Tim May wrote:
>
> At 10:19 AM -0700 6/13/00, Michael Motyka wrote:
> > > > Personally, I think they ought to be tracked down and dealt with more
> >> > directly. Cops who solicit illegalities need to be dealt with directly.
> >> >
> >> > But that's just my opinion.
> >>
> >> I think it should just be considered entrapment and made unusable in
> >> court. That would end the problem right there.
> >>
> >That is the only acceptable way to treat entrapment.
> >
>
> The only acceptable way to treat entrapment?
>
OK, you're right, there is a middle, and stronger, ground that still
lies within the bounds of the legal system between the inadmissibility
in my first statement and outright vigilantism which I advocated in the
second statement.
> I have several other methods which are acceptable in my moral universe:
>
> Firstly, prosecute those who entrap by committing crimes for the
> crimes. Cops who solicit to buy sex should be prosecuted thusly.
> Those who buy alcohol when underage are prosecuted thusly. Those who
> solicit bomb-making instructions are prosecuted under the Feinswine
> laws, if they are passed.
>
> The notion that cops can break the law by soliciting for sex and then
> be exempt from prosecution, or can buy drugs and be exempt from drug
> laws, is why we have so much entrapment.
>
Fine, the intersection and union of our moral universes are equivalent.
How do you make it part of the legal system?
> Secondly, there are more direct and final solutions to the problem of
> entrapment.
>
Yes, reverse stings and vigilantism, the part that you deleted. In the
case of those spending taxpayers money to entice citizens to commit
crimes I approve of this extreme solution wholeheartedly. Lure them to
their deaths with promises of career-building busts. Who has the time
and resources and is willing to take the risk? I don't and I am not.
You? I'll reconsider in a half century or so.
> Trusting the courts to throw out entrapments is a weak solution.
>
> --Tim May
>
We're all a bunch of rats looking for rat chow. If there is no reward we
just don't bother. Forcing courts to throw out entrapments and bear the
legal costs of defendants may be an adequate solution.
On another note, I heard a rumor that there might be some new,
pro-privacy, 1st Ammendment-based law or rulings on the seizure and
admissibility of personal writings. Any truth to that?
Mike
