1993-10-21 - Entrapment Defense

Header Data

From: edgar@spectrx.Saigon.COM (Edgar W. Swank)
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 4f72f3bb869065aa24f5a886ed5625f9e0feb8d3ce903c40cff4c3af74d9778b
Message ID: <k6RqBc11w165w@spectrx.saigon.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-21 06:42:40 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 23:42:40 PDT

Raw message

From: edgar@spectrx.Saigon.COM (Edgar W. Swank)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 23:42:40 PDT
To: Cypherpunks          <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Entrapment Defense
Message-ID: <k6RqBc11w165w@spectrx.saigon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Carl Ellison posted here:

    If all you're worried about is entrapment, you need only ask the
    person in question if s/he works for any law enforcement or
    surveillance agency.  If they lie, then anything after that is

    I'm not a lawyer but I learned this from my masseuse in SLC UT,
    where mixed-gender massage is considered a "sex act for hire" and
    she was constantly subject to entrapment.

I'm not at all sure if the above is true.  This came up on this list
a few months ago when I was suggesting that people might put a
statement, "I am/am not a Law Enforcement Officer or Agent" as part of
a "certificate of identity" they could mail to verify their PGP public
key.  At that time I think the concensus was that a LE officer could
sign (the negative form of) the statement and still observe crimes and
give testimony.

One example given was undercover narcotics officers who could not
answer affirmatively without jeopardizing their lives.

One defense attorney on another net told me that the entrapment
defense is rarely used anymore; "it's easier just to plead your client
guilty."  Apparently all the prosecuton has to show is that the
defendant had a "pre-existing disposition" to commit the crime.

Duncan Frissel, can you shed more light on this???

edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Cupertino, Ca