In many jurisdictions it’s illegal for the state to setup a “trap” to imprison people, like a decoy car to be stolen. This voids the validity of the proof in trial. Isn’t that the case in Canada?
I thought entrapment had an element of the state convincing you to commit a crime. My understanding is if the state just leaves an Acura somewhere, and you break into it, it’s fair game.
Entrapment is when the state induces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. For something to be entrapment, the state must overcome some level of resistance, not just provide an opportunity for a crime.
For example, leaving a car out and watching it get stolen is not entrapment. Buying drugs and then arresting the seller is not entrapment.
The police in Canada have a tactic, called "Mr. Big", where they introduce a suspect to an undercover agent posing as a criminal, usually posing as a high-level organized crime member, and then getting the trust of the suspect. This has resulted in entrapment. For example, in R. v. Mack, a police used a "Mr. Big" style system to try and get Mack to sell drugs. It wasn't until the police threatened him that he agreed, after which they arrested him. His conviction was later thrown out because it was ruled this was entrapment.
Bait cars are not entrapment. In many jurisdictions in the west there is a sentiment against prosecuting criminals or even preventing crime, that’s the real issue.
