Law and order tempts
Entrapment occurs if an agent who is supposed to enforce law and order tempts an individual into committing a crime which the person would otherwise have not committed. This is a common among occurrence especially among In criminal law, entrapment has several unusual defenses that defendants can argue in building strong defenses for their cases. First, entrapment is an affirmative defense against any crime. In this classification, if a person accused of allegedly committing a crime admits that he was entrapped to perform an act prohibited by law and/or law enforcer, his conduct is excused.
The law forbids a criminal conviction in such a case. Secondly, if there is a reasonable doubt that the person had any intent to commit the crime but for inducement or persuasion by a law enforcement officer then the person is not guilty. Essentially though someone may have sold drugs, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Most importantly, it is usually successful for defendants who have little or no criminal history, young or unsophisticated and with low levels of formal education.
However, this class of defense depends on the country in which the crime is committed. Otherwise, a defendant can raise enough evidence that a law enforcement agent induced or solicited him/her to commit a crime. The defendant therefore must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she was already predisposed to commit the crime. Even so, there is no entrapment if the defendant had an intention in carrying out a crime even though a law enforcement officer sort of encouraged or provided a better opportunity to carrying out the crime.
Moreover, in the case of undercover agents, entrapment cannot be entered if such agents assisted the offender in carrying out the crime or part of it. Essentially, entrapment revolves around the degree of willingness on the part of the offender in carrying out a crime – if the level of willingness is zero then there is an entrapment but if it is greater than zero then entrapment cannot be entered.
The law forbids a criminal conviction in such a case. Secondly, if there is a reasonable doubt that the person had any intent to commit the crime but for inducement or persuasion by a law enforcement officer then the person is not guilty. Essentially though someone may have sold drugs, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Most importantly, it is usually successful for defendants who have little or no criminal history, young or unsophisticated and with low levels of formal education.
However, this class of defense depends on the country in which the crime is committed. Otherwise, a defendant can raise enough evidence that a law enforcement agent induced or solicited him/her to commit a crime. The defendant therefore must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she was already predisposed to commit the crime. Even so, there is no entrapment if the defendant had an intention in carrying out a crime even though a law enforcement officer sort of encouraged or provided a better opportunity to carrying out the crime.
Moreover, in the case of undercover agents, entrapment cannot be entered if such agents assisted the offender in carrying out the crime or part of it. Essentially, entrapment revolves around the degree of willingness on the part of the offender in carrying out a crime – if the level of willingness is zero then there is an entrapment but if it is greater than zero then entrapment cannot be entered.
Source: law aspect
Comments
Post a Comment