Proven entrapment is and should be grounds for defense or acquittal, but what exactly accounts for entrapment is often debated and never seems absolute. If police especially, or an individual specifically counsels someone else to commit an indictable offense for the purpose of "catching them in the act", basically trying to prove actus reus, the criminal act, without mens rea, criminal intent, that is entrapment. On the other hand, if police or anyone is contacted, i.e. solicited by a person or party to commit an indictable act, and that person solicited, either a citizen or the police themselves report it, it is not entrapment as the person doing the soliciting has themself demonstrated mens rea whether or not the act is actually carried out. But police do play dirty tricks, of that there is no doubt.
Dropping the bait in the water and seeing if a creep bites is a common tool used by police, and I don't totally disagree with it, but it is not always a creep that bites. That is where we can fall into a grey area. Police have also counselled suspected criminals to commit criminal acts in what are known as "Mr. Big" stings and pushing the boundaries of legality. We are supposed to have a criminal justice system that has to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, but in our "progressive" society, and judicial system, even the appearance of deviancy against the orthodoxy will swing the anvil of burden of proof to the accused.
If anything, I think our entrapment laws need to be strengthened, make the police do their jobs properly and catch the real bad guys.
