Entrapment
Entrapment is a legal defense that asserts an individual was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. This concept is rooted in the principles of due process, which emphasize fairness and the protection of citizens from government overreach. The defense is particularly important in preventing the police from creating crime by manipulating or coercing innocent individuals into unlawful acts. Notable cases, such as *Sherman v. United States* and *Jacobson v. United States*, illustrate how courts have recognized entrapment when police tactics exceed acceptable boundaries, leading to the wrongful prosecution of individuals who were not predisposed to commit a crime. The distinction between merely providing an opportunity for crime and actively inducing a crime is often a focal point in entrapment cases. As law enforcement increasingly utilizes sting operations, the use of video evidence has become a crucial tool for courts to assess claims of entrapment. Understanding this defense is essential for comprehending the broader implications of law enforcement practices and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Entrapment
SIGNIFICANCE: The defense of entrapment has been created and upheld by court decisions. Although entrapment is not specifically named in the US Constitution, there are constitutional principles that underlie it.
Due process of law implies fairness and notification. Entrapment is viewed as setting up a defendant to become a criminal. To ensure that the government does not abuse its power to arrest and charge citizens with crimes, it is forbidden from implanting or manufacturing crime in innocent minds. If the police do not have evidence of illegal activity, they may not get it by setting up an outrageous set of circumstances that would encourage law-abiding citizens to break the law.
An example of a successful use of the entrapment defense can be found in the US Supreme Court case of Sherman v. United States (1956). In this case, the defendant was suspected of dealing in heroin. However, the police had no evidence to support their suspicions. To obtain the evidence to make an arrest, they used an informant, who asked Sherman to help him find some narcotics. Both Sherman and the informant were being treated for narcotics addiction. After being ignored on several occasions and persisting in his requests, the informant finally convinced Sherman to obtain narcotics for him. Sherman was arrested. The Supreme Court found that the tactics of the police constituted entrapment and that the police had gone too far in their efforts to enforce the law. In its decision, the Court stated that “the function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals. Manifestly, that function does not include the manufacturing of crime.”
Another notable case, Jacobson v. United States (1992), dealt with the purchasing of child pornography through the mail (a federal offense). While it was still legal to do so, Jacobson ordered magazines showing nude teenage boys. The law changed, making it illegal to receive such materials. When Jacobson’s name was found on a mailing list from his previous order, law-enforcement agents encouraged him to purchase child pornography by repeatedly sending ads and solicitations to him. After more than two years of refusing the offers, he finally agreed to order a magazine and was arrested. In this case, the Court found that the defendant was not predisposed to committing the crime but had been lured by agents of the government to do something he would not ordinarily have done.
Victims of sting operations, including government officials who feel they have been set up by the police, often raise the defense of entrapment. Since the line between creating an opportunity for a crime to occur and actually inducing an innocent party to commit a crime is often blurry, the use of video cameras in enforcement has helped the courts decide if entrapment has occurred.
Bibliography
"The Entrapment Defense in Criminal Law Cases." Justia, Oct. 15, 2023, www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/entrapment/. Accessed 26 June 2024.
Holmes, Bill. Entrapment: The BATF in Action. El Dorado: Desert, 1998. Print.
Lassiter, G. Daniel, ed. Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer, 2004. Print.
Marcus, Paul. The Entrapment Defense. Newark: LexisNexis, 2002. Print.
Miller, Seumas, and Ian A. Gordon. Investigative Ethics: Ethics for Police Detectives and Criminal Investigators. Malden: Wiley, 2014. Print.
Mirfield, Timothy. Silence, Confessions, and Improperly Obtained Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Print.