Do you consider prostitution stings and similar strategies as being forms of entrapment? |
in a way
I have thought that the show "To Catch a Predator" relies on entrapment. They may not in fact have even done it without being enticed to do so.
Posted by: BennyWI believe that prostitution stings/similar strategies are entrapment because that is the very definition of entrapment.
Even though I believe that prostitution stings are a form of entrapment, I do not disagree with the use of it. If a man offers to have sex with a fake prostitute, he certainly would with a real prostitute as well. I have never understood why entrapment is so bad anyway; it helps catch those who would commit the crime under the same circumstances.
Posted by: I33HorrayNo, prostitution strings are not entrapment, because the guilty party was already seeking out a prostitute.
Entrapment is defined as inducing someone into a crime they would likely not commit. Prostitution stings typically involve placing undercover officers in an area where people are likely coming to seek out a prostitute, then waiting for those prostitutes to be solicited. Because stings take place in an area where people are likely to come for a prostitute, they are not looking to get someone to do something they wouldn't normally do. In addition, these types of stings rarely have a hard sell by the cop. Therefore, there is minimal, if any, actions to induce the guilty party taking place. As long as stings follow this format, they do not involve entrapment.
Posted by: 5h3InsanityI agree that prostitution stings are forms of entrapment because there is no proof that the prostitute would commit the act had the office not asked them to do so.
In a prostitution sting a cop asks a prostitute for sex, rather than a prostitute asking a cop for sex. This is entrapment because the cop is suggesting to the prostitute that she/he commit a crime.
Posted by: SqualidVaughnProstitution stings are the last thing we need to worry about with, is it really so bad?.
When police are out to catch you doing something, they will. Just like speeding; cops will hide. If they are looking to make an arrest, they will, no matter what. Enticing a hooker to sex for a fee, if the number is high enough, many people would. Seems like in today's society we need to focus on things that really matter. If someone wants sex, and another person offers the service, and they agree on a price, who cares.
Posted by: MoaningElroyYes it should be against the law
Why is prostitution illegal might sound stupid but this is a free country, what is the difference between a man taking a woman to dinner then going home then then engaging in intercourse. He still gave up money or gifted her with what she wanted. But in this way they cut the chase, give me the money and I will buy my on dinner or clothes, feed my kids or pay my car note, my rent ~~. Women do the same give a guy money or pay his bills and in return he sexes her in the way she needs him when together. So tell me! Why is it wrong ? Aids are being passed more from drugs and teenagers then just prostitution. And not all women are selling for drugs, you have big time company men and women working to buy drugs or gamble.so lets not say drugs are the cause . Now it should be against the law if a pimp is involved!
Posted by: AnonymousIt's entrapment since that person might not have tried to pick up a prostitute if they had not seen what appeared to be one.
Humans are ruled by impulses that tell us what we want to do. We are trained to want things when we see them. Like at the grocery store checkout where they put all the things they want you and your kids to impulsively want. So a person who was busted in a sting operation might not have been involved in the situation in the first place if it had not been fraudulently brought to his or her attention.
Posted by: MueIM4fi4I think that prostitution and drug stings are a form of entrapment, because there is no way to gauge if the opportunity would have otherwise presented itself.
Prostitution and drug stings should not be considered adequate to classify a person as guilty of committing such crimes. While these individuals have made the decision to purchase drugs or sex from an agent, there is no proof that the person would have chosen to make those decisions if the opportunity had not presented itself, or if it had presented itself in a different way. This allows police officers to have too much power over others, and presents an opportunity for corruption within the field.
Posted by: StaleWill90Anything that is a set-up is entrapment, according to the definition of the term.
There are a variety of things that are entrapment in the law, in my opinion. For example, when a police officer hides behind some bushes with their speed gun and catches people speeding, that is entrapment. Instead of just being out, doing their job, and catching the people as they break the law, they are creating scenarios where people break the law, so that they can catch them. This is not the way that law enforcement should work, even though they think it is effective.
Posted by: MariaRThought Crime
This is basically a thought crime, in regards to prostitution, because no exchange of sex for money has been made. They may talk about it, but talking about a committing a crime and commenting a crime are two different things. They should charge them with conspiracy to solicited prostitution, unless the undercover cop sleeps with the John and accepts the money.
