Nearly every state has a code section that makes entrapment an affirmative defense. Entrapment occurs when an agent of the state induces the commission of an offense by using persuasion likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime doesn’t qualify for the defense. For example, the Arkansas statute specifies that merely affording a person an opportunity doesn’t equate to entrapment.
Government Induction
When the government plays a role in encouraging or leading an individual to commit a crime, the defense of entrapment can be introduced in court. In such instances, it’s not just enough for the prosecution to show that a crime took place; they must go a step further. They are burdened with demonstrating that the defendant already had a predisposition or inclination to commit the offense even before any intervention or influence by government agents. This requirement is pivotal because it establishes the defendant’s inherent criminal intent, without which the entrapment defense could find solid ground.
Undercover operations are often central to discussions of entrapment. These covert missions, executed by undercover agents, are designed to infiltrate criminal circles or identify illegal activities. Yet, they are double-edged swords. While they are potent tools in revealing criminal operations and apprehending suspects, the very nature of these operations, which may involve agents persuading or enticing individuals to commit crimes, can inadvertently lay the groundwork for an entrapment defense. However, in many cases, the mere readiness and willingness of a defendant to participate in a criminal act during an undercover operation is indicative of their existing predisposition, thus weakening the entrapment claim.
Historical and Legal Context
In the days of ancient common law, the government possessed a nearly unchecked power to prompt or encourage individuals into committing criminal acts. There wasn’t any clear boundary delineating what the government could or couldn’t do in terms of inducing crimes. Surprisingly, even the U.S. Constitution, a foundational document that guides and restricts governmental authority, remains silent on expressly forbidding such practices. This absence of restriction may seem alarming by today’s standards.
However, as legal systems evolved and societal values shifted, modern legislative bodies recognized the inherent dangers and ethical concerns of such inducements. Consequently, both state and federal legal codes have been adapted and refined over the years to explicitly curb such overreaches by government agencies. Current entrapment statutes primarily zero in on pinpointing the true source of the criminal intent behind an act. A critical distinction is drawn between scenarios where the seed of the crime was sown by government instigation versus those where the intent bubbled up organically from the individual, without external coaxing. This emphasis underscores a commitment to ensuring justice is served based on genuine culpability, not manufactured guilt.
Types of Entrapment Tests
Entrapment statutes can be divided into two categories: subjective entrapment and objective entrapment. The majority of jurisdictions, including the federal government, recognize the subjective entrapment defense.
Subjective Entrapment
The subjective entrapment defense offers a unique lens through which to evaluate a defendant’s actions and intentions. At the heart of this defense lies a critical question: was the defendant inherently predisposed to commit the crime in question, or were they unjustly swayed by external factors? Instead of prioritizing the tactics or behavior of law enforcement, this defense delves deep into the personal attributes and character of the defendant. It assesses their inherent tendencies, past actions, and moral compass to discern if they were naturally inclined towards the criminal act or if they were manipulated into it.
However, this approach introduces a contentious element into the courtroom: the defendant’s past criminal record. Typically, a person’s prior convictions or misdeeds remain off the table in court proceedings to ensure a fair trial based on the crime at hand. Yet, when the subjective entrapment defense is invoked, the veil is lifted. The defendant’s criminal history becomes fair game, but only if it provides pertinent insights into their predisposition towards the crime they’re currently facing. In essence, it’s a risky gambit: if the record suggests a pattern of similar behavior, the defense may crumble, but if it paints a picture of a person manipulated against their nature, it might tilt the scales in their favor.
Objective Entrapment
The objective entrapment defense offers a stark contrast to its subjective counterpart by squarely placing the spotlight on the actions of law enforcement rather than the inherent qualities of the defendant. Central to this defense is an assessment of the methods employed by officers: were their tactics overly aggressive, manipulative, or so compelling that an average, law-abiding citizen would find themselves swayed to commit a crime? The heart of this argument lies in the principle that the police should not be agents of temptation, luring individuals into criminality with tactics that diverge from ethical law enforcement norms.
While the subjective entrapment defense might dive deep into a defendant’s past, seeking patterns of behavior to establish predisposition, the objective defense sidesteps this entirely. In cases where the objective entrapment defense is raised, the actual defendant’s prior actions or inclinations are deemed irrelevant. This distinction means that, regardless of their past, the defendant’s criminal record remains sealed and outside the purview of the court’s consideration. The core question remains firmly on whether law enforcement’s behavior crossed a line, potentially entrapping a person who would otherwise have continued on a lawful path.
Legal Implications and Case Law
A prolonged and intricate government inducement can bolster the strength of an entrapment defense. When the government takes extensive and elaborate measures to lure an individual into committing a crime, it increases the perception that the individual was not acting on their own volition but was instead cornered into breaking the law. This nuanced perspective underscores the delicate balance between legal enforcement and the potential overreach of authority. The landmark case of Jacobson v. United States provides a clear testament to this viewpoint. The court, in its judgment, asserted that the government must refrain from initiating criminal intentions within those who otherwise would not have harbored such thoughts. In essence, law enforcement should not be in the business of creating criminals merely to justify their prosecution.
Moreover, Jacobson v. United States introduced another layer of complexity by hinting at the subtler methods of government persuasion. Beyond the overt tactics, appeals to loftier ideals and values, when used to push an individual towards criminality, can be equally, if not more, insidious. By appealing to an individual’s sense of morality or higher purpose, the government may inadvertently exert undue pressure, pushing them towards actions they might not have considered in the absence of such appeals. The case suggests that even such nuanced tactics, if found to overstep, can be deemed as crossing the boundaries of legitimate law enforcement practices.
Summary
Entrapment is a legal defense where a person claims they were persuaded by the government to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. Most states have laws that allow for this defense, clarifying that merely giving someone an opportunity to commit a crime doesn’t count as entrapment. When this defense is used, it’s the prosecution’s job to prove that the accused already had the inclination to commit the crime, even without government interference.
Undercover operations are a common context for entrapment discussions. These operations aim to uncover criminal activities, but they can also accidentally create grounds for entrapment defenses. However, if a defendant willingly engages in a crime during such an operation, it may indicate they were already inclined to do so, thus challenging the entrapment defense.
Historically, there were fewer restrictions on government-induced crimes. Today, laws focus on understanding whether the criminal intent came from the individual or was prompted by the government. There are two main types of entrapment defenses: subjective, which looks at the individual’s predisposition, and objective, which examines law enforcement’s tactics. Using the subjective defense brings the defendant’s criminal history into focus, while the objective defense focuses solely on the actions of law enforcement. Notably, the case Jacobson v. United States emphasizes that the government shouldn’t create criminals just to prosecute them and that certain persuasive tactics may overstep legal boundaries.
Modification History File Created: 07/17/2018 Last Modified: 09/26/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
