Police using half-naked cooperators?

Remove all ads!

There's some news from Ohio I've just read and I'm appalled. So now it looks like the cops have their female officers strip half-naked and lure potential pervs into exposing themselves:

What the heck? I certainly wouldn't want to be "protected" by cops who behave like sluts. First they walk around half-naked, second they rub their feet on your shoulders, third they ask you to show them, fourth they have you arrested.

I've always associated policemen with high moral character. Even if I didn't expect them to be philosophers or moralists, I expected them to have a good grasp of basic decency and honourable conduct. What they're doing in that park is neither honourable nor decent and, most of all, it's luring people into committing crimes they wouldn't otherwise commit. In a normal civilised country, police provocation is allowed when dealing with a serial offender and needing evidence to document his more prolonged or repetitive activity. In this case, the woman asked the man to commit the crime and he did. She benefits from immunity as a policewoman (instigation is a crime in typical legal system), he gets jailed. That's the devil's methods of work (note a probably attractive woman showing off her nude breasts, then proceeding to rub him), not the police's.

When the heck will they finally get a grasp of their police officers? Come on, the police is not a force outside normal civil control. They are not mediaeval condotieri, they are normal citizens who should and can answer for their conduct.

 

hahaha - pwnted!!!! That's hilarious....but yeah, terrible. Isn't that like the dictionary definition of entrapment?

Some guy here in Australia got off of drug charges after it was revealed that he was verbally coerced into getting drugs for an under cover cop, surely they have a similar law over there.

 

Chev,
Some stupid people had an idea that reflected their handicap. IMO it's the result of politicos and politicops who see success in arrest numbers and convictions. It's entrapment (which is from what I read pretty prevalent in US police cracking down on prostitution). The step from catching Johns through undercover police posing as prostitutes to catching potential exhibitionists through sunbathing topless cops is not that far. In a tortured way it is even logical. I can almost see the painful surrogate for a thinking process generating the decision to go after exhibitionists, too. But then, there is so much more idiocy than malice in the world, that the odds are that her colleagues just wanted to see her boobs and needed an excuse.

One would expect the police to have more important things to do. Like catching criminals. If I were a politico I wouldn't tolerate efforts being wasted on such nonsense. But then, I would legalise prostitution, too.

Why? I am entirely aware that if you criminalise prostitution a John and a prostitute are committing a criminal act. In that sense, you can criminalise every normal behaviour by issuing a respective law and then justify a crackdown on it with the de facto lawbreaking. What about criminalising fly-fishing? You have a problem when you you criminalise normal human behaviour (which I think, realistically seen, applies to prostitution). Combine that with entrapment as a form of over-zealous law enforcement and you get ghastly results.

As for an exhibitionist fooling around nakedly, you can still arrest him for that after the act. In a normal case just like in the case of a provoked exhibitionist act, the exhibitionist act is the conditio sine qua non for the arrest. There is not yet such a thing as thought crime. So what was the benefit of entrapping him? Another exhibitionist act, that might have otherwise not occurred, and an arrest for the statistic.
Had the topless cop not (hopefully) graced the park lawn with her curves but stood around visibly in uniform she would have probably deterred said exhibitionist, but that wouldn't have been a measurable success for the 'metrics'. She might have also prevented Fred the pickpocket from using the distraction generated the arrest to steal Ms. Smith's purse and Mr. Jones wristwatch (I admit, I just made that up).

There is enough prevalent crime to keep the police busy without them engaging in generating additional criminal acts and then cracking down ( successfully! ) on this additional crime. Bleh.

 

Well, I thought they basically fell into the WE vs THEY mode and acted accordingly, with little regard to proper procedures. It's peculiar how the law which criminalises indecent exposure to such lengths as putting people on trial, makes exception for topless women rubbing people's shoulders with their feet in order to entice them to expose themselves. Perhaps another show-off of the, "it's legal, so it's fine," mentality, without prejudice to the fact that entrapment is not legal.

The woman who cooperated with the police was not a cop herself, but yeah, as you say, that would be a short step. So cops would commit recently decriminalised acts in order to catch even potential criminals who perhaps wouldn't even commit on their own acts of the same kind as the ones expressly decriminalised. That generally means law rules replace decency in people's heads.

 

Chev,

I agree about that. Probably a topless woman who'd do that to me in the park would potentially invoke in me impure thoughts about some (consenting) fun in the sun (intentionally ambiguous). And that was the sole point of her arousing that man. She's just as 'immoral' (and worse considering she's acting with intent to deceive) as that penis-un-zipper, but happens to have the law on her side. As I said, it's entrapment.

And, as if to add more bad flavour, the woman was not a cop? They could grant her an hourly pay and pay her commission for every perv she helps to bring to justice. She could be a professional perv baiter! Quite a career opportunity.

Reminds me of that joke: The police wants a man who is seeking contact to woman sunbathing topless in the public park! I enlist! Will I get a uniform?

 

Chev, you should realize topless is not exposing genitilia. A woman exposing her breasts is not a violation of indecency laws in many areas of the US -- but exposing genitilia is.

This is not entrapment -- had she exposed her genitilia first, then maybe. She simply asked him to do something against the law and he was stupid enough to do it.

 

It isn't entrapment because she was topless. It's entrapment because she asked him to show her his penis. Were she topless and massaging his shoulders with her feet, and he showed her his penis without her directly asking him to do so, then it wouldn't have been entrapment. But, in this case, she asked. Any time a police officer explicitly asks someone who is not currently violating the law to do so and then arrests him for doing it, it's entrapment.

