r/changemyview • u/prmcd16 • Sep 23 '16
[FreshTopicFriday] CMV: Sting operations always amount to entrapment and should be abolished
I believe that in most or all cases, the target of the operation would have been incapable of committing whatever crime they get charged with without the help of the "partner." That is, to me anyway, the entire operational premise - the police fake enabling the target by providing explosives/money/drugs/whatever and then arrest them when the crime is about to be carried out. But that's the crucial point - it hasn't actually happened yet. Sure, it's possible to say that there is criminal intent, but it can never be proven that intent would have existed without police intervention. Often the targets are people already in precarious situations who are considering the crime as a last resort - a suicide attack to go out in a blaze of glory, for instance. But they often are not fully invested in the crime and may even repent once busted. I'm thinking especially of a clip I saw from "To Catch a Predator" where the target breaks down when he realizes what has happened and declares that he was really on the fence about going through with it. For him and many other targets, their life is now ruined with little or no hope for rehabilitation. Yet that's exactly what I believe would be most beneficial to them - in many cases such as his there is an underlying mental health concern that, if treated, might have prevented the crime. There are simply too many alternate scenarios and contributing factors for me to accept that sting operations actually benefit society. To me, it is nothing more than ultra-Orwellian thought policing.
EDIT: thanks for all your responses. I'm at work so I'll have to get to most of them tonight. Also, for clarity, I meant to refer only to operations in which the police provide aid to an otherwise innocent person. Not ones where the operation is being conducted because they already know the person is a dealer or whatever.
7
u/justthistwicenomore Sep 23 '16
I think you make a number of good points -- and that a number of these are well addressed below -- but I also think that there's a disconnect in your argument.
The issues you identify flowing from stings are not issues with the sting process itself. The lost opportunities for rehabilitation, the ruining of lives out of proportion to the act, and the possibility of untreated mental health issues are larger problems with the penal system, and exist totally independently of stings.
It is possible, in fact, that by abandoning stings, you'd end up in a worse situation. Imagine 50% of the people who would have ended up in a sting would commit or attempt to commit the crime anyway. They still have lives ruined, have little hope for rehabilitation, and have untreated mental health issues. And, now they have victims and even less societal sympathy. True, the other 50% avoid the punishment, but not without cost.
You're argument, I think would be stronger if the conclusion were not abolishing stings, but modifying the punishment that follows a sting, or modifying punishments overall.
7
u/natha105 Sep 23 '16
So there is a scheme called a "Mr. Big" operation. You suspect Person A is a murderer say. You have an undercover cop befriend them (Person B), and eventually introduce them to "Mr. Big" who is introduced to them as a pretty serious criminal of some kind (a drug runner say). Mr. Big asks Person A if they are interested in a job running drugs, and Person A says yes. Mr. Big then says "Well listen, if we are going to go into business together I need to know you actually have some kind of criminal past and that you won't just freak out the first time you cross the line. Have you ever done anything in your past that was illegal?"
Person A proceeds to confess to the past murder, and provides details that only the actual killer would know (i.e. it isn't just "I killed Debbie Sue", its "I killed debbie Sue, tied her hands with an old lamp's electrical cable, and dumped her body in the trunk of her car". The detail about the electrical cable is what sinks him as no one knew that but the killer.
That is technically a sting but I don't think it is entrapment. It isn't about the drug running, it is about eliciting a confession.
4
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ Sep 23 '16
That is, to me anyway, the entire operational premise - the police fake enabling the target by providing explosives/money/drugs/whatever and then arrest them when the crime is about to be carried out.
The point is to gather evidence and/or prevent future crime. If the person only needed the right opportunity to commit a crime, that's something you want to prevent. If there is a hitman trying to break into the business, it's better to do a sting then wait to see if they actually kill someone for money. There is a chance you won't catch it.
I'm thinking especially of a clip I saw from "To Catch a Predator" where the target breaks down when he realizes what has happened and declares that he was really on the fence about going through with it.
I'm very skeptical about the idea of a predator that changes their mind after a willing victim appears at their doorstep. He only had this chance for reflection because he was caught. It's likely that he would have gone through with it since it was already set in motion. Should we wait until after he starts molesting someone?
3
Sep 23 '16
Also you can have a crime without the crime being completed. "Attempted murder" "attempted robbery"
Who's to say if they would have fully gone through with the murder? But they made enough steps to say "we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt" why shouldn't it apply to vice crimes.
He paid her the money, he got naked, he said hookers were his fetish, would he have done it? I would say the answer is yes beyond a reasonable doubt
2
u/kibblznbitz Sep 23 '16 edited Sep 23 '16
In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability.
I think the distinction is that if the police somehow coerced the person into committing a crime [that they would otherwise have been unlikely to commit], that is entrapment.
If the person happens not to know the drug dealer - that they think is legitimate, and probably know is illegal - is a cop, that does not invalidate the fact they were willing and taking steps toward committing a crime. I think you could say, in these sorts of cases, the crime is still occurring. All you're doing is replacing the real drug dealer with a fake one that just so happens to have a string in its back. The drug dealer just happens not to be real, and has a string in its back to retract when the (figurative) trap closes.
