You can take a person who is young and trying to find themselves and place them in a horrible nightmare and ruin their life. When you ruin a life, It can create another criminal. It is amazing to me that the police do know who some of the repeat undesirables are but cant seem to do anything about it. So they set up stings or entrapment for those who are tempted but otherwise would not act on their crime unless provoked. Lets face it, the stings or entrapments are a way for the county to make lots of money. Not to deter a crime
There is a reason why it is a defense to prosecution if a person believes that they have been entrapped by the police. This is not an easy burden of proof to overcome, but does reinforce the fact that police entrapment is wrong, and should be against the law in the USA.
Police entrapment can sometimes encourage otherwise law-abiding citizens to partake in criminal activity. It is hard to tell the difference in those operations, as to whether a person is a habitual offender or a "regular Joe," and it could lead to people being arrested not for repeat offenses, but for first-time offenses that otherwise would not have occurred.
Police entrapment is absolutely wrong. It is currently illegal anyway, and it should remain that way. People can be coerced into doing terrible things with the right kind of peer pressure, and I don't think we should push people in that direction. While some people may be more inclined to commit a crime, and therefore all they need is a little push, I still think we would be in the wrong to give them that push.
Police entrapment is a tricky area. For many crimes, it is difficult to catch perpetrators in the act, so the police rely on schemes to create the criminal activity. However, it is difficult to distinguish between individuals who would engage in criminal behavior regardless, and those that were induced to criminal action by the police. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing, the police should avoid using entrapment.
Yes, police entrapment is wrong. The person they may be trying to trap into committing a crime could be someone who has begun to see the error of his or her ways. They may be trying to be an upstanding citizen. Police entrapment could screw that all up for people. Moreover, others could be hurt by the crime the police are trying to get the individual to commit.
As long as sufficiently strong evidence can be provided of a crime for example with stealing; if a person picks a wallet up off the floor and starts to go through it they may want to find the owner's details to return the wallet to them before taking it to the police station (may be delayed taking it there as they have other pressing business ). Stealing from cars or bicycles seems straight forward to me. Pick pockets could be followed until they spent any proceeds of their crime and then arrested. If it's doen carefully there should be no reason why for certain crimes you entrap a criminal.
If a person commits a crime because they have been pressured into doing so by an under cover officer, we perceive that said person can and will do so in the future should the same situation reoccur without the officer. The person has committed a crime. They have had criminal intent, and they have followed through with an act of crime. We must examine their motives, yes, but peer pressure is a weak excuse.
The role of the police is as follows:
-assistance to victims of crime
-maintenance of public order
-investigation of crime
At the top of the list you will note the words crime prevention. It is not wrong to test the citizens of a nation, and in doing so preventing highly probable crime in the process. A law abiding citizen will not break the law. If they do, well, they're criminals.