Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site spanky.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!ka From: ka@spanky.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Entrapment Message-ID: <434@spanky.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 11:16:13 EDT Article-I.D.: spanky.434 Posted: Thu Aug 11 11:16:13 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 12:59:39 EDT References: <244@whuxk.UUCP> Lines: 98 The discussion of auto theft in btl.general has wondered into a Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, N. J. Lines: 94 discussion of entrapment, which really doesn't belong there. I am repeating the previous articles, followed by my comments -------------------- From: ka@spanky.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Subject: Re: theft A police officer...set out to trap a car thief. Since...he didn't wish to have the window broken, he left it open "a crack" to make entry via a coat hangar a possibility; then left the car parked under his observation in a high-theft area.... The thief got off TOTALLY.....his defense was entrapment due to the open window! He stated that it was too tempting for him to get into the car with a slightly open window... Note that this would also apply to a person who left his window open so that it would not get too hot in the summer!!!! It seems to be common practice for people to criticize court decisions without understanding them. The ruling mentioned concerned a police officer who was actively *trying* to get his car stolen by parking it in a high-theft area. That's a world of difference from merely failing to take steps to make it less likely for his car to be stolen. Kenneth Almquist ---------------------------- whuxk.UUCP (GUNDERMAN) Subject: Re: Re: Theft Article 688 makes reference to the "entrapment" case cited by Rob Botwin and makes two statements that require comment: "It seems to be common practice for people to criticize court decisions without understanding them." "That's a world of difference from merely failing to take steps to make it less likely for his car to be stolen." I do not need to know the unwritten rules/procedures by which judges and lawyers conduct their business concerning the law. The rules/procedures and the law is supposed to be that upon which they base their contention and decisions. The "common practice" of people is to view the results, which (being the most important part of the juridical process) are frequently found wanting, if not an injustice. If someone leaves their wallet/purse within my reach, carelessly or otherwise, I will not STEAL it - if I steal it, I would be a thieve. STEAL is the key word, not the victim's carelessness, nor the possibilty that the article was placed there to capture a thieve who has been STEALING articles in the given area. Regarding the second quote: What constitutes the steps necessary to make thievery less likely? I have seen people open the door of a locked car (with the windows closed) by using a coat hanger. I recall reading of a man who, having raped a woman, contended that "she was asking for it by the way she was dressed and walked". Was she guilty of conscious or unconscious entrapment? I bring in this rape case to show that car thievery is not the only area where the valid concept of protection from entrapment has been violated. Other than bringing in Bronson or organizing a vigilante posse, something must be done that will curb injustice and help victims. All peoples rights must be protected, including the victims! ---------------------------- I hope that most people realize that practically nothing in the judicial system is unwritten. If anyone knew where and when this case had been tried, it would be possible to find exactly what justification the judge gave when for dismissing the case. As matters stand, anyone who wants to can find a lot about how the U. S. courts deal with entrapment by reading Supreme Court decisions on the subject. (Any major public library should subscribe to the Supreme Court decisions.) I have no quarrel with judging a court system by the results it produces; in fact that would seem to be the best way to evaluate it. I do not think it is fair to condemn a person's opinions unless you are willing to consider arguments made by that person in defense of that opinion. That is what you are doing when you condemn a judge's decision without reading her written opinion. The judge may defend her position with irrefutable arguments, but there is no way anybody can be convinced who refuses to listen. The article I was objecting to argued that since a judge dismissed the current case, he would dismiss any case in which the car window was open. This makes the (false) assumtion that the judge would treat all cases involving cars with open windows the same. Once you start trying to predict what a judge would do in a hypothetical situation, you *have* to look at the "rules/procedures" used to make to make those decisions. I will post *a* defense of the judge's decision to dismiss this case in a separate article. If anybody wants to continue to argue that the court's decision was wrong, I hope that they will refer to that article and point out where they disagree with my reasoning. Kenneth Almquist