Hacker News Reader

Comment by swarnie | Hacker News Reader

Has the concept of "Entrapment" not made its way across the pond yet? This seem highly unethical on the part of the FBI.

View on HN

Entrapment is an invention of 20th century American courts. See William E. Mikell, "The Doctrine of Entrapment in the Federal Courts," U. Pa. L. Rev. 90 (1942), calling entrapment as a defense a "purely American doctrine" not considered by earlier English writers on criminal law.

Trivia aside, no. Entrapment is a specific concept narrower than "a fed lied to me."

Given the mention of "across the pond", it seems the parent commenter was talking about the English law meaning of entrapment. That is where you are enticed to commit a crime by a law agency. Technically it's still a crime and there's no legal defence based on entrapment, but courts will tend not to prosecute if "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".

I'm assuming you pulled that from Wikipedia, which is what Google points to for that phrase. You've radically oversimplified Wikipedia's coverage of UK entrapment, and Wikipedia oversimplifies UK law. "More than an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime" is just one factor in a complex analysis. The "exceptional" opportunity starts the consideration of entrapment; it doesn't end it.

Yes I got that quote via Wikipedia. It, in turn, is a direct quote from a judgement from the Law Lords, which set a precedent – the main precedent on the subject if that Wikipedia article is to be believed. So it's not just a random Wikipedia editor's view on the subject.

Yes, no kidding it's a more complicated subject than that one short sentence. But my point was just that it's different from any notion of entrapment, or lack of, in the US.

The point is that it's simply not the case that the state tends not to prosecute in cases where "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".

FBI gets a wide berth from the courts. A couple of years ago, they seized some TOR child porn website, and then started making upgrades to it causing the userbase to increase by 30%. Then they tried to pin that user count on the person they arrested.

FBI is federal, unlike the police, so they can do whatever, at least that’s how it’s playing out. The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical. It’s what’s “on the tin” and has always been. A good example is their treatment of MLK.

The FBI is supposed to be ethical, that's what's on the USA tin containing the FBI tin.

You can provide a billion examples of how the US hasn't lived up to that notion, but 'liberty and justice for all' is, "what's on the tin."

I think we agree, probably that what is and what should be are not the same. The tension is that voters will often reward politicians that are effective, rather than those whom are ethical. When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical.

We disagree insofar as your statement, "The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical." They are supposed to be ethical, and then effective.

> When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical.

Wouldn't the balance of the child's needs change the ethical judgement (now considered ethical as well as effective)? I don't see how they would be mutually exclusive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com