In regards to selling/buying drugs, if the Sting wasn't there how can you prove that they would have bought drugs at that moment in time. Again they are trying to say that if you THINK about buying drugs you have committed a crime, i.e. Since you never actually bought drugs, because the drugs are not the officers to sell, you are being charged with a crime of which you could not commit in that instance.Posted by: John_Locke89
Prostitution is against the law and if someone is breaking the law they should be caught no matter what it takes.
Prostitution is against the law, and law enforcement should be able to use all means necessary to arrest those in violation of the law. While consenting adults should be able to do their own thing, this type of "business" is crime ridden as the people involved such as pimps often recruit young girls and enslave them. I believe prostitution needs to be stopped to help protect our younger citizens.
Posted by: EantDirtyNo, I do not consider prostitution stings and similar strategies as being forms of entrapment, because people who are indulging in these things are doing something wrong, and there is nothing wrong in catching them red handed.
If someone is caught in a prostitution or similar sting, then they are doing something they are not supposed to. It maybe morally or ethically wrong or even something criminal. So there is nothing wrong in penalizing them by catching them at it. The end justifies the means in this situation.
Posted by: danoneenoNo, I think it's called catching someone in the act of committing a crime.
If you are a prostitute and you are doing your thing, plying your trade (which is illegal) and you get busted by the cops, it's not entrapment. If you are prostituting yourself, it is against the law. If you get busted for breaking the law by a sting operation of any kind, it is because you are breaking the law, and you got caught. It's pretty clear cut.
Posted by: PinkMychNo, the police aren't enticing anyone, the criminal's are out there looking.
There is this idea that police should only be out in uniform where they can be clearly identified and avoided. If a neighborhood decides that prostitution should be illegal, then officers should be able to use reasonable means to eliminate it. Going undercover as a hooker to find those people who are looking to hire a sex worker is reasonable. They do not go into your home and try and get you to engage in their service, the people go to them.
A better question is whether criminalizing sex workers is good idea. Why criminalize consensual sexual relationships between adults? If that happens to involve cash, so be it.Posted by: Qu4yI3TaII believe entrapment only occurs when a person is "entrapped" into doing something they would otherwise NOT have done.
The strategies used in what is often viewed as entrapment seem to be essential if we are to apprehend those who are breaking the law.
However, there are serious problems with the use of these strategies. If a person is presented with a situation that tempts them to break a law, when he would never have encountered such a situation without the "encouragement" of a law enforcement agent, that is definitely entrapment of the worst kind and should not be allowed.
If a person is already committing a crime and a law enforcement agent poses as either a fellow offender or a victim, this seems to be a reasonable strategy for law enforcement to use.
It seems that without some degree of "entrapment" no law enforcement officer would ever be able to apprehend a criminal until after the crime had been committed; this seems inefficient and ineffective. Perhaps entrapment is one of the few methods available for officers to use in order to prevent crimes from occurring.
In the case of prostitution, since it is rarely the male "offender" who is charged or convicted, it seems pointless, time-consuming and counter productive to continually arrest the prostitutes, whether or not they were "entrapped."Posted by: CI3IikeProstitution is illegal and, therefore, sting operations are perfectly justified.
The law enforcement community should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to stop prostitution. Sting operations should not be considered entrapment. The illegal activity is taking place, so the law enforcement officers should have to right to seize the opportunity and put a stop to this activity. Sting operations are a very effective way to accomplish this.
Posted by: PiquantByron94They only entrap by appealing to baser (crude) human nature.
Technically it probably is entrapment, but I think it's acceptable to entrap criminals by appealing to their baser nature. If the trap is something that honest, law-abiding people would innately avoid, then I think it's legitimate. So if someone falls for a trap involving bribes, illicit sexual favors, etc. - they had it coming.
Posted by: Th4FireThey may border on entrapment, but as long as they don't cross the line then they are fine.
Stings get very close to entrapment, but as long as they are done right, there is nothing wrong with them. It is when the sting approaches and convinces the party to do the criminal act that it crosses the line into entrapment. Allowing a person to follow through with a criminal act they would have already done is not entrapment.
Posted by: KnownEvanI do not believe prostitution stings on their face are entrapment because the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
Prostitution stings are not entrapment on their face, although there may be some that cross that line. I do not believe you are being entrapped by making the choice when given the opportunity to commit a crime. Just because someone else suggests or offers a criminal activity does not mean the person has to agree; therefore, it is not entrapment.
Posted by: SascM0n