross posting this to the abscam talk page.

I cant find "entrapment" but "right to assemble & free association shall not be VIOLATED [with public monies]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the prohibition against entrapment?

This article should tell why entrapment is illegal. Is it in the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision, other case law, or what? (That's what I came here to find out!!)

In the UK it is generally case law. For most matters the decision as to the acceptability of evidence is for the Court to make.

It is not illegal as such - evidence gathered by entrapment may be inadmissable and officers may commit other offences in the course of the entrapment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Could someone please explain how the myths about police officers have to do with entrapment?

this relates to the idea that you can avoid being entrapped by asking the purchaser if they are an enforcement/police officer.

In the U.S, any cop Must identify themselves as such by law unless part of an undercover operation. I.E; a female cop dressed as a prostitute must identify herself; and cannot entice, or solicit, thus creating a crime that didn't exist. But, in practicality, most cops lie, and it's your word against theirs in court. Most Judges, and, unfortunately most juries will believe the cop. Many juries consist of people ignorant of how bad cops can be.This adds to the "myth" I keep hearing that entrapment doesn't exist anymore--It is still a crime, people continue to get released on it. But, many get convicted because of the cop's "credibility" over a civilian.70.176.118.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Insularity

This article seems to assume that it is discussing the law in some parts of the North American continent. It should be rewritten to provide a less insular context. Which countries other than the USA and Canada have laws of entrapment (for or against)? Also, why is entrapment against the law in some countries? This is not intuitive.

I had already added some material with regard to the UK situation. I did once see an article which referred to the situation in various countries/legislatures. My recollection is that it said that the US regime had the strictest controls and even there these did not apply if there was evidence of similar activity in the past. i will try to post it if I find it.

Murder They Wrote

Going solely off the page the link goes to, it's unclear what it has to do with entrapment or what it has to do with anything. I'm removing it unless someone can make some sense of it or put it in some semblance of context. 68.166.64.72 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now. The page confused me. Is it possible to link directly to the article? 68.166.64.72 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldview

I added the worldview template since I agree with the anonymous comment above. I'm in the process of finding out about entrapment in the EU&Germany, I'll add anything that surfaces. Please help if you can. --Duagloth 10:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I removed the OR claim, as I can't find any evidence of it in the article, except perhaps the uncited information about canada- but I believe 'verification needed' is more appropriate in this case. --Duagloth 12:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. section is a complete mess

Several months back I spent a great deal of time under the auspices of WP:SCOTUS improving Jacobson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent decision on entrapment, and then created articles on its other four (Sorrells, Sherman, Russell and Hampton. You can get a much clearer picture of how entrapment works from those articles than this one, which shouldn't be the case.

Yes, it was recognized by the courts as implied by statute. Looking at the Jacobson article, I see that my summary of U.S. federal entrapment jurisprudence there is probably an excellent start to completely replace what's over here, which reads like it was written by someone who got all their knowledge from TV and the movies. Will do. Daniel Case 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a history

Looking back over this, it needs a history of how the concept was developed. It strikes me that most of the countries described in this began recognizing entrapment only in the late 19th or early 20th century ... it must have been a new concept.

That would make sense given that modern police forces only got started in the 19th century, and it was probably a short time later that undercover operations began (only in the years after the Civil War did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that they were constitutional). So we need a history of the concept to go with all the by-country examples. Daniel Case 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrapment definition severely narrowing in the states

Maybe someone can add this to the article. [1] Imagine Reason (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entrapment or Enticement?

"Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit." This is the article's definition. It is wrong. It is the definition of "enticement" and it is enticement that is not allowed. Law enforcement can set a trap such as undercover officers posing as prostitutes. Law enforcement is not allowed to encourage or "entice" a person to fall into the trap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesEBohenek (talk • contribs) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies on the legal definition, not the dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R v. Ormerod [1969]

I found this interesting tidbit in a book about Canadian Law and was wondering where to put it. It deals with R v. Ormerod [1969], a case in which both parties were operating as undercover agents for the police.^[1] If a police officer coerces [commits entrapment] by enticing a person to purchase narcotics, is the charge still valid if the accused believes he is assisting police by pretending to purchase narcotics from such a person [the police officer]?--Auric (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ MacFarlane, Bruce (1986). Drug Offences in Canada (2nd ed.). Canada Law Book. p. 673. ISBN 0888040326.

I agree that it's an interesting issue, but that's an ancient case that pre-dates the SCC's creation of the modern doctrine of entrapment, and to the extent it is relevant to entrapment, it's probably no longer good law. Loremipsum (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's fun to think about.--Auric (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyche v. Upstairs Team

Yeah, the paragraph regarding so-called "wiki-entrapment" refers to a Supreme Court case that, along with the claimed quotation of John Roberts, is so obviously made up that I'm going to get rid of it unless someone objects. Cheers Nath 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Festrilmongrit (talk • contribs)

United States v. Boucher

This too is a perfect example of entrapment for me, or what do you think? Because, if they hadn't forced the defendant to reveal the encrypted partition in unencrypted "version," nobody could have said that he committed a crime. But by (albeit forcibly) showing them his child porn, they "entrapped" him into revealing what he tried to conceal. -andy 77.7.98.251 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would only be entrapment if they made him put the material on there in the first place. If we follow your argument to the extreme it would be entrapment if they forced a suspected thief to show what he had in his pockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how is he doing? not "he" the entrapt. but he the person? Tdiction (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Statents like "it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person" and "a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity" are locale-specific. All the example locales given are western democracies. This article does not present a global view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no legal expert, but it sounds like those are specific to the US code?--hydrox (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think thats specific, i think thats an explenation of entrapmentMeatsgains (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concern here. I have moved the problem text here:

Extended content

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

Oncenawhile (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK & United Kingdom sections?

I think these can probably be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumhalpin (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant text 'examples' under Canada section

"Some examples of entrapment are as follows:

A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have them prosecuted for that crime.
The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case."

The first is not an example, its a restatement of the basic definition--in any jurisdiction that recognizes entrapment; so apart from that issue, there is also nothing specific to Canada about this. The second example is likewise bland and devoid of any meaningful content (the more you do something the more it looks to other people like you're doing something, basically). Here, the something is 'entrapment by a police officer: the more the officer entraps (huh?) the more the court will see it as entrapment. OK. How then does the next sentence follow? "That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense". There are some overturned cases in Canada which would seem to argue against this--as does the previous sentence. This is just a mess. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other meanings !!!

There are at least 2 bands: - http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Entrapment/3540311714 - http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Entrapment/53182 The german site has a lot of other meanings for the word "entrapment" but the enlglish not, SO WHAT IS HERE WRONG ? 87.167.91.9 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entrapment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621083325/http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/253/lord.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/253/lord.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions

Entrapment law in the United States does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work, and police officers may lie in doing such work.^[1] The law is instead specifically concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not have considered in the normal course of events.^[2]

This was recently removed from List of common misconceptions, because it's not here. If it can be here, it can be there. Benjamin (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]