No, you do not.
Originally Posted by Achillesdude
The only definition that counts is the legal definition that would stand up in front of a judge.
Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the defense can show the guy would never have even remotely considered donning a suicide vest in his wildest dreams without the agency enabling him, then it is entrapment.
In criminal law, entrapment
is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.
In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
The prosecution will argue that if they had not sold him a fake vest, he might have found a real one and acted out his desires.
The judge will ask if you walked up to any stranger on the street and offered them a suicide vest, would the majority be likely to take it and plan a suicide attack.
The judge will deny the motion for dismisal on entrapment and the defendent will be bound for trial.
Entrapment for accepting a suicide vest would be virtually impossible to establish under any but the most extreme of circumstances.
The odds of getting a dismisal on entrapment for this would be a million to one.
Last edited by bart5050; 02-19-2012 at 03:09 PM.
Whatever works, use it.
A good idea stands on its own value independent of authorship.
If it stands or falls on the credibility of the author, maybe it isn't such a good idea.