trust a member?

[kinoplay1]

that's funny, haha

[A7X]

thegodfather

My major is criminal justice and i was wondering if you could give me your opion on the part you put in bold. (im not to good with big words right now haha) reading that makes it sound like they cant even present an oppertunity for you to commit a crime...

[thegodfather]

thegodfather

My major is criminal justice and i was wondering if you could give me your opion on the part you put in bold. (im not to good with big words right now haha) reading that makes it sound like they cant even present an oppertunity for you to commit a crime...

It's not entirely clear to anyone, even lawyers. It literally varies on a case by case basis. That is because there is no real legislation or laws against entrapment, it exists entirely via case law. Many would say this is due to "activist judges." There are other such 'laws' or regulations and such, which are not spelled out in legislation or the Constitution, but which under certain circumstances can still be found to be unconstitutional or illegal. For instance, the SCOTUS finds a right to privacy in the "penumbra of rights" in the Constitution. They look at the Constitution's intended purpose, and find that the authors intentions through a collective analysis of all of the rights within it seem to advocate a right to privacy. But there is no enumerated clause which says "The people have a right to privacy."

If you are interested in the litmus test used in court for whether entrapment has occurred, look up the "Objective Test" and the "Subjective Test" with regard to entrapment. Those are the two different standards with which entrapment is examined in court. The objective test is the most desirable for the defense, and the subjective test is more desirable for prosecutors. It really comes to how the judge instructs the jury and such. But look it up and it will help you to understand it better.