Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Sunday, September 6, 2009

How Is This Not Entrapment?

Posted by on Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

No one thinks less of park-and-toilet cruisers than I do. Seriously. I've slapped 'em around in "Savage Love" so many times that I'm probably on the enemies list at Cruising For Sex. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for out gay guys who have sex in public parks (or toilets) and get caught because the risk of getting caught is part of the thrill—right, guys?—and I don't have a ton of sympathy for "straight" guys who fuck in parks because the anonymity allows 'em to have their cock and their closets too. Still, I'm on the record opposing sex stings like the one in Pierce County that resulted in arrests of more than two dozen men who were having sex in a public park.

Here's how the Olympian described the bust:

Investigators say the men have been hooking up in the woods at the park, 14905 Gus G. Bresemann Road S., after seeing notices on several Web sites, including Craigslist, Pierce County sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said.

These men saw notices on Craigslist—but who put those notices on Craigslist? I get the impression the Pierce County Sheriff's department did. The Seattle Times described the arrests as part of a "sting," and I don't see how it could be called a sting if there wasn't some sort of official subterfuge involved. It's a plain ol' raid if the police just show up, right? So... the two dozen men were arrested after the police invited them into the park to have what they thought would be consensual sex with strangers.

Um... guys? Lawyer up and fight the charges, guys.

And everyone else: posting ads to Craigslist and rounding up closet cases in parks seems like a pretty retarded use of police resources. The Dutch, as usual, have a better idea.

A park near Amsterdam has unveiled information signs pointing out spots where officials say gay men are known to have sex—so no visitors are taken by surprise. The signs "clearly indicate what is happening in each zone; also those where gay men are known to practice 'cruising'," municipal spokeswoman Manon Koffijberg said.

Cruising is a slang word used to describe the act of trawling for casual sex. "If you don't want to be confronted by a vision of that sort, the signs allow you to avoid specific areas," said Ms Koffijberg.... There are various groups of users of the park; people with small children who bathe on the beaches, those who walk their dogs, gays cruising and nature lovers," said Ms Koffijberg. "Things are arranged so that each group can relax in their own area without intruding on each other."

 

Comments (49) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Jeez! Don't have sex in a fucking park. Have sex in your own house. While it was stupid for the police to advertise on Craigslist so they could bust "cruisers," I really think that people having sex in the park SHOULD get arrested.
Anyway, there is absolutely nothing more cowardly than someone who has casual sex with strangers in public locations behind their actual partners' backs. I don't care if they're gay, that's downright evil.
Posted by Snickerdoodly on September 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM
rara avis 2
"ok, dog walkers, birdwatchers and family picnickers: parks were built with you in mind, but you need stay in this part of park while we unofficially sanction anonymous sex over in that part of the park (even though it's illegal, stupid and, most of all, tacky)".

while i certainly don't support conducting stings to catch cruisers, that dutch park strategy is a little too, uh, enlightened for my taste.
Posted by rara avis on September 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM
3
Jeez guys, can't you be more like asexuals in the park and just feed the pigeons?
Posted by Ian Smith on September 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM
4
@2: Sort of like how those of us who don't want to get dog poop on our shoes or muddy pawprints on our trousers have to avoid the officially-sanctioned off-leash dog parks?
Posted by Orv on September 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM
yucca flower 5
I hope these guys are smart and fight the charges because if they don't they're gonna be on the sex offender registry for the next 25 years taking up parole officers' time which would be better spent on the Phillip Garridos of the world.
Posted by yucca flower on September 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM
rara avis 6
@4 if you want to equate cruising grounds with dog parks, be my guest, but "officially sanctioned" is the word here. like i said, parks are generally built with that kind of use in mind.

but the i think the answer to your questioned is still no: the expectation is that people will clean up after and be in control of their dogs (not always followed, granted).
Posted by rara avis on September 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM
undead ayn rand 7
"A park near Amsterdam has unveiled information signs pointing out spots where officials say gay men are known to have sex—so no visitors are taken by surprise. The signs "clearly indicate what is happening in each zone; also those where gay men are known to practice 'cruising'," municipal spokeswoman Manon Koffijberg said. "

I've been away from Miami for a few years, but don't they have similar signs in a park next to South Beach?
Posted by undead ayn rand on September 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM
saxfanatic 8
"Cruising is a slang word used to describe the act of trawling for casual sex." Well, that's a helpful explanation. Thanks Agence France-Presse.
Posted by saxfanatic on September 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 9
Hey, if you're having sex in a public park - gay or straight - then fuck you. I've got no problem with charging all of them.

