Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, this is entrapment and our government should not engage in sting operations that entice people to commit crimes.
It's only entrapment if the individual has no propensity.
That's what search warrants are for. He visited a site, and that is probable cause for a warrant to search his home, computer, laptop, perhaps his car and such, and if he has child porn then he has demonstrated a propensity and it is not entrapment.
It's only entrapment if the individual has no propensity.
That's what search warrants are for. He visited a site, and that is probable cause for a warrant to search his home, computer, laptop, perhaps his car and such, and if he has child porn then he has demonstrated a propensity and it is not entrapment.
Propensity to commit a generic crime has no bearing on the question of whether or not a law enforcement official has acted improperly. On the contrary, an entrapment defense could well be bolstered by the fact that an individual had a propensity that was known to law enforcement, since it suggests that that individual was uniquely targeted. Previous or concurrent criminal acts (such as the possession of child pornography) are also irrelevant. The defense against entrapment is that the individual has a predisposition to commit a specific crime. That is to say that they would have committed that crime even if there had been no prior inducement by law enforcement.
As an example, look at the TV show, "Bait Car". The premise is simple: the police leave a desirable vehicle on the street or in a parking lot. The vehicle is left unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. They then surveil that vehicle, waiting for someone to take it. This is not entrapment because there is no interaction between the police and the suspect prior to the theft of the vehicle.
But, consider the following scenario: after leaving the vehicle, the police notice a guy walking around, looking into parked cars. So they send an undercover officer, who is dressed to fit into the neighborhood, to casually make contact with the guy who is walking around. The officer then tells him: "I just saw some idiot park his Mercedes SUV over there in the other corner of the lot...he didn't even lock the doors". Assuming the suspect ultimately takes the SUV, that would be entrapment because the direct participation of a law enforcement official facilitated the specific crime of taking that vehicle. It is not relevant that the suspect may have a propensity towards, or even a history of, car theft.
In the story linked by the OP, we find this quote:
"Since Cafferty had 'previously demonstrated an interest in obtaining child pornographic materials online,' he was tabbed to receive an unsolicited e-mail from an agent touting the undercover FBI web site."
This is entrapment. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Cafferty would have committed this specific crime minus a targeted and unsolicited communication from an FBI agent.
I get what many people here are saying: Cafferty was a bad guy--I don't disagree. Where I do disagree is with the idea that it's OK to use whatever means necessary to catch a bad guy. Allowing these kinds of tactics on the part of law enforcement, serves to diminish the integrity of the judicial system. This falls into the same category as the proliferation of warrantless searches--it is one more step toward a tyranny via the police state.
Right now, maybe it's just a guy who likes kiddy-porn, or maybe it's a terrorist operative who gets caught-up in these abuses. But the precedent we set each time we allow for this systematic erosion of due process makes freedom much more precarious for us all.
Propensity to commit a generic crime has no bearing on the question of whether or not a law enforcement official has acted improperly. On the contrary, an entrapment defense could well be bolstered by the fact that an individual had a propensity that was known to law enforcement, since it suggests that that individual was uniquely targeted. Previous or concurrent criminal acts (such as the possession of child pornography) are also irrelevant. The defense against entrapment is that the individual has a predisposition to commit a specific crime. That is to say that they would have committed that crime even if there had been no prior inducement by law enforcement.
As an example, look at the TV show, "Bait Car". The premise is simple: the police leave a desirable vehicle on the street or in a parking lot. The vehicle is left unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. They then surveil that vehicle, waiting for someone to take it. This is not entrapment because there is no interaction between the police and the suspect prior to the theft of the vehicle.
But, consider the following scenario: after leaving the vehicle, the police notice a guy walking around, looking into parked cars. So they send an undercover officer, who is dressed to fit into the neighborhood, to casually make contact with the guy who is walking around. The officer then tells him: "I just saw some idiot park his Mercedes SUV over there in the other corner of the lot...he didn't even lock the doors". Assuming the suspect ultimately takes the SUV, that would be entrapment because the direct participation of a law enforcement official facilitated the specific crime of taking that vehicle. It is not relevant that the suspect may have a propensity towards, or even a history of, car theft.
In the story linked by the OP, we find this quote:
"Since Cafferty had 'previously demonstrated an interest in obtaining child pornographic materials online,' he was tabbed to receive an unsolicited e-mail from an agent touting the undercover FBI web site."
This is entrapment. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Cafferty would have committed this specific crime minus a targeted and unsolicited communication from an FBI agent.
I get what many people here are saying: Cafferty was a bad guy--I don't disagree. Where I do disagree is with the idea that it's OK to use whatever means necessary to catch a bad guy. Allowing these kinds of tactics on the part of law enforcement, serves to diminish the integrity of the judicial system. This falls into the same category as the proliferation of warrantless searches--it is one more step toward a tyranny via the police state.
Right now, maybe it's just a guy who likes kiddy-porn, or maybe it's a terrorist operative who gets caught-up in these abuses. But the precedent we set each time we allow for this systematic erosion of due process makes freedom much more precarious for us all.
Very good post. Too many people fail to value our freedom until it's too late.
I'm normally against this sort of thing but this isn't an undercover drug bust or prostitution sting. When stings are used to tempt people into committing victimless crimes I have a real problem with it.
The possibility of snagging a would be child molester outweighs any concern I have about possible entrapment.
It's entrapment and should be illegal. Just like having cops pose as prostitutes.
I didn't say it was "forcing" anyone to do anything. But there is a good chance these people would not have sought out this material if LE had not put it in his face.
People are more likely to respond to temptation than to just initiate a crime.
So, do you put illegal drugs in a drawer so you kids can find them? After all, if they are good kids they will just ignore the drugs.
Same logic.
If it's entrapment then a lawyer will easily get the charges dropped.
It's entrapment and should be illegal. Just like having cops pose as prostitutes.
I didn't say it was "forcing" anyone to do anything. But there is a good chance these people would not have sought out this material if LE had not put it in his face.
I don't agree. People who visited this site were not first timers. They just found a new place.
Not entrapment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
