Help with responses

Taylor Setzer

Top of Form

A typical entrapment scenario arises when law enforcement officers use coercion to make someone commit a crime (Bergman, 2014). The difference between the use of deception and entrapment is an issue that has been debated in the courtroom many times. Today, the court has established a set of guidelines for how police officers can use deception without it leading to entrapment.

           Entrapment often follows when officers result in the use of threats, fraud, harassment, or flatter in order to obtain a prosecution (Bergman, 2014). Through these methods, officers are not merely using deception in order to gain a confession but forcing the accused hand. For example, an officer simply lying to a drug-dealing about their occupation in order to get them to sell drugs is not entrapment (Bergman, 2014). However, if an officer repeatedly goes to the dealer and tells the drug dealer they need the drugs for their mother who is very sick even after they have been refused is entrapment (Bergman, 2014).

            Another way officers can use lies to legally gain a confession is to tell the accused something that is plausible, but not necessarily true (Rutledge, 2007). This often comes into play during interrogations when officers tell the accused they found fingerprints at the crime that have not yet been found or telling the accused their accomplice has confessed and been arrested (Rutledge, 2007). This type of deception is not likely to make an innocent person confess to a crime they have not committed.

            There have been several court cases over the years that have dealt with the issue of what is and is not entrapment. In the case, Sherman v. U.S.Government Inducement an officer approach a recovering addict several times in an attempt to get Sherman to buy drugs and abandon his treatment (Rutledge, 2008). The court ruled that this was entrapment due to the officer’s numerous attempts to try and get Sherman to abandon his treatment and return to being an addict (Rutledge, 2007). In this case, the officer has lost sight of the main goal of policing which is to prevent crime not create it. On the other hand, in Lopez v. U.S  an IRS agent that was investigating Lopez's taxes for his restaurant when Lopez made an unsolicited offer to pay a cash bribe for the agent to not report his phony records (Rutledge, 2008). The court ruled that this was not entrapment given that Lopez’s offer was not solicited by the agent (Rutledge, 2008). Officers must use their discretion and the guidelines set in place to establish when it is and is not okay to use deception when fight crime.

 References:

Bergman, P. (2014, August 15). What is entrapment? Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html

Rutledge, D. (2007, January 1). The Lawful Use of Deception. Retrieved from http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/01/point-of-law.aspx

Rutledge, D. (2008, October 1). Entrapment. Retrieved from http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2008/10/entrapment.aspx

Sandra Sale

In reviewing both the literature and Court documents it is possible to achieve a guilty plea by way of manipulating the crisis situation. There are two schools of thought. The first never believing it is appropriate for law enforcement to obtain a confession by means of distorting the facts. Such is the case of police encouraging the accused to admit to breaking the law in order to receive a lesser charge. The second id to point out the benefits to utilize false information to achieve the goal of solving the case.

At first glance one might assume that any actio0n necessary to solve the case is appropriate. Unfortunately as studied by the founders of the Crisis intervention training the ability for one ton comprehend the extent of the charges in most cases is dependent upon the mental state of the person at the time of the arrest. It was as a result of a case in which a young man charges with a crime and taken into custody suffering from mental illness. As the officer was in the process of instructing the man to confess a confrontation ensued and the officer used his weapon . The young man was experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia and lunged at the officer and was shot and killed.

Since that event several agencies have worked with Crisis Intervention Teams to improve the skills needed to press for confessions ton crimes. The skill of deescalating is of great importance in the initial stages of the arrest and interrogation. In many cases the belief is that the booking area a inside the detention centers becomes one of the most dangerous. In an effort to proof a case officers can offer plea bargains. Those don’t always come through as promised. Not only is there a chance that will not hold up in court but more recently there has been an overriding concern for evidence that plea bargains work. In the case of an individual experiencing much stress there is a chance that they6 may misunderstand exactly what they are pleading and the consequence of that decision.

Presently GMU is in the process of joining with several other colleges in the country to establish a uniformed survey that asks the questions necessary to determine if the accused truly understood the ramifications of the plea bargain. As the results are being collected it has come to light that a percentage of inmates are offered a plea bargain in return for their confession. Unfortunately there is little documentation to prove what exactly what is being offered and what actually can be adhered to. The question then becomes is it ethical for police to use these tactic to gain a confession. Base on the individuals experience one can determine if that misleading approach is acceptable.

The local research professors have agreed it is much more complicated than just closing a case. More than that is the moral compass we all live under. In the bible we see that there is no reason for unethical behavior, Jesus spoke honestly and assuring way that his will is the only one we need.

In a relatively new way of approaching inmate’s fir confession it was found that in questioning individuals one could come close to brainwashing them to believe that were the perpetrators. This can result in promises of lesser sentencing, or general increase in privileged. Unfortunately if interviewing the accused for long periods of time it is possible for the accused to begin believing they are guilty.

In assessing the value in these approaches there is little hard data to demonstrate that these tactics of lying or fabrications the circumstance can ultimately increase the behavior of mentally unstable arrestees.

In conclusion it has shown that the risk of officers unethical approaches rarely if ever assists in the judicial system to the benefits of anyone. Lie are lies no matter what the issues are. Communication and trust have to be maintained at all times to maintain the integrity of the courts dentation centers and police departments.

Police Deception During Interrogation, Krista Forrest, Ph.D. November1, 2010Research University of North Colorado

7 Ways Police Can Brainwash you into A false Comfession Article 23844_7

National research Data Collection, The understanding of Plea Bargains GMU September 2016Bottom of Form