And no, it's not entrapment. Nobody forced anybody to have sex.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on September 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
10
Forced sex would be rape, not entrapment. Just sayin'.
Posted by DragCub on September 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM
11
Yeah, my girlfriend and I stumbled across some cruisers going at it last weekend at a park here in DC last weekend. It'd be one thing if we were deep in the woods, but these guys were going at it about 20 yards away from a large public clearing where people were walking their dogs, playing frisbee, etc. I really don't get why you can't cruise in the park THEN go somewhere a little more private to actually fuck. I have little sympathy when they get caught, and the argument that there's a better use of police time holds little weight to me. It's better to have cops investigating murders than busting people for traffic violations too, but you need to have people enforce laws to keep order (I lived in China-- trust me, you don't want everyone ignoring traffic laws). It's illegal to fuck in the park, so cops should bust people fucking in the park. If you don't want cops busting people for fucking in the park, change the law so park-fucking is legal. It's that simple.
Posted by Mr Me on September 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM
12
Its no more entrapment than the police doing a buy-bust or undercover work. Entrapment has to involve getting someone to do something they would not otherwise do. So if the cops got the sexist man they could find to go up to people in parks and start rubbing them all hot and heavy like that might be entrapment. Just putting up an ad, hardly. The dudes have to be looking for the ads, drive to the park, find a partner, etc. Lots of evidence that this was not something they would not have done but for the police action.

That all being said its still a waste of resources.
Posted by giffy on September 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM
13
Promiscuous anonymous sex inevitably leads to virulent STDs and death.
Even in designated sections of enlightened Dutch parks.
As 'better ideas' go, this one still needs some work.
Posted by 53% and growing on September 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM
w7ngman 14
That is not entrapment.
Posted by w7ngman http://userscripts.org/users/89370 on September 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
15
"That is not entrapment" and Dan is not a lawyer.
Posted by mmbb_c on September 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Fistique 16
Maybe I don't understand cruising, but isn't part of the point that you want to have anonymous sex in secret? It seems like publicly marking areas as cruisy would drive cruisers elsewhere--and not necessarily indoors.
Posted by Fistique on September 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
17
15
That's right.
Just because all Lawyers are Assholes doesn't mean that all Assholes are Lawyers.
Posted by Ipso Dipso Fatso on September 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
18
Expanding on @12,

It's not entrapment because the purpose of anti-entrapment law is to avoid coercion. If a big, towering, plainclothes cop approaches me on the street, flashes me a bag of crack and says "buy a rock man", I might buy it just because I'm scared of the guy. That's why it's entrapment. Posting an online ad, there's no reasonable threat of coercion there. No one's going to respond to an ad just because they're worried the ad-poster is going to hunt them down and beat the shit out of them for not responding.

(None of this is intended to defend this kind of sting. It's a stupid waste of resources and probably fueled as much by anti-gay sentiment as anything else. Just explaining why it's not entrapment.)
Posted by cephi on September 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM
19
anti gay organizing/ ballot measure = anti gay sting

I think the dots connect

and, new right wing aggressive regrouping = gay hate as well

(the old KKK, Amer. Nazi/Militia plus other assorted far righters have NEVER been close to rational on gay rights)

get ready to be called pervert in public forums
Posted by Ace, number One on September 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM
20
I worked at the Columbia Island Marina years ago, it's near the Pentagon in Arlington/DC. The Park Police would raid the men's room of the park a few times a month. The frequent abusers were married men, men in political positions and men of the clothe.

