Entrapment: Legal Standards, Criteria & Role of Law

What is Entrapment?

Entrapment is a defense to criminal accusations, and it’s based on interaction between police personnel and the defendant before (or during) the claimed offense. When law enforcement officials employ pressure and other oppressive methods to persuade someone to commit a crime, this is a common entrapment situation. Entrapment laws serve as a restraint on excessive behavior by public servants, including police personnel. In cases where private parties persuade offenders to commit crimes, an entrapment argument does not apply.

Key Takeaways:

• The person who is being charged with entrapment must not be a private citizen but rather a government agency, such as a law enforcement officer.
• Entrapment is not only about giving someone the chance to commit a crime; it also requires enticement or compulsion to do a crime.
• If the agent had not used harassment, deception, threats, or other illegal tactics to encourage the defendant to commit the offense, the defense must be able to demonstrate by a majority of the evidence that the defendant would not have done so.
• The burden of evidence is with the defendant asserting entrapment because it is an affirmative defense rather than a criminal offense. This implies that in order to use entrapment as a defense for acquittal, the defendant must provide proof of the crime.

Legal Standards for Entrapment

1. Government Inducement

• It is impossible for law enforcement, or anybody working on their behalf, to instill a criminal thought in your head and coerce you into carrying it out.
• It is insufficient to only provide a chance for criminal activity. Persuasion, aggressive encouragement, or even threats are used in entrapment.

2. Predisposition

• The accused party must not have been inclined to perpetrate the offense prior to being contacted by law enforcement.
• This indicates that even in the absence of the officer’s influence, they probably would have committed the crime.

3. The Burden of Proof

• Usually, the onus is on the defendant to demonstrate entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.
• This entails demonstrating a greater likelihood than not that they were tricked.

Criteria for Establishing Entrapment

To claim entrapment, the defendant must show that:

1. Law enforcement or someone acting for them initiated the criminal activity. This means the officer planted the idea of the crime in the defendant’s mind, not the other way around.

2. The officer used more than just an opportunity. Simply providing a chance to commit a crime isn’t enough. There needs to be evidence of the following:

• Excessive Pressure or Persuasion: The officer heavily encouraged or badgered the defendant into committing the act.
• Threats or Intimidation: The officer used forceful tactics to coerce the defendant.
• They were not already planning or willing to commit the crime. The officer’s actions didn’t create the criminal intent; they merely presented an opportunity the defendant wouldn’t have otherwise pursued.
• Deception goes beyond a simple undercover operation.

Role of Law Enforcement Conduct

Entrapment hinges on the type of conduct employed by law enforcement. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime like an undercover officer posing as a buyer in a drug sting generally isn’t enough.

The key is inducement. This means law enforcement goes beyond offering an opportunity and actively pressurise or persuades the defendant into committing the crime. Here are some examples of potentially problematic conduct:

1. Excessive Pressure Tactics: This includes strong encouragement, persuasion, or badgering the defendant into committing the act.

2. Threats or Intimidation: Using forceful tactics or threats of violence to coerce the defendant.

3. Deception Beyond Standard Undercover Operations: Entrapment goes beyond simply going undercover. For example, an officer may create a fake scenario to pressure someone into committing a crime they wouldn’t have otherwise considered.

4. Focus on Officer’s Actions and Influence:

• Focus on the officer’s actions, the core concept is that law enforcement created the criminal intent and pushed the defendant to act on it.
• The defendant wasn’t already predisposed to the crime; the officer’s actions were the primary influence.

For example, An officer convinces someone with no criminal history to commit a crime by offering them a significant amount of money they desperately need.

Conclusion

If actions by law enforcement officials would probably persuade a generally law-abiding individual to commit a crime, entrapment is a defense that can be used to explain why the defendant committed the alleged offense. It is the defendant’s responsibility to establish entrapment through a preponderance of the evidence. Law enforcement officials may offer opportunities for crimes to be committed, but they are not permitted to use oppressive tactics like badgering, enticing or cajoling, intimidating, or any other actions that would lead a person who would otherwise follow the law to commit a crime.

Entrapment- FAQs

Which two inducements are most frequently used in entrapment activities?

• Entrapment Induced by Law Enforcement: A government agent or the police come up with the illegal concept.
• Absence of Predisposition: Prior to the involvement of law enforcement, the offender was neither inclined nor prepared to conduct the crime.

What is the state of entrapment?

When law enforcement or the police wrongly coerce someone into committing an offense, it’s known as entrapment. Entrapment frequently entails unlawful police conduct.

How can one recognize entrapment?

One can recognize entrapment in the following ways:

• the government’s incitement of the crime, and
• the defendant’s lack of propensity to commit the crime.

On whom does the does the burden of evidence fall in cases of entrapment?

The burden of evidence is with the defendant asserting entrapment because it is an affirmative defense rather than a criminal offense. This implies that in order to use entrapment as a defense for acquittal, the defendant must provide proof of the crime.

What is the method by which the jury judges the entrapment defense?

• An objective standard requires the jury to decide whether or not the government agent’s behavior would have led an ordinarily law-abiding individual to commit the crime.
• A subjective standard holds the defendant accountable for the crime regardless of what the government agent did by requiring the jury to decide whether the defendant was inclined to do it in the first place.

Can individuals trap other people?

No, private citizens cannot entrap other citizens. Entrapment is limited to government agencies, such as law enforcement. Nevertheless, given that these people are frequently confidential informants (CI) or undercover operatives.

References:

• U.S. Department of Justice
• Office of Justice Programs| U.S.
• Cornell Law School

Note: The information provided is sourced from various websites and collected data; if discrepancies are identified, kindly reach out to us through comments for prompt correction.