@Arella Mae,
OK, sooner is better than later:
I got an adjournment, so I 'm free to write.
Adjournments r fun.
Arella Mae wrote:I don't believe placing an ad would constitute entrapment. It also depends upon exactly how the first talk of the "crime" came about.
But, seriously, do you really think this man hadn't done this before? If this was in his mind to commit this act, doesn't that make a difference to you? He was a COP. I would think for one, he'd know what he was doing was wrong and two, he knows that there are those in law enforcement out there trying to catch perpetrators with these types of "traps". At the very least, I'd say he was pretty stupid, wouldn't you?
As to placing the ad: whether it is entrapment depends on what the government put into the ad,
but government is not supposed to try to corrupt the citizens so that it can incarcerate them.
As to whether he had done it before: I have no information,
but government is not supposed to criminally prosecute anyone
as vengeance for earlier allegations of crime that were never prosecuted nor adjudicated.
As to any such allegations, defendant had no opportunity to defend himself.
In that case that I mentioned before,
I believe that there was
NO discussion of committing a crime,
merely an invitation to click an advertized link (secretly) to the FBI, promoting illegal porn.
According to the material in that A2K thead, defendant was convicted for clicking
and sentenced for years of federal incarceration (no parole).
U asked:
"I'd say he was pretty stupid, wouldn't you?"; maybe,
but do we wanna begin putting people in prisons for having low intelligence?
As to what people
KNOW (as u ask),
I 'd like to offer 2 examples of ignorance at hi levels;
ignorance = unknowingness:
1) Some years ago, a lecture was advertized by the NY Police Dept.
about safety from crime. I deemed it good to go, particularly
to get any possible tips for protection from burglary.
(
Burglary is the felony of entering upon someone else's real estate
for the purpose of committing a crime [usually the crime is larceny = stealing] ).
The lecturer was a sergeant in the NYPD, in full uniform,
who said he was 33 years old. He spoke reasonably well.
I asked him, several times, about good defenses from burglary,
without much of a response; eventually, he asked me to tell him
WHAT BURGLARY IS.
MY GOODNESS! I was
9 years old,
when I found out what burglary is.
The next example is a higher order of magnitude of ignorance:
some years ago, I attended a seminar on Employment Law
given by Practicing Law Institute, in a hotel in Manhattan.
I estimate an attendance of between 300 to 500 attorneys,
whose specialties included Employment Law.
Up on the elevated stage were several elite super-experts on the subject, very senior in their profession.
Thay took Q & A.
One of the questions addressed to them required maybe 25 minutes discussion among everyone,
as thay considered the influence of federal statutes, NY statutes,
Administrative interpretation and applicative regulations,
in addition to the evolution of both federal n state common law, based on everything.
After due consideration, the super-experts and attending throng reached a consensus
as to the legally correct strategy for an employer who was confronted by a given factual situation,
and that advice was recommended to all counsel in attendance.
Maybe 10 or 15 minutes thereafter,
a young lady raised a question of whether their advice
facially violated the NY Executive Law: upon consideration,
thay agreed that
it DID; i.e., a client who took their super-good advice woud be exposed to liability.
The super-experts' collective advice was
illegal, unbeknownst to them.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.
How coud any ordinary hi school graduate be expected to know n
understand what those super-experts did not understand ?????
The judiciary shoud consider it Constitutionally void for vagueness;
WILL it be??? Probably not.
IS there a reason to believe that this phenomenon is confined
to Employment Law???????
I don 't think there is.
My point is:
As we walk thru the world each day, we walk thru invisible webs
of law, not only of Employment Law, but of almost anything,
unknowing ly breaking laws left and right, of whose existence we know not.
This is true even of admitted members of the Bar.
AMERICA is supposed to be a
SAFE place to live;
safe from government, anyway. In error, we assume that people
(especially experts) know a lot more than thay actually know.
By the time that u find out that u have fallen afowl
of some law of whose existence u had no idea,
the police r breaking down your front door; (too late).
If I have been too complex in expressing my post,
then for that, I apologize.
David
