On a lazy football Sunday, hoping for some opinions on the subject of entrapment...
Hello everyone.
There has been a lot of discussion about entrapment in the U.S media lately when speaking about FBI methods. Entrapment is a touchy subject because we are generally wired to consider someones actions or intended actions before understanding how that activity came to be. Furthermore, it is particularly difficult to understand when considering a more serious crime. I can shed some light on entrapment, but in all honesty in my personal case "entrapment" really just became lies, misrepresentation and outright B.S from the police, in what I consider a relatively low level accusation against me (smash and grabs, 21 years ago), when entrapment involved people out to harm others in a massive manner, it is worrisome on so many levels.
First. Without a doubt, the vast majority of police want to do a good job. Especially men in uniform. I have respect and admiration for a person who is visibly in uniform, easily identifiable and determined to protect citizens. These men and women are the salt of the earth. Undercovers, and covert agents however are another story. Almost certainly, when people are free to act as they please, and when their paycheques are directly tied to success these "successes" have to occur. I am certain the FBI and local police would generally identify a success as preventing a criminal from causing harm and finding them guilty of said accusation.
Without going too deep into the subject matter as there are definitely varying degrees of grey on the subject matter. As far as I am concerned, if a person being targeted would not have been exposed to a particular idea, philosophy, weapon, crime etc. without the involvement of the police than this is entrapment. Put another way, the most honest and effective policing is simply observing without interfering. So, let's assume Person A is the subject of a terrorist investigation based on a tip or what have you, they should be watched; their activities online, their phone calls, where they go who they see, etc. If this person is someone hellbent on harming others than there is no doubt they will pursue access to weapons and attempt to commit a crime. If, however that person wouldn't have committed a crime or done things the same manner without the help of the police, than that person was entrapped.
Anyone else have an opinion on this matter? I read many people who look at some of the stories we read in the paper and there is a healthy dose of skepticism in regards to what the polices' motivations were and how or why such a person became involved in something in the matter they did. My skepticism also grew when I read a few months ago that the CIA was working with the NYPD to investigate potential terrorist subjects and found exactly zero instances in the largest city in the U.S. When I say skeptical, I refer to my own view that the CIA's involvement actually ensured more reliability as I believe they, like the military, do their best to deal with the "real" when in the field. I am a sponge when it comes to learning about intelligence agencies and I have the utmost respect for the CIA. I believe that in general the CIA is not motivated to misrepresent and generate b.s when dealing internally with a potential threat. I had to believe, that after a lengthy operation with the NYPD without any danger identified that this means that the police methods when left to their own devices are faulty, unreliable and dare I say potentially purposely misleading. As there seems to be many such instances of accused terrorists when the police alone are investigating.
Anyone else have an opinion on this subject? I think it is an extremely important subject, especially considering the fact that the United States, like England, does not allow entrapment (in Canada for all purposes they do allow alot more freedom in police methods) and it is a country that realizes the massive danger of allowing such tactics in the field.
= new reply since forum marked as read
