In this podcast episode, the hosts discuss the case of Hampton v United States, exploring the practice of entrapment and its impact on marginalized populations. They also reflect on their experiences with troublesome people in school. The hosts analyze the details of the Hampton case, questioning the court's interpretation of entrapment and its implications for modern-day law. They delve into the constitutionality and ambivalence towards sting operations. Additionally, they explore the government's role in creating crime and the Supreme Court's approach to criminality. The episode concludes with a casual conversation about a sexy laser scene in a movie.
The Supreme Court ruled in Hampton v United States that entrapment does not apply when the defendant is predisposed to committing the crime, regardless of the government's involvement in facilitating the offense.
The court's reliance on the subjective test in entrapment cases disregards the potential for abuse and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement, as well as the impact on marginalized communities.
Deep dives
Hampton v United States
In Hampton v United States, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of entrapment in a case from the 1970s. The government played a significant role in the drug transactions, supplying the drugs and buyers. The defendant argued that his actions were induced by the government, and therefore, he should not be held responsible. However, the Supreme Court, in a five to three decision, determined that the defendant was still predisposed to committing the crime, and therefore, entrapment did not apply. The court emphasized that entrapment applies when the government implants the disposition to commit the alleged offense in an innocent person's mind. The case raised questions about the constitutionality of law enforcement's involvement in creating and facilitating crimes to catch criminals.
The Problem with Entrapment Defense
The case of Hampton v United States highlights the limitations of the entrapment defense. The subjective test used by the court focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to criminal activity, rather than evaluating the actions of the government in facilitating the crime. This approach raises concerns about due process and the impact on marginalized populations. It allows law enforcement to create crime and arrest individuals who may not have otherwise committed the offense. The court's interpretation of entrapment fails to consider the potential for abuse and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement.
Manufacturing Crimes and Inflating Arrest Statistics
The practice of law enforcement manufacturing crimes to catch criminals raises questions about the efficacy of police tactics and arrest statistics. Sting operations and undercover operations often involve police actively participating in crime and targeting vulnerable individuals. These operations can lead to the juking of arrest statistics, as law enforcement gets to create and solve crimes simultaneously. This data manipulation can misrepresent the effectiveness of police and hinder accurate assessments of crime rates and police performance. Furthermore, such tactics can perpetuate inequality and disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
The Supreme Court's Role in Law Enforcement Tactics
Hampton v United States exemplifies the Supreme Court's support for law enforcement tactics, often prioritizing law and order over the protection of individual rights. The court's adoption of the subjective test in entrapment cases reflects a belief in the existence of 'good guys' and 'bad guys.' This approach fails to consider the complexities of law enforcement operations and undermines constitutional protections. The court's unwillingness to closely examine the actions of the government in these cases may further perpetuate systemic injustices and erode public trust in the criminal justice system.
My life is a movie! A movie where a federal agent sets me up to do a drug deal by providing the buyers and the drugs but somehow that's not entrapment! A horror movie if you will.
Here's the This American Life episode that Michael recommends, "What I Did for Love."
If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.