It was clear that as long as society condemned Gays, men would have to sneak their sex in. And as long as the bathrooms were hopping....
Posted by Dale8 on September 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM
21
Sorry Dan, but I'm not buying it. You've defended cruisers on more than one occasion, and suggesting that handing over sections of park to them is a better idea than making arrests is not something a person who is opposed to cruising would do.

Of course, if you really want to get rid of cruisers, publish their names and faces in the newspaper. Encourage park goers to take pictures of cruisers and post them online. Nothing snuffs out sex faster than a healthy dose of shame.
Posted by Brandon J. on September 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM
22
My bf and I have had sex in many parks in Seattle. I enjoy it, and we do it well out of sight of any innocent passerby. I think the key here is to not answer Craigslist ads, and if you're cruising, always make the other guy touch your dick first. If he won't, just walk away. Fast.
Posted by Sex in the woods is how our ancestors did it on September 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
23
#21

Shame on you ... take your crap and stuff it.

Cruising by straights and gays is as old as man ... silly goose. Only gay men pay a penalty, cause it has so much shame, to be openly sexual.

You can feel up your lady any place in this city, or any where else, and the police do not intervene.... ever, let alone set up a sting. "It is so sweet, look, they are in love>"

You are a self oppressed shit head ... some laws are used to oppress, nothing else. Get a clue.

By the way, some guys are so repressed, publish the names and they kill themselves out of your term, "shame".

And just how much tax money do these operations cost? I thought police had budget problems.

Posted by Fred on the Hill on September 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM
tuesday harmony 24
Leotarded.
Posted by tuesday harmony on September 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Vince 25
When the police complain about not getting enough money, remember this. They create crimes where none exist when they could be solving real crimes that go unsolved.
Posted by Vince on September 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM
26
There were such stings in Seattle years ago - then the courts refused to hear the cases - cause they were so shaky and in truth, no laws were broken in most cases.

Many guys, hundreds, were arrested for touching, not cocks, the the shoulder of the cop. The real sin was hanging out, and making a pass at a cute single male, who was rubbing his crotch suggestively.

A buddy, shy but foxy and smart, who just wanted to get the undercover cop home, lived near, to eat some stew cooking at his place... he got busted, they dropped the charge, cost him for an attorney.

I believe him, he did nothing but try to talk the guy into going to his place. This is how homophobic this stuff gets. It is the morality police on the move. NOTHING to do with real laws and good police work, and, everything to do with homophobia in the cop shop .... now tell, me, that comes as a surprise?

What, homophobia in a police dept. here in Washington state. How could that be?
Posted by Clyde on September 6, 2009 at 3:37 PM
27
@23: "You can feel up your lady any place in this city..."

Which is exactly like fucking her in the ass in a public park. No, nobody would have a problem with that.

This isn't an anti-gay crusade, no matter how hard you try to make it one.
Posted by bigyaz on September 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM
28
Can't the gay men looking for anonymous lovin' just rent rooms in the hourly motels on Aurora? It's pretty cheap, anonymous (several of the motels are under indictment for not requiring identification), and it would be an improvement over the current clientele, so the neighbors would be happy.

That said, there's nothing quite like a blowjob in the bushes...
Posted by chowder head on September 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM
29
I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding, self-respecting faggot and I don't want sexual acts of any kind taking place in public parks. Sorry, guys, it's not hot, it's illegal and wrong. Book 'em, Danno.

Posted by matt2 on September 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Eric Arrr 30
The statutory definition of entrapment in Washington:

(a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and

(b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.


So, whether the entrapment defense would fly depends a lot the exact text of that Craigslist post. Did the post explicitly propose fucking in the hedges? Or did the post merely purport that the author was a Brad Pitt look-alike who wanted to meet sex partners at the park?

Can anybody come up with a copy of the post in question? (Try cached pages on Google.) It might be illuminating.
Posted by Eric Arrr on September 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM
vooodooo84 31
@30 the traditional common law definition is that the authorities have to "overcome the will" of the accused. Its not enough to explicitly mention sex in the craigslist add, the accused has to repeatedly refuse, or be otherwise forced or coerced into commiting the crime.

