Quote from steeldust:
i was wondering,could a lawyer argue entrapment at all? how can they prove who was on the other end,couldnt he say prove it was me? he's screwed anyway but once the lawyers get in there who knows. makes me wonder when i read about this stuff how many sick fuks there are out there and when they do get convicted, the pussy justice system just spits em out. i think the US is harsher than here in Canada cause here it is pathetic.
oh well,back to my inflatable girlfriend
First, entrapment requires that the defendant admit the crime ("I did it, but I was tricked into doing it by the police!"). This is not the sort of crime that a person wants to confess, in order to avoid a guilty verdict.
Second, entrapment only occurs where a person does a criminal act under the persistent encouragement of law enforcement. In other words, the person must commit a crime that, but for law enforcement's involvement, the person would never have committed.
The facts show that this person apparently voluntarily engaged in the conversation with someone whom he believed to be only 14 years old. So, even if the facts were that the person wasn't 14, nevertheless the defendant had the mental intent to commit the act with a 14 year old.
So, if it's illegal to do what he did with someone who's 14, and he did something, believing that he was doing it with a 14 year old, then he committed the crime. There was no entrapment and no coercion by law enforcement. It was all apparently quite voluntary.
