Essay On Entrapment AND Outrageous Government Conduct

Entrapment serves as a defense to criminal charges based on the relations between law enforcers and the defendant before or during the alleged crime. A distinctive entrapment scene comes about as law enforcers employ coercion and other forceful measures to encourage an individual to carry out a crime. The main aspect of entrapment lies in the belief that government agents do not entrap the individual by giving them the opportunity to carry out a crime. But, each individual is responsible for his action and the law should treat individuals accordingly. The legislative arm of the government believes that any form of temptation to violate the law should be punished. However, entrapment defense surfaces when government agents choose to carry out disgusting behavior which include the use of excessive threats, fraud, harassment and flattery to persuade the defendants to carry out criminal activities. No one is above the law and any act of outrageous behavior or misconduct by police officers should receive punishment under the law.
The laws of entrapment indicate that the law is a leash that is used to control the outrageous actions of police officers. It is an affirmative defense and leaves the defendant with the additional burden of trying to convince the jurors that a police officer is not above the laws of the country. In the states that take an objective view of entrapment, the conclusion is that there is a no guilty verdict, but in the states that a subjective view of entrapment, the verdict is that entrapment arises from the burden of proof that goes back to the prosecutors attempting to create a case of unreasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime and not the police officer’s actions that encourage the individual to commit the crime.
Based on the objective standards of the judiciary arms of the country, the law enforcers should be punished when they encourage law abiding citizens to commit criminal offences. In a case where an innocent woman is encouraged to sell drugs by a police officer, the law should hold that the police serve as an accomplice to the crime. The fact is that some would argue that the woman made a conscious choice to break the law. But, the threat of being arrested either way, forces the woman to resort to breaking the law. Who is responsible then for the choice that the woman makes? Clearly, the fear of being apprehended outweighs the possibility of being caught. In other words, the woman in this case would take her chances at being caught instead of knowing that the law enforcer would carry out acts of injustice on the woman.
Based on the subjective standard, an entrapment defense is less likely to accomplish something based on a subjective standard of the law. The belief is that a defendant who offers evidence based on entrapment, the jurors on the defendant's inclination to carry out the crime and makes the defendant responsible for his actions despite the police officers actions. But, if the laws of aiding and abetting holds for everyone, and if the laws that suggests that no one is above the law, then police officers should be charged for outrageous conduct. The reality is that police officers are role models to many children and these children will emulate the behaviors of the officers. The country sends the wrong message when they attempt to cover the outrageous behaviors of these police officers and suggest that the laws of the society only applies to specific individuals and not to everyone.
In concluding, law enforcers are not above the law and should be treated as any other criminal who carry out outrageous behaviors. Arguably, police officers are cognizant of the laws of the country and they are also bound by an ethical code that emphasizes acceptable conduct. With this in mind, the police officer who deliberately breaks the law should face the same treatment as those who do not have such an in-depth understand of the law. Law enforcement agencies are honorable institutions that hold to the belief of serving and protecting the country. Therefore, law enforcers should hold true to their mandate at all cost. Any failure to do so should result in the same punishment as the common man in the society.