Entrapment is traditionally a difficult standard to prove.
Posted by vooodooo84 on September 7, 2009 at 12:04 AM
NumberOne 32
I live right by a dog park called Northacres by the Ingraham High School/Bitter Lake area. I never take my dog to Northacres because the park is HEAVILY cruised.

Cruised to the point where there are several old mattresses and syringes that litter greenbelt just off of the trails, you know, where dogs like to sniff. Its gross and my bear buddy, my dog, and I were trailed several times by a god knows what kind of tranny (little old lady dress with the crotch cut un-tastefully out while also sporting an axl rose style bandanna!) and some tweekers who looked like they just got back from month long binge in the tenderloin district. I have witnessed dudes fucking and also smoking either crack or meth- something out of a long skinny clear glass pipe.

Back in high school my buddies and I would go to the parking lot often on lunch so we could roll up blunts, skip, etc. We would always see guys getting bj's or headed off into the trails together. Its been a cruising spot for at least more than three decades, or so I have heard.

So basically I never use the designated dog park and instead take my dog to Bitter Lake where it is quiet and out in the open, there often are other friendly dogs there, and there are no cruising activities nor tweakers hiding out.
Posted by NumberOne on September 7, 2009 at 8:23 AM
33
"if you're cruising, always make the other guy touch your dick first. If he won't, just walk away. Fast."

What if the other guy has the same rule? You'd just have two guys standing there holding their own cocks while the asexuals are just feeding the pigeons.

"I never take my dog to Northacres because the park is HEAVILY cruised."

Why, the cruisers might be jealous that he can lick his own balls?

Maybe that would be a good place to allow legal cruising, the dog park? Let them all mix it up. For comic relief it would be priceless.
Posted by Roger That on September 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM
34
@31: This. While coercion doesn't necessarily have to be involved (cases have been thrown out, though not consistently, where a police informant repeatedly begged a friend to score him drugs, claiming to be in physical pain from withdrawal, etc.), the standard still requires that police lean on the person in some fashion, coercive or otherwise, to get them to do something they wouldn't do simply because the opportunity came up.
Posted by christopher on September 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM
35
"Cruised to the point where there are several old mattresses and syringes that litter greenbelt just off of the trails"

Um, those are homeless drug addicts, not the garden variety park cruiser. Thanks for playing though... The surprise here is Spanaway Lake Park!! I wonder if any of them old boys were from Fort Lewis?

Park Cruising has been happening forever. If you want it to go away, work to end the stigma related to sex and love between men. I said it before, men will come out of the shadows, when they are accepted in the light.

Of course there are those of us who have a fetish for sex in parks, likely because our fist encounters were in parks (perhaps rooted in shame we've experiences for our desires early on). But solution number one will take care of problem number two over time.

Take it from a pro, the park cruising scene is not what it used to be. Likely because gay is not shunned nearly as much as it once was. Though, we still have a long way to go, baby.

Police stings are all show. And they sure got a lot of millage out of this little bust. This should only be news in Tacoma, but The Times bellied up to the bar for this one. Baby, look in your own back yard. The party never stops in Volunteer and Woodland Park.

No amount of police stings has eradicated prostitution on Aurora, nor the cruising in Seattle city parks. The parks dept cuts the brush in one part of the park, the cruising moves to another. The solution is in the reason men go to parks in the first place...

Posted by MyMomLovesYouAnyway on September 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
36
@35 Um, what stigma related to sex or love between men really exists in Seattle? I mean yeah, there is some discrimination, but we have ample gay bars where one can hook up or find love, a very excepting populous, etc.

Sorry, but I am not buying that as the prime reason. I think the fetish/culture angle is much more the driving force.
Posted by giffy on September 7, 2009 at 6:36 PM
37
Giffy, that is so GAY!! What stigma is there about being a FAGGOT? I mean aside from the violence HOMOS have experienced on our city streets in the last couple years, I can't think of anything. Oh, except that there is a current campaign to limit the BUTT PIRATES from having equal rights in a committed relationship with another FUDGE PACKER!

