Quote:

For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.

American law focuses on the motivation of the accused. In the United States entrapment exists if the accused's main motivation was the offer made by the police. If the accused was more motivated by other concerns, such as financial gain, then it is not entrapment despite police actions.

John De Lorean was arrested in 1982 for selling cocaine to undercover police; in court, De Lorean argued that the police had asked him to sell them the cocaine (and threatened him as a form of coercion). He was found not guilty. De Lorean's attorney stated in Time (March 19, 1984), "This [was] a fictitious crime. Without the Government, there would be no crime." The defense of entrapment was unsuccessful in the Abscam operation in which several members of the United States Congress were convicted of accepting bribes.

---

magicpurplecow said:

All I am asking for is a warning screen before anyone answrs chat.  Why is that so contriversial.

---

You're the kind of person that wants a warning on your McDonald's coffee cup telling you that the contents may be hot.