Defense Of Entrapment
Entrapment needs to have a defence. It has been a request asked for a number of years. Indeed, many innocent people have had to endure the trouble of being criminally accused for a crime that they would never have committed had it not been for the extensive pressure placed upon them by undercover government officers. At the moment there is no defence awarded to victims of unfair trapping. There is however an exclusionary rule, which would exclude evidence gained from an unfair trap. But many academics argue that this rule is not good enough. There needs to be a defence of entrapment. Many human rights are violated with the use of a trap. Thus a careful line needs to be followed to ensure that a trap necessarily limits these rights.
…show more content…
This did not mean that they accepted entrapment as a form of defence, but rather the legislators submitted they would accept an evidentiary exclusionary rule. This rule effectively allowed the courts the power to exclude the evidence of entrapment in a criminal trial, if it was proven that the trap that was used was found to be unfair. The question to be asked was what constitutes admissible evidence. Evidence is seen to be admissible provided that the police's conduct, in going undercover and in setting a trap, does not go beyond the point of simply allowing the suspect an opportunity of committing a crime. Subsection 2 of section 252A set up requirements that have to be met in order that the trap that was set up was fair. The requirements include the …show more content…
This is highly unsound of a rule. A much simpler and more effective legislation would be the entrapment as defence legislation.
A more practical reason why the exclusionary rule is not good enough should be reason enough to discard such a rule. If a person was trapped in such gross unfairness, that he is innocent no doubt, but because he has been pressurized in such a way that he or she now believes that what he of she did was wrong, thus pleads guilty to that crime, the courts will have no option but to convict an innocent person. In this situation, the exclusionary rule cannot protect the accused, and an innocent person will be put away for no reason. For this reason, entrapment should be recognized as a
This did not mean that they accepted entrapment as a form of defence, but rather the legislators submitted they would accept an evidentiary exclusionary rule. This rule effectively allowed the courts the power to exclude the evidence of entrapment in a criminal trial, if it was proven that the trap that was used was found to be unfair. The question to be asked was what constitutes admissible evidence. Evidence is seen to be admissible provided that the police's conduct, in going undercover and in setting a trap, does not go beyond the point of simply allowing the suspect an opportunity of committing a crime. Subsection 2 of section 252A set up requirements that have to be met in order that the trap that was set up was fair. The requirements include the …show more content…
This is highly unsound of a rule. A much simpler and more effective legislation would be the entrapment as defence legislation.
A more practical reason why the exclusionary rule is not good enough should be reason enough to discard such a rule. If a person was trapped in such gross unfairness, that he is innocent no doubt, but because he has been pressurized in such a way that he or she now believes that what he of she did was wrong, thus pleads guilty to that crime, the courts will have no option but to convict an innocent person. In this situation, the exclusionary rule cannot protect the accused, and an innocent person will be put away for no reason. For this reason, entrapment should be recognized as a