Seattle folks do love the FAERIES. But not everybody was born and raised here. Some SISSIES come from small towns with different value systems. I mean I hear Kent has a COCKSUCKER bar now, but I but I bet you get some double takes if you go walking down the streets of Burien with your LIMP WRISTED BITCH hand in hand.

Think about your average gay guy who happened to be raised Morman. What kind of social stigma do you think he dealt with living with in Utah. Do you think that magically goes away if he moved to the Gay Mecca called Seattle. These can be deep seated values that it takes years to overcome.

Yeah we got the gay bars. Most of them are lame and owned by straights (cuff, eagle, neighbors). Nonetheless, I urge you to talk to a group of adult gay men about the courage it took to enter a gay bar for the first time. It is easy for some, but I guarantee you some stories will surprise the shit out of you - like driving into town every week but only driving around the block with the gay bar, not actually going in.

A close friend of mine did not come out until the age of 35. Even though he's lived in major metropolitan cities, he just never wanted to identify as gay - never dated anyone, never went anywhere public as a gay person, never wanted to have any gay friends - too much to deal with he said. It took a lot of therapy to come out, and he is still closeted with coworkers and some friends and family. He was Rasied in a small town Idaho with the specific values of his family.

Plus bars are not for everyone - it's much harder to meet our gay brothers at our local Mars Hill church on Sunday, or even at the grocery store. Gay space is limited. And I bet Spanaway doesn't have much - remember this al started with Spanaway.

If you are ever at Volunteer Park during the prime cruising hours, check the ethnic make up of the boys looking for action. I'm betting you'll notice that it does not mirror the make up of this city. You'll probably notice that that aside from a few meth heads, the scene is not very white at all. Think hard about the cultural stigma Black and Latino men might face within the subculture of our own city.

Now, I'm not saying "park sex" OK. It is risky, empty, anti social and for the players involved, often very sad. But, I do have empathy. My point is that all the policing and sting operations will not stop it. A crackdown in one area just pushes the cruising deeper in the same park, or to some other suitable venue. It has been going on forever.

To get these guys out of the parks and into appropriate venues (and I'm not talking porn stores and bath houses) we need to work to overcome these stigmas everywhere. But it also means having equal rights to marry and full protection from discrimination. As long as gay sex is second class, dirty, and wrong - guys will sneak around and find it when they THINK no one is looking. Unfortunately some of these closet cases will marry, and also lie and hurt people they do love to meet their sexual needs.

There is much less action in the parks these days. Probably a result of the computer scene (manhunt and craigs list, equally anonymous as parks). I'm hoping the bigger reason is that it is not as tough to be gay as it used to be, and more and more guys are able to come out sooner. We still got a long way to go though...
More...
Posted by MyMomLovesYouAnyway on September 7, 2009 at 8:41 PM
38
I was walking in a park in Washington, DC, about ten years ago, when I saw something disgusting! A chinless man from TX, looked like a turtle, but bald, big white shiny head, was tearing a new asshole into banking regulations! Sheer perversion! And it wasn't a victimless crime! Took years for that infection to really take off, though... and now we're all paying for it... sick, sick, I tell you...
Posted by CP on September 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Chris in Vancouver WA 39
@ 36 - "we have ample gay bars where one can hook up or find love"

So you straights want us to just get our queer asses into the bars, and keep out of your sight, is that right? Yeah, no stigma there...

Oh, and, find love in a bar? Good freakin' luck...

The fact of the matter is that the bar scene is just as shame-based as the park cruising scene. Why do you think the front windows of gay bars are painted black?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on September 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM
40
Wow -- American Victorianism is alive and well. Not to mention the old double standard.

