Entrapment
Has anyone ever watched the cable television show where they leave the keys in the car and the car doors
unlocked and the police are waiting by for someone to steal the car? That is what the police call a bait car. Is it entrapment when
someone (not the owner) gets in and tries to drive off with the vehicle? How
about leaving a purse on a bench and walking away from it with the intent for
someone to take it? Entrapment?
It would seem that most would say that if he/she was an honest person to
begin with, the person would not have gotten in that car or walked away with
that purse.
Does
entrapment infringe on a person’s rights? Morally or otherwise? One expects a
certain kind of deception when it comes to law enforcement. During interrogation and investigations. It seems to be a matter of course that officers
can be deceptive when speaking to suspects and asking them questions as long as
the suspect hasn't invoked their rights. An
example of deception during interrogation would be telling a suspect that the co-defendant
is currently in the next room giving a statement in great detail of his
involvement of the crime they were both involved in. The reason for this deception of course,
would be so the co-defendant would of course start talking himself.
Entrapment is a limitation placed on law enforcement, and
the courts use a subjective test to make decisions to decide on whether or not
a person was entrapped. This means that
the court is actually looking at the suspect’s thought processes when making a
decision, and not at the officer’s behavior (Banks, 2013) . The
issue of entrapment is when law enforcement forces the hand of someone to do
something illegal who would normally not commit a crime. Taking the bait car from above as an example, the the court would look at the person's thought process when he/she got into the car and started it up, and attempts to drive away. Most people don't walk by looking into cars, at least not consciously. However, the judge isn't looking at most people the judge is looking at the alleged perpetrator at the time of the incident. Now let's look at the purse on the bench, and this is a completely different scenario. A person could in theory, grab the purse with the intent of running after the person who left the purse to return it. Also, most purse's include a wallet inside which normally includes an identification of some sort that would allow the return of the purse. Different scenarios could result in completely different outcomes when it comes to defenses to entrapment.
I have attached an article about a man who was acquitted using an entrapment defense. The case that follows it controversial. Normally in these types of cases defendants are convicted, but in this case he was acquitted. I think that one must take special note of the jury question during deliberations. The jury asked a question about the solicitation. It speaks volumes as to how the jury made the decision in this case.
I have attached an article about a man who was acquitted using an entrapment defense. The case that follows it controversial. Normally in these types of cases defendants are convicted, but in this case he was acquitted. I think that one must take special note of the jury question during deliberations. The jury asked a question about the solicitation. It speaks volumes as to how the jury made the decision in this case.
References
Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics (3d ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Ca, USA: SAGE Publications.
After reading your attached article, I think it was a fair outcome. I’m not defending what Mr. Llorca did (responding to an ad for sex) but I do think entrapment was used to entice him further. The question the jury asked about solicitation was a valid point. Mr. Llorca did not respond or request a 14 year old. He was initially responding to a 28 year old.
ReplyDeleteChristina, from what I gathered after reading your blog is that the idea of the "bait car" is considered entrapment?! I must admit I have too watched the show on more then one occasion and I was intrigued. The police officers often state on the show after interviewing the criminal(s) that the "bait car" is not entrapment. I came across an interesting article, that supported that disposition. According to California law, “Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer. Persuasion or allurement must be used to entrap" (Aguila, 2011). Therefore, the defense of entrapment in a bait car situation would not be a good defense and the criminal could be charged for grand theft auto especially since some of the bait car can be as costly as $65,000 (Aguila, 2011). Nonetheless, this is a very interesting topic and a great blog for this week.
ReplyDeleteOlivia
Reference
Aguila, A. (2011). Bait cars: Public safety or entrapment? Retrieved from http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/10/bait-cars-public-safety-or-entrapment/
Wow, this must have been extremely difficult decision for the jury but I commend them. I thought this was interesting "is it still solicitation if the defendent did not initiate it?" and they replied, you decide. I agree!
ReplyDeleteChristina: You raised interesting points in your blog. Your embedded news article supplemented your blog very well. Professor Taylor
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I have learned a little more about entrapment with your article. Thanks
ReplyDelete