Entrapment Law

Entrapment Law

In American criminal law, entrapment is defined as conduct by law enforcement inducing or encouraging a person to commit a criminal offense that they would otherwise not commit. Two conditions are considered in order for entrapment to be a plausible defense against criminal liability. First, the defendant must show that he or she was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to influence from a law enforcing agent or agency. Second, it must be evident that the law enforcing agent or agency exerted considerable effort to originate and induce the criminal act. The first condition is often referred to as the “subjective” test and the second condition as the “objective” test when considering the possibility of entrapment. Entrapment as a defense to criminal prosecution is most often cited in cases involving “stings”, where an undercover agent engages in criminal activity to obtain evidence and combat law-breaking. Given its association with such cases, it is fair to say that entrapment in American jurisprudence is misunderstood, and is often viewed as not being clearly defined or easily identifiable, and consequently not likely provable in a court of law.

History of the entrapment defense revolves around wavering case law beginning in 1864. Board of Commissioners v. Backus saw the New York Supreme Court reject the defense, stating that entrapment “has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian ethics, it never will.” The case marked the first time a United States court ever considered the entrapment defense as grounds against criminal liability. This skeptical view against entrapment as a valid defense was maintained until 1915, when, in Woo Wai v. United States, the Federal courts took a different stand on the issue of entrapment. In Woo Wai, a Chinese merchant was successfully convinced by undercover members of the Immigration Department to traffic...