Talk:Entrapment

message: Classed according to START class criteria.
Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start class

message: What legal authority (US Constitution; US Supreme Court; Federal Law; state-level authorities?) makes entrapment a crime?
-------------------------
I'm not sure what the correct form is for pointing out an inconsistency, but in the article for abscam it says the conviction of richard kelly was overturned in 1982 thanks to an entrapment defense.
But in entrapment the statement "the defense of entrapment was unsuccessful in the Abscam operation in which several members of the United States Congress were convicted of accepting bribes." says that entrapment was unsuccessful in all cases.
I don't know which is correct.  I'm cross posting this to the abscam talk page.
I cant find "entrapment" but "right to assemble & free association shall not be VIOLATED [with public monies]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in the law is entrapment? 

message: This article should tell why entrapment is illegal.  Is it in the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision, other case law, or what?  (That's what I came here to find out!!)
In the UK it is generally case law. For most matters the decision as to the acceptability of evidence is for the Court to make.
It is not illegal as such - evidence gathered by entrapment may be inadmissable and officers may commit other offences in the course of the entrapment  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the source of the prohibition against entrapment? 

message: Could someone please explain how the myths about police officers have to do with entrapment?
this relates to the idea that you can avoid being entrapped by asking the purchaser if they are an enforcement/police officer.
:In the U.S, any cop Must identify themselves as such by law unless part of an undercover operation. I.E; a female cop dressed as a  prostitute must identify herself; and cannot entice, or solicit, thus creating a crime that didn't exist.  But, in practicality, most cops lie, and it's your word against theirs in court. Most Judges, and, unfortunately most  juries will believe the cop. Many juries consist of people ignorant of how bad cops can be.This adds to the "myth" I keep hearing that entrapment doesn't exist anymore--It is still a crime, people continue to  get released on it. But, many get convicted because of the cop's "credibility" over a civilian.70.176.118.196 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: Going solely off the page the link goes to, it's unclear what it has to do with entrapment or what it has to do with anything. I'm removing it unless someone can make some sense of it or put it in some semblance of context. 68.166.64.72 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder They Wrote

message: I added the worldview template since I agree with the anonymous comment above. I'm in the process of finding out about entrapment in the EU&Germany, I'll add anything that surfaces. Please help if you can.
--Duagloth 10:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldview 

message: I removed the OR claim, as I can't find any evidence of it in the article, except perhaps the uncited information about canada- but I believe 'verification needed' is more appropriate in this case. --Duagloth 12:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Several months back I spent a great deal of time under the auspices of WP:SCOTUS improving Jacobson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent decision on entrapment, and then created articles on its other four (Sorrells, Sherman, Russell and Hampton. You can get a much clearer picture of how entrapment works from those articles than this one, which shouldn't be the case.
Yes, it was recognized by the courts as implied by statute. Looking at the Jacobson article, I see that my summary of U.S. federal entrapment jurisprudence there is probably an excellent start to completely replace what's over here, which reads like it was written by someone who got all their knowledge from TV and the movies. Will do. Daniel Case 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The U.S. section is a complete mess

message: Looking back over this, it needs a history of how the concept was developed. It strikes me that most of the countries described in this began recognizing entrapment only in the late 19th or early 20th century ... it must have been a new concept.
That would make sense given that modern police forces only got started in the 19th century, and it was probably a short time later that undercover operations began (only in the years after the Civil War did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that they were constitutional). So we need a history of the concept to go with all the by-country examples. Daniel Case 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We still need a history 

message: Maybe someone can add this to the article.  Imagine Reason (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrapment definition severely narrowing in the states 

message: "Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit." This is the article's definition. It is wrong. It is the definition of "enticement" and it is enticement that is not allowed. Law enforcement can set a trap such as undercover officers posing as prostitutes. Law enforcement is not allowed to encourage or "entice" a person to fall into the trap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesEBohenek (talk • contribs) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrapment or Enticement? 

message: I found this interesting tidbit in a book about Canadian Law and was wondering where to put it. It deals with R v. Ormerod [1969], a case in which both parties were operating as undercover agents for the police. If a police officer coerces [commits entrapment] by enticing a person to purchase narcotics, is the charge still valid if the accused believes he is assisting police by pretending to purchase narcotics from such a person [the police officer]?--Auric (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's an interesting issue, but that's an ancient case that pre-dates the SCC's creation of the modern doctrine of entrapment, and to the extent it is relevant to entrapment, it's probably no longer good law. Loremipsum (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it's fun to think about.--Auric (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  R v. Ormerod [1969] 

message: Yeah, the paragraph regarding so-called "wiki-entrapment" refers to a Supreme Court case that, along with the claimed quotation of John Roberts, is so obviously made up that I'm going to get rid of it unless someone objects. Cheers Nath 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyche v. Upstairs Team 

message: This too is a perfect example of entrapment for me, or what do you think? Because, if they hadn't forced the defendant to reveal the encrypted partition in unencrypted "version," nobody could have said that he committed a crime. But by (albeit forcibly) showing them his child porn, they "entrapped" him into revealing what he tried to conceal. -andy 77.7.98.251 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States v. Boucher]] 

message: Statents like "it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person" and "a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity" are locale-specific. All the example locales given are western democracies. This article does not present a global view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no legal expert, but it sounds like those are specific to the US code?--hydrox (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think thats specific, i think thats an explenation of entrapmentMeatsgains (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I think these can probably be merged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumhalpin (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK & United Kingdom sections? 

message: "Some examples of entrapment are as follows:
# A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have them prosecuted for that crime.
# The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case."
The first is not an example, its a restatement of the basic definition--in any jurisdiction that recognizes entrapment; so apart from that issue, there is also nothing specific to Canada about this.  
The second example is likewise bland and devoid of any meaningful content (the more you do something the more it looks to other people like you're doing something, basically).  Here, the something is 'entrapment by a police officer: the more the officer entraps (huh?) the more the court will see it as entrapment.  OK.  How then does the next sentence follow?  "That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense".  There are some overturned cases in Canada which would seem to argue against this--as does the previous sentence.  This is just a mess. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant text 'examples' under Canada section

message: There are at least 2 bands:
- http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Entrapment/3540311714
- http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Entrapment/53182
The german site has a lot of other meanings for the word "entrapment" but the enlglish not, SO WHAT IS HERE WRONG ?
87.167.91.9 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  other meanings !!! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Entrapment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621083325/http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/253/lord.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/253/lord.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Entrapment law in the United States does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work, and police officers may lie in doing such work. The law is instead specifically concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not have considered in the normal course of events.Sloane (1990) 49 A Crim R 270. See also agent provocateur
This was recently removed from List of common misconceptions, because it's not here. If it can be here, it can be there. Benjamin (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions