The Problem of Entrapment

Abstract

When, in order to make an arrest, police or other law-enforce ment officers, or agents working in their behalf, encourage the commission of a crime, this practice is known as entrapment; it has been frowned upon by American courts and has, in fact, been regarded as sufficient defense provided there is substantial reason to believe the crime would not have been committed had it not been for such encouragement. The courts have argued that the law sullies itself, failing to serve as an example of righteous ness, when it induces someone to commit a crime. Further, the law should not act to increase the temptations for persons with psychological or other predilections toward certain offenses. Finally, entrapment is said to lead to blackmail, extortion, and bribery, and to accusations against completely innocent persons in order to enhance the record of a police officer or to gain leniency for another offender who has aided the entrapment and may be under indictment. The defense of entrapment has been used in cases involving illegal purchases and sales (as narcotics, liquor, and pornogra phy); in prostitution and homosexual cases; and in political cases involving strikes, civil rights, anti-war and black militant actions, and student unrest. In these latter instances, the authors suggest that entrapment (usually by an agent provocateur) con stitutes a threat to the democratic process, tending to discredit otherwise legitimate social protest and to stay the hand of social change. The authors suggest guidelines for the use of undercover agents in crime detection in legitimate ways that would not con stitute entrapment.