Entrapment is discouraged because the government should not be inducing people to commit crimes. Therefore, if someone can make a viable claim of entrapment, they can get sprung, since the legal system, rather than punish the offender, has been operating for a long time under the tainted fruit theory. Now, you can trap a person if you have sufficient reason to believe that the propensity is well established, and you are merely gathering evidence that they engage in such activity, as, for example, when a police officer poses as a bar patron and plays along with a prostitute.
My point is that even if you were right it wouldn't matter:
1.) Because these people were not agents of the government;
2.) Because the tainted fruit exclusion is ridiculous anyway. If someone gets material evidence of a crime, admit it. If they crossed some line, punish them;
3.) Because there was a propensity. No one induced him to get involved with Monica during a case where he knew it might come to light, nor induced him to lie rather than assert 5th amendment rights in the grand jury session, etc. He's just that kind of guy;
4.) But I do not even admit that the construction you have put on events,such as "planting " the story, is true. Just because something reasonably could be so doesn't mean that it is, and you have leapt to more than one conclusion. That's your right, but then it is a bit thick to complain about everyone else. |
