Entrapment
State inducement of crime as a legal defense.
Entrapment is a legal and ethical concept in which a law enforcement agent or state agent induces a person to commit a crime they would otherwise have been unlikely or unwilling to commit. In US law, it is defined as the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer or state agent. The practice raises concerns about police conduct and is available as a defense against criminal liability in many jurisdictions.
- US Supreme Court cases
- Sorrells v. United States, Sherman v. United States
- German legal stance
- Entrapment may reduce punishment; violates fair trial if no initial suspicion
- Forms in Canada
- Random virtue testing and inducement of an offence
Lore & Background
In Canada, the Supreme Court developed the doctrine in three major decisions: R. v. v. v.
Reader's Guide
Entrapment serves as a critical check on state power, balancing effective law enforcement against the risk of government overreach. In the United States, two competing tests exist: the subjective test (focusing on the defendant's predisposition) and the objective test (focusing on government conduct). United States. In Germany, entrapment by undercover agents is not a per se reason to stay a case, but punishment may be reduced, especially if the person was not initially under suspicion. The concept also applies in journalism and whistle-blowing, where it means deceptive techniques to trick someone into a transgression. Entrapment remains a contentious area, with sting operations raising ongoing concerns about its limits.
Did You Know?
- In the US, police are not required to identify themselves during sting operations and may lie.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Entrapment?
Entrapment is a legal defense concept in which a government or law-enforcement agent conceives, plans, and persuades a person into committing a crime that individual would not have carried out on their own. It centers on the idea that the state manufactured the criminal intent rather than merely catching an existing one.
What are Entrapment's powers or legal role?
It operates as an affirmative defense that, if proven, shields the defendant from criminal liability because the offense was procured through the officer's trickery, fraud, or undue persuasion. In many jurisdictions it is available at trial, while in others—such as Germany—it may instead reduce the severity of the punishment or, if raised without any prior suspicion, violate the right to a fair trial.
How does Entrapment's story end for the defendant?
When a court accepts the defense, the resulting verdict is typically an acquittal or dismissal of the charge, since the state is deemed to have created the crime rather than detected it. The defendant walks away without a conviction, though the underlying conduct is not reclassified as lawful.
Why is Entrapment important in the legal landscape?
It acts as a constitutional and ethical check on police power, ensuring that law enforcement cannot simply invent crimes and then prosecute the people it lured into them. By holding officers accountable for their own inducement, it preserves public trust in the criminal-justice process.
What are Entrapment's most famous 'appearances' in case law?
The U.S. Supreme Court first squarely addressed the doctrine in Sorrells v. United States (1932) and refined it in Sherman v. United States (1958), both of which established that the government's prior planning and the defendant's predisposition are the key factors. In Canada, the concept shows up in two recognized forms: random virtue testing and the inducement of an offence.
More in Legal Concepts & Doctrines 1-21
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record