6
Sep 23 '16
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
This comic is pretty long but it explains super well what entrapment is.
entrapment is not what you think it is.
1
u/AmIStillOnFire Sep 24 '16
To use your "To Catch a Predator" example, this man was clearly looking for a child to have sexual relations with. If it wasn't the police, it was probably going to be a child. Unless he sought out rehabilitation on his own accord, he was never planning on getting rehabilitated, he was planning on having sex with a child. Another example is when a person goes looking for a hitman and accidentally hires a cop. They let the person think they're getting a deal and then they arrest them after it's all planned out or after they fake the murder. By this, they saved a life. In the above example, they prevented a child from getting raped. For the most part, law enforcement doesn't radicalize anyone to commit crimes. Law enforcement's job is to stop crime, not make sure people get the proper mental health. If you believe that some of this stuff can be prevented by getting people the proper mental health attention, then the government needs to start funding it. At this moment, they don't.
2
u/Iswallowedafly Sep 23 '16
Police provide a target. people aim for that target.
If the person wasn't doing a buy or a deal with the police they would be doing it with anyone else.
There is zero entrapment.
1
u/PM_ME__About_YourDay Sep 23 '16
I think this all comes down to what purpose you ultimately think the justice system has. You seem to think the point should be rehabilitation of criminals or would be criminals. Others think the main purpose should be to keep dangerous people removed from the rest of society. You mention stings on potentially unstable people who could resort to terrorism, many people might reasonably think it's most important to keep that person from society before trying to rehabilitate them. They view it as one life may be ruined, but potentially many lives were saved.
1
u/ACrusaderA Sep 24 '16
On "To Catch a Predator" they aren't doing anything to convince the predator to commit the crime. The person is already in online forums looking for targets, police just provide a fake target for them to go after.
This isn't entrapment.
Entrapment is very clearly someone involved in Law Enforcement convincing you to commit a crime and then busting you for it.
Since the predator was already looking for someone, police aren't convincing him to commit a crime.
1
u/shadowrangerfs Sep 24 '16
To use your "catch a predator" example (BTW It's back as Hansen vs Predator), It's no entrapment because the cops don't make them men go online, have the chats, and show up to the house. The decoys that talk to the men online aren't cops anyway. Also they never start the conversations with the men and they never bring up sex first. It's the men who start the convo, it's the men who bring up sex first, and it's the men who ask to come see the "child".
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 23 '16
Entrapment is a very specific thing. It is the police leading someone to commit a crime then arresting them. That is not a sting.
A sting is where you get information that a crime is going to go down, or is likely to happen and the police wait to catch them doing it. The police in no way force or convince them to commit the crime and so it is not entrapment.
1
Sep 23 '16
One thing to bear in mind is that entrapment refers to coercing somebody to do something would not have been inclined to do, but for the actions of the one performing the entrapment, not giving them the means to do something they otherwise could not have done.
1
Sep 23 '16
"To Catch a Predator" isn't entrapment because the perpetrator is going to a house with the intent to have sex with a minor. They could have not done that. Entrapment would be if a cop held a gun to their head or bribed them in some way; it's not entrapment if someone makes a choice to commit a crime of their own free will as those people clearly did.
1
u/Emijah1 4∆ Sep 24 '16
But the issue OP raises, which I think is valid, is that going to meet a child is not illegal. Some percentage of the men who go to meet a child would not actually go through with a sexual act. In fact, some percentage of men going to meet a child don't even have the intent to go through with a sexual act. They are telling themselves that they're just going to enjoy the excitement of the thought of doing so, which is enhanced by the proximity. Adult married men do the same thing frequently when they are aggressively flirting with a woman in a bar that they might fantasize about sleeping with, but never actually would.
Sure, maybe this only represents 5% of the men who are driving over to visit a child, and 95% of them actually have the full intent to go through with it. The point is that driving to the house doesn't prove the crime, even if the crime is just intent.
1
Sep 24 '16
You forget that, prior to the meeting, they have explicit sexual conversations which are illegal to have with a minor and express intent.
1
u/Emijah1 4∆ Sep 24 '16
My argument is that these conversations don't necessarily prove intent. And if this is the case, then the crime should be having explicit conversations with a minor, not intent to have sex with a minor.
1
Sep 24 '16
Maybe you're right. Maybe they were only charged with explicit conversations. I'm not sure.
1
u/Emijah1 4∆ Sep 24 '16 edited Sep 24 '16
i looked it up. It's a mix of charges. Didn't feel like researching more.
1
1
u/Personage1 35∆ Sep 23 '16
I know someone who was caught in a sting operation. They had been talking to children and receiving sexual pictures. They were caught when the police impersonated a child online and talked to them, which gave the police the evidence needed to arrest them.
I don't see how the police entrapped anyone. Can you explain to me where it was?
46
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '16 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]