Police and Entrapment Introduction
Entrapment
Name
Institution
Abstract
The use of entrapment to solicit defendants to be a part of criminal undertakings has been in the judicial system of the United States over the last centuries. With the evolution of the constitution and other important amendments regarding human rights and the role of the law enforcement in keeping peace, entrapment has come under fierce criticism with the government keeping its ground that it is a necessity. The two main interpretive views of entrapment are the subjective and the objectives views, each of which is equally applied by jurisdictions and specific courts. The fundamental concepts surrounding entrapment are whether or not the individual claiming entrapment has evidence that the person would not have taken part in crime without the inducement of the police officer. The litigation process also pays close attention to what constitutes inducement by the government as well as what constitutes coercion and threat. There are several documented cases some dating back to the 1930s in which the government has found itself in a tight corner faced by entrapment defense from defendants. Nevertheless, a lot of people in the judicial system still look at entrapment as a justifiable method of arresting elusive criminals calling it a rather “necessary evil” in a colloquial sense.
Entrapment
Introduction
The U.S federal permits that the police can legally initiate a covert investigation with an individual as their target and go as far as presenting that individual both with the facilities and the opportunity to execute a crime. After that they can arrest and convict the person of the committed crime. Because of the fact that criminal offences are consensual actions that are taken among and between willing parties, investigative problems are one of the difficulties faced by the modern police and it has a historical bearing with the constitutional amendments of the United States of America. Therefore, in order to provide
Name
Institution
Abstract
The use of entrapment to solicit defendants to be a part of criminal undertakings has been in the judicial system of the United States over the last centuries. With the evolution of the constitution and other important amendments regarding human rights and the role of the law enforcement in keeping peace, entrapment has come under fierce criticism with the government keeping its ground that it is a necessity. The two main interpretive views of entrapment are the subjective and the objectives views, each of which is equally applied by jurisdictions and specific courts. The fundamental concepts surrounding entrapment are whether or not the individual claiming entrapment has evidence that the person would not have taken part in crime without the inducement of the police officer. The litigation process also pays close attention to what constitutes inducement by the government as well as what constitutes coercion and threat. There are several documented cases some dating back to the 1930s in which the government has found itself in a tight corner faced by entrapment defense from defendants. Nevertheless, a lot of people in the judicial system still look at entrapment as a justifiable method of arresting elusive criminals calling it a rather “necessary evil” in a colloquial sense.
Entrapment
Introduction
The U.S federal permits that the police can legally initiate a covert investigation with an individual as their target and go as far as presenting that individual both with the facilities and the opportunity to execute a crime. After that they can arrest and convict the person of the committed crime. Because of the fact that criminal offences are consensual actions that are taken among and between willing parties, investigative problems are one of the difficulties faced by the modern police and it has a historical bearing with the constitutional amendments of the United States of America. Therefore, in order to provide
References: bbott, W. F., & Batt, J. (1999). A Handbook of Jury Research. ALI-ABA. Dewhirst, R. E., & Rausch, J. D. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. Infobase Publishing. Elliston, F., & Feldberg, M. (1985). Moral issues in police work. Rowman & Allanheld. Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2011). Criminal Law. Cengage Learning. Johnson , J. (2012). The Entrapment Debate: Are Undercover Investigations Egregious Conduct or Law Enforcement? Retrieved Feb 4, 2013, from greyareas: http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm Johnson, J. (1996, Nov 1). Law Enforcement by Deceit?: Entrapment and Due Process. Retrieved Feb 4, 2013, from fee: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/law-enforcement-by-deceit-entrapment-and-due-process Levy, S. M. (2003). Federal Money Laundering Regulation: Banking, Corporate, and Securities Compliance. Aspen Publishers Online. Lippman, M. (2010). Criminal Procedure. SAGE. Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edward, F. L. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business. Cengage Learning. Scheb, J. M. (2010). Criminal Law and Procedure. Cengage Learning.Sibley, M. (2009). Why Just Her?: The Judicial Lynching of the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Why Just Her. Zumara Hakeem/02/08/2013