Doug64 wrote:
Glenn Greenwald would beg to differ
"Why are we surprised that entrapment claims tend to be weak even if it appears that the police were deeply involved in the criminal activity charged, to the point of appearing to orchestrate it? It is mainly because media coverage — especially at the pretrial stage, when it is mostly defense lawyers speaking to the press — focuses on the wrong issue.
When it comes to entrapment claims, what matters most is the nature of the criminal conduct at issue. The degree of police aggressiveness is a side issue. Indeed, the more serious and potentially violent the crime, the more aggressiveness we expect from the police and their informants.
If you’re not focused on the nature of the crime, then any discussion of entrapment escapes the realm of common sense and enters that of a dry, artificial law-school exam.
The legal test of entrapment is straightforward. Entrapment is police enticing of a person to commit a crime that the person was not otherwise disposed to commit. Consequently, as a matter of law, there can be no entrapment if the accused (a) proposed or otherwise initiated the crime, or (b) was predisposed to commit the crime, even if the government proposed it.
In the real world, though, it’s usually a silly question, and the more heinous the crime, the more silly the question becomes. Why? Because innately law-abiding people do not get entrapped into committing violent crimes."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/whitmer-kidnap-case-enters-entrapment-phase/