MOTION : TH opposes the use of entrapment by law enforcement agencies
Key Clashes:
1. To what extent does entrapment uphold the principles of the Criminal Justice System?
2. Which actors are affected and how; why are they important?
Clash 1 Gov:
? Clarity: What constitutes entrapment? - threat or harassment by officers undercover, creating enticing scenes for crime (e.g. bait cars to steal from, etc.), what does it not involve? (suggestion: an info slide on entrapment and examples of what it is and what it’s not would help debaters have a more clear understanding)
? Violates justice:
● Officers who use entrapment are usually very skilled at finding people’s breaking point - unfair conditions in which crime is committed means it is not a reflection of the character of the criminal, rather the circumstances created
● Alternatives to promote deterrence: undercover agents who observe without pushing subjects into crime, community watches, etc.
? Harder to rehabilitate:
● If criminal is sent to prison for a crime they were tricked or coerced into committing, it’s harder for them to accept that they are truly guilty and need to reform - more likely that they retaliate on state or commit further crime once they get out
Clash 1 Opp:
? Protection:
● Especially in contexts of heavy crime or underground crime, criminals are good at avoiding conventional law enforcement mechanisms, or good at cover-ups, thus they are hard to catch - impact of entrapment: Save potential future victims from being harmed, protect society from prolonged effects of harm if criminals are not caught
? Deterrence:
● Specific deterrence: disincentivizing recidivism (repeat crimes) - criminals think they will not get caught. Once they are caught by falling for entrapment, likelihood of committing crime is less than if they were caught by other members of society - why? Law enforcement is now seen as a force in direct contact with criminals and victims, and criminals cannot hide behind their crime being proven “beyond reasonable doubt” by lawyers of victims (who have varying skill levels, especially if a victim cannot pay and their case is taken pro bono by a lawyer who is less “in-demand”)
● General deterrence: potential criminals in society are further disincentivised from committing crime - because likelihood of getting caught increases
Clash 2 Gov:
? Minorities and vulnerable groups: likelihood of these groups being targeted for entrapment is much higher when law officers have the power to set up crime scenes. Thus, even if they are falsely/wrongfully entrapped, harder for them to argue entrapment defense - why? 1. Law favours officers over “criminals”, 2. Hard to prove the circumstances of the crime would have pushed any reasonable individual to commit it.
? Society: citizens lose trust in CJS as their duty is to protect society, not set up scenarios to catch them out
Clash 2 Opp:
? Criminal: can be set free if background check shows they were not predisposed to commit the crime, thus more fairness in prosecution
? CJS: rules/procedures around entrapment to ensure the criminal is being charged for the crime itself, minus the involvement of the officers, i.e. cannot be charged for the intent to commit crime as it was set up, but can be charged for the action of the crime itself, thus sentencing will reflect entrapment cases fairly