I've seen straight couples right out in the open heavy petting, lying on top of each other, rolling around under blankets and humping in parks and on beaches in ways that would definitely get a gay couple yelled at, beaten and/or arrested in most cities in this country. But they were undisturbed by anyone. In fact, if they are young people, many often smile benignly (and, i suspect, leer) . Yet 80% of this county has a fit at the idea of men having sex in the bushes, where they can't be seen, and often at night when no one else except police sting operators are around.

i don't like to have sex in parks, but some people do. People have sex. Everywhere. If you listen to the evolutionary biologists (and even according to accepted readings of the Bible, if you prefer that) having sex is our primary motivation in life. It may be reasonable to have rules which allow people to enjoy some public areas without having to trip over people having sex. (No sex in the center of the beach, or on the bike lane.) But the hysteria, even here in these notes, which greets the idea of people having sex in the bushes in a park is childish and absurd. If American's were straightforward about sex with themselves and with their children, we wouldn't have this "problem" or be wasting resources on trying to flog the Hellespont of human sexuality.
Posted by Buster on September 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
41
Maybe guys who want to have public sex should just go across the street from Spanaway Park and enjoy the HARRY SPRINKLER RECREATION AREA lolololololol sounds like more fun anyway
Posted by Dood on September 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
42
When was the last time Miami_PD raided straight park_n_sex venues ?

It's time we demand equal enforcement.

Posted by egoz07 on September 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM
43
It would be a case-by-case analysis of whether this constitutes entrapment.

In a criminal case, the defendant usually does not have to prove anything; they just have to successfully argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case. However, when arguing entrapment, the defendant actually has a burden of proof; that they would not normally have committed the crime. The difficulty of meeting this burden will vary from one defendant to another.
Posted by kungfujew on September 9, 2009 at 7:10 PM
44
30 and 31 are correct. Entrapment is rarely a successful defense because the defendant has to show that he would not have otherwise committed the crime. A police officer inviting you to engage in illegal activity is not itself entrapment.

All this aside, one imagines that police have better things to do than harass closet cases who scurry about the bushes in parks.
Posted by Anon78 on September 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Loveschild 45
Kinda seems somewhat schizophrenic to say you oppose park and public toilet sex cruisers and then turn around and find something wrong with the appropriate sting that took place and go even further and entice them to fight the charges when you know that what they were doing was wrong. I bet ya none of those who frequent the park would defend the actions of the cruisers,....i wonder why!?

But by all means lets reserve areas in public parks for gay sex cruising like there are certain areas reserved for dogs relieving themselves. Just another theme park for gay sex funded by the public. Lets follow the Dutch example by all means.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on September 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM
46
"People have sex. Everywhere."

So do dogs. If you feel you have to do it in a public park, in front of others, expect to be treated as such.
Posted by Roger That on September 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Loveschild 47
At least I could explain to my kids the sign concerning dogs relieving themselves. Why should we have to endure the other one? don't even want to know what the explanation or sign the Dutch give for the other one is, but thats the Netherlands and this is the U.S. There's freedom to do what you want here, so go and do it, in a motel or in your home, you want to be treated normally but go on and behave more abnormally, very poor stategy. People do not need to change their way of life or avoid public spaces just because you have deemed that cruising for sex publicly is somehow your right, it is not.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on September 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM
48
I saw a bald Microsoftie gettin it on in the park. He was flagrantly exposing his under-endowment and hideous nasty hairyness--GROSS!
Posted by Jennifer L on September 10, 2009 at 3:17 AM
49
I'm glad someone else caught on to this first, but it is worth repeating. Entrapment is NOT a valid defense against a government agent helping you in the act of committing a crime. That is one part of the entrapment defense, but a defendant must also prove that he did not have a predilection toward committing that crime. A government agent who provides the opportunity for an otherwise willing defendant to commit a crime does NOT entitle the defendant to a defense of entrapment. Entrapment essentially requires proving that the government agent coerced or convinced a defendant who had no predilection to commit such an act to, in fact, do so. This is a very tough thing to prove. In other words, "entrapment" might be better termed "government-induced crime" rather than "trapping" someone.

That's not necessarily fair, and we can argue about what makes good policy or not -- I personally think it's too restrictive -- but that's the common law principle.
Posted by sosa1998 on September 10, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy