Should entrapment ever be an excuse?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I think any means that gets criminals caught, charged and convicted should be legal as long as the criminal is guilty. That doesn't apply if evidence is planted against him, but entrapment is nothing more than inviting the criminal to expose his illegal activity.
The law has gone much too soft on criminals and has put police in the impossible situation of responsibility to enforce the law without the means to do so.
I'm thinking of a case some years ago when a motorist was stopped for a traffic violation and the officer discovered a large amount of illegal drugs in the car. The case was thrown out of court because the officer did not have a warrant to 'search the vehicle' at the time of the arrest.
I think that was a clear cut case of 'getting away with murder'!
As for building more prisons, that is another story. Our prisons have been let go to wreck and ruin and have not been increased to accommodate a rapidly growing population. It is only common sense that as population increases, so will the rate of crime.
It doesn't seem right that convicted criminals are being released because of overcrowding in jails.
The law has become an old dog with no teeth.
That only works if the crime is unveiled by the party in question, tempting somebody goes past that parameter so it loses all legitimacy and makes them part of the guilty in a 'conspiracy' which is a crime on it's own.
I recall the case you cite or one very similar to it. My take on the subject is slightly different than yours. High security prisons are very necessary for the likes of Travis Vader, Willy Pickton and Paul Bernardo, not to exclude child molesters and drug importers - in other words those who are a threat to the safety of people, particularly children and the ones who can't fend for themselves. I think we have to concentrate on getting the worst of the worst cleaned up first. For those bastards entrapment is a good tool. I'm of two minds about these Creep Catchers. We'll have to watch how their 'catch' fares in the courts.
The problem is that cops will lie even under oath to protect each other. While someone with money could hire a lawyer to prove entrapment Joe Schmuck with a public Defender has no hope of avoiding jail or proving the cop lied.
There you have an example where the cop could have faced the appropriate punitive action for searching without a warrant (trespassing perhaps) but the proof that the cop should collect should still be used against the person in whose possession the drugs were.
Another example. The police search a house without a warrant and find a bunch of stolen jewellery. Of course the cops should be punished for trespassing, no doubt. And of course the owner of the house should be protected by the presumption of innocence. Did the police plant the jewellery? Did the owner know the jewellery was stolen? Did a friend of the owner's bring the jewellery over to his place and left it there without the owner's knowledge? Etc. You get the point.
But as long as it's proved that the owner stole the jewellery, the police trespassing onto his property should be treated as a separate and unrelated matter. Of course it can raise suspicions of whether the cops planted the jewellery for example, but if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner is guilty of theft, then the cops' trespassing on his property should still be treated as separate.
Another example. I'm a burglar, I break into a house, find a dead body, and call the police. Now, of course I should be found guilty of burglary, but would we excuse the murderer because a burglar trespassing onto his property found the body?
I know very well that cops can lie (eithter that or they're too clueless to know what they're writing: I've seen the grammar and other errors in a police report to the point of wondering if I really understood what the cop meant!). However, as long as you're protected by the presumption of innocence, a cop's uncorroborated statement is worthless unless the accused corroborates it himself.
So as long as the preson is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not too worried about that.
Probably lots of them, one that comes to mind is stealing a loaf of bread when one is hungry. I don't think that type of perpetrator should be locked up in prison.
No doubt they are the ones most aware of that. Time to contemplate what went wrong when you are just too messed up to unplug your life support device. Man that would suck. (in that I don't think any attempt results in a person being healthier)
You still haven't elaborated.
Yes they do, and are subject to the same perjury laws and penalties as we are. That happened to a friend of mine and they were called out by the judge who thoroughly excoriated the cops and prosecutor and threatened them with charges of contempt and perjury after he tossed out the case. The problem is that getting the Crown to proceed on perjury charges is pretty rare and the cops could claim they were acting "in good faith", which they weren't. My buddy could have proceeded with a civil case of malicious prosecution, but that takes a lot of time and money.
The judiciary takes a very dim view of cops breaking the law in the performance of their duties, and searching a home or vehicle without just cause and/or a warrant is grounds to get any evidence found during the search suppressed. Even a half a$$ed defense councillor of limited competence should be able to achieve that. The law is in place to protect us from cops going on fishing expeditions because I guarantee they'll find something in anyone's house. My rule is unless invited, (as friends or because I reported a crime) they don't get past the door. If they are let in they can use anything suspicious within plain sight as probable cause.
I might be touchy for you, the burglar but it was not the police who found the body, and anonymous tip would fix that dilemma. That reminds me of a case, I believe it was in Red Deer or that area where a thief stole a video camera and found child porn on the recording in it. He left the camera, anonymously at the police station, or somewhere it could easily be found. The owner of the camera was located and charged, I don't remember the final outcome. But there have been other cases where firefighters have responded to calls and found grow ops and other such things and charges have been laid. The law is in place to protect us from the police overstepping their boundaries.
I'm reminded of another case a while back; a hapless family were awakened in the middle of the night by a dynamic entry and held at gunpoint by the ETF, or whatever name they went by, (I think it was in Ontario but I don't know if it was Toronto). The ETF proceeded to search the home while still holding the family on the floor, still at gunpoint. Only after they discovered an old hunting rifle did they realize they entered the wrong address. Nonetheless they charged the homeowner with possession of an unregistered firearm, (the registry was still in effect at the time) and unlawful storage. Though the police were supposedly acting in good faith their navigation/orientation skills were sorely lacking, (they had the right house number, wrong street) and the search and seizure was eventually ruled illegal and any and all evidence was ruled inadmissible. The charges were eventually dismissed. I never did hear if the homeowner got the rifle back though.
Now there's a classic example where I'd say both the cops and the homeowner shoudl face their resepctive charges. Now if it was done that way, I suppose the cops could cut a deal with the home owner. Don't report us and we won't charge you.
And just how do the cops get the street wrong?
Given they'll be crashing doors down, you'd think they'd check and double check to be sure they have the right address.