Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 9 comments on “Entrapment pg 22
  1. Chris Katko says

    So couldn’t you require new recruits to hurt people as part of their hiring process to stop undercover police officers?

    • I don’t know how relaible my sources are, but I’ve understood that happens. In context of this, it could shed new light on why.

      • The problem with this approach is that in order to prevent the undercover cops from going through with it, it must be a crime, at which point you are guilty of solicitation the moment you require it of them. Assuming you do this to all your new hires, they’re likely to know about it, and can simply go in knowing they’ll bag you for that crime instead.

        Admittedly, they’d probably rather nab you for the greater crimes you’ve committed, but something beats nothing I’m sure.

        • That’s true of the person who asks. Except undercover operations would generally be considered a horrendous failure if all they caught was the small fry, and only for handling the initiation. In theory at least, they tend to have specific, large-scale goals.

    • That’s supposedly the reason why having killed someone is a de facto requirement for becoming a “made man” in the mafia.

  2. Legion says

    Makes a certain brutal sense out of gang-rape/sex as an initiation.
    “Prove you’re not a cop; service this rugby league.”

  3. Shashakiro says

    Question: Is the remedy for violation of this rule (e.g. police hurting someone) really dismissal of the charges?

    I suspect it’s not, which makes this one of those “And even if they did, it STILL wouldn’t be entrapment” things.

Class Participation