Rethinking Entrapment Summary

The article Rethinking Entrapment by Joseph Colquitt speaks to several arguments concerning the criminal justice systems entrapment doctrine. Colquitt’s assertions are that entrapment is a preferred method used by law enforcement and is not restricted, However, human rights activist contend the tactic is grossly misused and requires control to prevent misuse. The method of entrapment is viewed by the public as a deceptive practice. The community is suspicious of officers due to entrapment procedures and feel it conflicts with police community relations. Furthermore, Colquitt’s article focuses on how to improve the use of entrapment practices as it is a necessary process of law enforcement officers to discourage as well as capture criminals

before offices are committed. The article is customized in the direction of law enforcement personnel who use the tactic as a way of thwarting criminal activity before it takes place.
In Joseph Colquitt’s opinion the use of covert or undercover officers using entrapment procedures is vital for the crime prevention and security within the United States.

The cases of proper entrapment procedure and the interception of crime before it happens has been largely successful in crime prevention. Nevertheless, despite the immense success of the practice there are cases where its power was abused. Undercover Officers are key parts in stopping crime in today’s society especially when speaking of crime such as terrorism, human trafficking and cybercrimes.

Rethinking Entrapment emphases that the practice of entrapment is not meant to victimize upstanding followers of the law, rather it is an acceptable and highly effective preparation of law enforcement to interrupt and stop crime from happening within our communities. (Gibbs, 2012) The fact is entrapment is not infallible. There are circumstances were entrapment was proven unsuccessful when innocent people were charged with crimes they did not commit and other cases where criminals were found not guilt in a court of law due to improper entrapment procedures by undercover

officers.
The main argument of the article outlines the necessity of proper framework for the effectiveness of the doctrine to appropriately be aimed towards criminals and criminal activity as not to effect or persecute the lives of law abiding citizens. The article cites the case of Sorrells vs. United States. The defended in this case Sorrells along with other witnesses clamed he had in fact refused to participate in the illegal activity of providing prohibited liquor to the undercover agent. However, the undercover agent persisted and after several attempts Sorrells did go out to find the illegal rum for the agent. The Supreme Court found that the undercover agent did coerce the defendant and pressed Sorrells into committing a crime rather than preventing the law from being broken. This exploitation of entrapment procedure demonstrated the need of specific policy and procedure to prevent these types of infractions by undercover agents. (supreme.justia.com)
Colquitt’s article claims entrapment can be seen by the public in a positive light in addition to being effective when the practice stops a crime or the crime decreases in usually high crime neighborhoods. (Bert, 1996) Additionally, decoy officers have led to successful prosecution of criminals in cases where the officers portray themselves as vulnerable people in the community luring criminals that pray upon such people with the intention of taking advantage of such vulnerabilities. The use of decoy officers is a productive way to use entrapment procedures to catch criminals in the act and stop further lawbreaking within our communities.
Within the article Colquitt stresses that more stringent policies need to shape the how, why and when entrapment procedures can take place. These policies should help officers be duty-bound to not encroach upon individual civil rights of citizens. Colquitt also points out various constructive benefits that utilizing entrapment procedures may provide in the safety of communities by getting criminals and illegal activity of our streets.
When reading Colquitt’s article, I found he effectively expresses the benefits and the weakness associated with entrapment procedures. Colquitt powerfully conveys the importance of developing suitable framework, guidelines and procedures that must be followed to circumvent ill use of the doctrine. I agree with his assessment and believe entrapment procedures are vital for getting criminals off the street when used appropriately.
In summary, the article contends that entrapment powers can be effective in crime prevention when used properly and not abused in ways of coercion or impeding of one’s civil rights.

Law enforcement agencies using entrapment procedure must be aware of the slippery slope of entrapping criminals and the coercing of people into committing crimes that had no intention of committing. The article also expresses the usefulness of officer decoys to catch criminals in the act of breaking the law without effecting citizens. Lastly, Colquitt explains although entrapment is efficient its use may be in jeopardy due to overstepping boundary’s and in turn causing negative impressions of the practice by the

public.

References
Gibbs, J (2012). "The Chicken or the Egg". Police Practice and Research 13.6: 513–524. Retrieved 10 feb 2016.
Bert, F (1996). The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy.
Prod. National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C,, 1996.
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/287/435/case.html