If anyone doesn't know the former England football (soccer) manager was set up by a reporter from the Telegraph and filmed stating that there are certain ways to circumvent certain regulations. That's fine but I am more interested in the idea of setting someone up to commit crime that they might not have necessarily committed had the opportunity not been artificially engineered. A similar idea is when police leave a vehicle vulnerable and a would be opportunist comes along, attempts to gain entry and steal the vehicle only to find that the doors lock shut behind him. What does the forum think, is it ethical and why?
its very interesting to be honest and there are many things to consider, a predisposition to commit crime, a criminal record of a similar crime or whether or not an officer provided you with the tools to commit the crime. It gets even more interesting if no crime is actually committed but the intent to act or not to act as the case may be is present.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie If anyone doesn't know the former England football (soccer) manager was set up by a reporter from the Telegraph and filmed stating that there are certain ways to circumvent certain regulations. That's fine but I am more interested in the idea of setting someone up to commit crime that they might not have necessarily committed had the opportunity not ...[text shortened]... to find that the doors lock shut behind him. What does the forum think, is it ethical and why?
Setting a trap not ethical?
All Greenpawn's openings go out the window!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie its very interesting to be honest and there are many things to consider, a predisposition to commit crime, a criminal record of a similar crime or whether or not an officer provided you with the tools to commit the crime. It gets even more interesting if no crime is actually committed but the intent to act or not to act as the case may be is present.
Opportunity alone is not sufficient to establish intent to commit a crime. It is crucial to determine whether the offer to commit a crime was on the initiative of the arresting officer or the criminal/victim-of-entrapment.
A typical case is solicitation for sex in a public place. If an undercover officerette walks up to an unsuspecting man on the street and offers to have sex for money and he says "yes", that's entrapment--the assumption being that he would not have spoken to her if she had not spoken to him first. Whereas if he asks her, it's not entrapment. The case is less clear when the officerette is dressed as a prostitute and is standing on the same street with a lot of other prostitutes and acting as if she were a prostitute and some man walks up to her and solicits sex for money.
If a man known to have a record of burglary is approached by an undercover officer and the officer says, "I know a house we could break into and make off with a load of computer equipment, will you help me raid the place?" that's entrapment. Whereas if the burglar goes (unsuspecting) to an undercover officer and says the same thing, it's not.
Originally posted by moonbus Opportunity alone is not sufficient to establish intent to commit a crime. It is crucial to determine whether the offer to commit a crime was on the initiative of the arresting officer or the criminal/victim-of-entrapment.
A typical case is solicitation for sex in a public place. If an undercover officerette walks up to an unsuspecting man on the street a ...[text shortened]... s if the burglar goes (unsuspecting) to an undercover officer and says the same thing, it's not.
Yes I also noted that an officer cannot use fraud or deception and really wondered why that differs from masquerading as a drug dealer or a prostitute which appears to be a kind of deception.
Eriksson had also been set up by false Arabians who offered him bigger salary while he was a manager. One should be suspicious when Arabians approach to them.
Originally posted by vandervelde Eriksson had also been set up by false Arabians who offered him bigger salary while he was a manager. One should be suspicious when Arabians approach to them.
Indeed although I think Big Sam may have a legitimate case for the defence of entrapment.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Wise man say, you can't entrap an honest man.
Yes in the link that moonbus provided it says that some States reject the defence of entrapment for that very reason, that anyone who can be talked into a criminal act cannot be free from guilt. 'Honest guv he was well persuasive thats wot made me do it!'
Big Sam is gone.
29 Sep '16 09:381 edit
Back to Top