My personal standard is that it is unacceptable to break one law to enforce another. At best, evidence gathered by an undercover cop posing as a criminal can refute a character-based defense in a pre-existing case.
Since having and selling cocaine is (currently) illegal, any evidence gathered by that illegal act is tainted. You can't reasonably prosecute the person buying unless you also prosecute the person selling. And that person is effectively immune.
The current lower standard in the courts--whereby the police can set up any situation, no matter how ridiculous, and entice a person to commit a crime that he might never have committed without that prompting--is an open invitation to police misconduct that may be more damaging than the crimes they are claiming to combat.
"Hey, want some coke?" is entrapment. The state agent is encouraging people to commit new crimes for the express purpose of arresting and convicting them for it. That isn't fighting crime. That's manufacturing crime to pad your own job performance metrics. You may be showing that people in the area have motive and method to commit certain types of crimes, opportunity is still a significant barrier. Traditional crime-fighting seeks to deny those opportunities rather that providing them.
This is why I find tactics like "bait cars" to be sleazy and indicative of lazy police work.
If you have mice, you can set out baited traps and be certain to catch some. But it will not eradicate the infestation. You have to clean your house, removing accessible food sources. You have to eliminate places where the mice can hide and breed. And you have to seal up any means of ingress and egress. Traps just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. The real solution takes much more effort.
I am not, however, part of the current justice system, so my opinion on these matters is not taken into consideration directly. But the prosecution relying upon traps has cause to worry, if I am on their jury.
Since having and selling cocaine is (currently) illegal, any evidence gathered by that illegal act is tainted. You can't reasonably prosecute the person buying unless you also prosecute the person selling. And that person is effectively immune.
The current lower standard in the courts--whereby the police can set up any situation, no matter how ridiculous, and entice a person to commit a crime that he might never have committed without that prompting--is an open invitation to police misconduct that may be more damaging than the crimes they are claiming to combat.
"Hey, want some coke?" is entrapment. The state agent is encouraging people to commit new crimes for the express purpose of arresting and convicting them for it. That isn't fighting crime. That's manufacturing crime to pad your own job performance metrics. You may be showing that people in the area have motive and method to commit certain types of crimes, opportunity is still a significant barrier. Traditional crime-fighting seeks to deny those opportunities rather that providing them.
This is why I find tactics like "bait cars" to be sleazy and indicative of lazy police work.
If you have mice, you can set out baited traps and be certain to catch some. But it will not eradicate the infestation. You have to clean your house, removing accessible food sources. You have to eliminate places where the mice can hide and breed. And you have to seal up any means of ingress and egress. Traps just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. The real solution takes much more effort.
I am not, however, part of the current justice system, so my opinion on these matters is not taken into consideration directly. But the prosecution relying upon traps has cause to worry, if I am on their jury.