This would be entrapment over here. The argument would be that the crime would not have been committed without the Police deliberately making it happen.
This would be entrapment over here.
The argument would be that the crime would not have been committed without the Police deliberately making it happen.
Ah, but the police merely placed their property on a spot where the said property can be stolen, so why shouldn't the police protect its own property in case someone steals it? I don't really...
Ah, but the police merely placed their property on a spot where the said property can be stolen, so why shouldn't the police protect its own property in case someone steals it? I don't really think that entrapment should apply here, since the crime has been committed, only in this case the victim of stealing was the police department.
In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's...
In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.
The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
Rather than address the problem of why people are stealing, we are instead creating more stealing opportunities in order to throw more people in jail where there is zero emphasis on rehabilitating...
Rather than address the problem of why people are stealing, we are instead creating more stealing opportunities in order to throw more people in jail where there is zero emphasis on rehabilitating the individual.
Another perspective here would be that if people know that bait trucks are a thing, wouldn't that make cost-benefit assessment on a part of the criminal harder? Not to mention that if there are...
Another perspective here would be that if people know that bait trucks are a thing, wouldn't that make cost-benefit assessment on a part of the criminal harder? Not to mention that if there are people ready to steal something at the right moment, wouldn't it be better to bait them instead of waiting for them to commit the same crime elsewhere?
Thanks for the post, OP. To me, there were two parts of the article that I found particularly thought-provoking. I'm not convinced that bait items are bad for the purposes of reducing crime...
Thanks for the post, OP. To me, there were two parts of the article that I found particularly thought-provoking.
“Anything over $500 is a felony, and they’re going to get some guys who don’t [already] have a felony and charge them,” he said.
The value of stolen property determines if a theft is a felony or misdemeanor. States establish their own thresholds for what constitutes felony theft. Illinois sets the bar for felony theft at $500, a conviction that can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.
I'm not convinced that bait items are bad for the purposes of reducing crime (though certainly, as you highlight from the article, they are bad for the purposes of fostering good relations between the people and the police). But even if they do help reduce crime, I think that doing so with felony-level values of items is too much. Given the state of correctional facilities in the US, I suspect this will do more harm than good in a given community.
“Police are not bound by probable cause or reasonable suspicion requirements before they engage in a sting.”
To me, this is the bigger issue. Police don't have to meet a standard of evidence to do a sting, and that lack of accountability opens the door for possible discriminatory targeting. Holding police accountable by ordering them to meet certain standards of evidence is how we can deter them from misbehaving, in the same way that the presence of these bait items is intended to deter people from stealing items they might come across.
This would be entrapment over here.
The argument would be that the crime would not have been committed without the Police deliberately making it happen.
Ah, but the police merely placed their property on a spot where the said property can be stolen, so why shouldn't the police protect its own property in case someone steals it? I don't really think that entrapment should apply here, since the crime has been committed, only in this case the victim of stealing was the police department.
In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.
So, putting expensive things with a quick resale value in front of people in a manner designed to look like an easy win?
Rather than address the problem of why people are stealing, we are instead creating more stealing opportunities in order to throw more people in jail where there is zero emphasis on rehabilitating the individual.
Yes, this sounds like a recipe for success /s
Another perspective here would be that if people know that bait trucks are a thing, wouldn't that make cost-benefit assessment on a part of the criminal harder? Not to mention that if there are people ready to steal something at the right moment, wouldn't it be better to bait them instead of waiting for them to commit the same crime elsewhere?
Yup. This is the goal of bait in police use.
Thanks for the post, OP. To me, there were two parts of the article that I found particularly thought-provoking.
I'm not convinced that bait items are bad for the purposes of reducing crime (though certainly, as you highlight from the article, they are bad for the purposes of fostering good relations between the people and the police). But even if they do help reduce crime, I think that doing so with felony-level values of items is too much. Given the state of correctional facilities in the US, I suspect this will do more harm than good in a given community.
To me, this is the bigger issue. Police don't have to meet a standard of evidence to do a sting, and that lack of accountability opens the door for possible discriminatory targeting. Holding police accountable by ordering them to meet certain standards of evidence is how we can deter them from misbehaving, in the same way that the presence of these bait items is intended to deter people from stealing items they might come across.