 

If this woman is working for the cops without being one and if her job consists of getting half naked to provoke men to expose themselves, that's quite bad indeed. Are cops turning into pimps?

 

T2,

Chev makes a good point when saying:

where I personally wouldn't so much point to decency but toward that this about mere formal legalism. Follow the law to the letter, never mind it's spirit ( no metrics for spirit )! Drew is right when he sais:

It would be quite another thing if said man would have ran around in the park naked already. In that case, go arrest him, for he has committed an exhibitionist act. Fine with me. But here there is an overwhelming probability that without said woman shoulder massaging and invitating him, the man would have not committed the exhibitionist act, so that the sole benefit of this 'law enforcement' approach (or rather 'law breaking encouragement for easier law enforcement'; or more opaque: 'proactive law enforcement') lies in the arrest. It certainly is a recipe for more arrests-per-hour than uniformed cops standing in the park, chasing exhibitionists away....

.... I got to correct myself, in fact it is extremely cost-effective, because the sole purpose of the police is to produce arrests, which is a benefit it itself (and which is the only metric for their efficiency), and has ample and proven deterrent effect, especially when combined with draconic senetencing. Another huge advantage is the minimum response time - the police is already present at the scene of the future crime - even before the lawbreaker himself knows about the crime he wants to commit - which is also quite beneficial for the response time statistics (mathematically, negative numbers are perfectly plausible*). The argument that inciting citizens to break the law to then make them an object lesson, and that it has some consequences for their human dignity (there are no metrics for dignity) or other rights (no metrics there, too), is irrational. They're law breakers after all and deserve no better.

It suggests to me a twisted and near paranoid view of the world, in which there are so many thought pervs or thought criminals out there that one has to lure them out in the open, to catch those that otherwise would remain off the books, which would be a probably unbearable peril. Sorry, but for me such an approach merely criminalises people and ****s up the lives of those caught in the net, no matter that they by the book committed a violation of laws. Of course, blame him, because he has a free will and all, but apparently, the help of that woman was needed to make it happen. But he broke the law and that's all we need to know. Well, I disagree with that.

*One has to be careful though; if too many incidents where the police was at the scene of the crime 5 hours before the crime took place enter the response time statistics, the police might end up having some explaining to do why they had so many murders they couldn't prevent even though on an average they had been at the scene of the crime 5 minutes before the time of the crime.

 

Well, I don't know about Ohio, but I'm pretty sure in Canada that would qualify as entrapment (although I'm sure Beren would be better qualified to speak to that).

 

Which is the exact definition of entrapment. If she had shown her genitalia first and asked him to do the same, she would have committed the regular crime as well as entrapping him. Coercion, blackmail etc are separate exculpations. This is for the latter argument. For the former, you're confirming what I said - looking to the letter of the law for what's decent and what isn't. No regard to the irony of the fact that a lewdly behaving topless woman, something only recently exempt from indecency laws, is used to lure people into committing crimes of indecent exposure that they wouldn't otherwise commit. Feels like Kafka.

Indeed, indeed. I suppose in this case perhaps they didn't ask for her cooperation or put her there on purpose, but it seems likely that they coordinated somehow.

 

In my eyes, that's entrapment.

 

No question, it is entrapment. That said I am going to make a general statement and I realize that there are always exceptions to general statements.

When it comes to sex men are the weaker gender. Legal or not a bare breasted attractive woman is going to raise lustful thoughts in a perfectly normal man. Rubbing his shoulder with her foot is going to make it worse. Then asking him to show his genitalia?

When I was but a youth I lived in Ohio for about 14 years and I am shocked. I hope I never hear of such a thing happening in Cincinnati we were proud of our police way back then.

 

I'd say that this is entrapment, unless there is one fact that was possiblt omitted from the article. Someone else mentioned serial offenders. Was this guy a serial offender? If so, I'm less sympathetic to his plight. If not, then the actions taken by both the police and their topless ally are morally repugnant.

I don't suppose there's a link to a photo, is there, Chev?

 

LKD,
had they targeted the guy it would be even worse. What do you get for an exhibitionist act? After German law something generally a slap on the wrist, like a fine or a few weeks in jail, or in worst case psychiatric treatment? Don't suppose it's much different even in Columbus, Ohio.

Having targeted the guy would imply they set up an observation/ snatch team and set an ambush for him. You'd expect something like that for a mobster, drug dealer, terrorist - serious criminals - not for an exhibitionist. Such a ball for this is way out of proportion in respect of the severity of the offence. If they had time, money and personnel for this, it would suggest either misplaced priorities or alternatively that their budget to be too big and their staff bloated.

What I rather think is that this reflects a policy of overzealous enforcement of obscenity laws, IMO still a misapplication of resources. In all likelihood they simply extended their approach to countering prostitution to exhibitionist acts, with all the questionable implications.

 

Ragusa, don't you also notice the irony of the fact that the "overzealous enforcement of obscenity laws" is done with the use of what remained a violation of those laws until like yesterday?

 

Exitus acta probat

Chev, you are of course right that it is amusing that to enforce obscenity laws, which are a reflection of traditional of morality, law enforcements utilises the help of of agent provocateurs engaging in lewd behaviour.

My problem with your emphasis on the morality angle is that I will not condemn it because there are by far too few topless woman sunbathing in parks for my taste (which might as well be a reflection of poor weather, but I digress)

That aside, the more I think of it the use of that chick as a bait strikes me as excessive, as lined out above, especially in respect to the offence in question. It's basically a fishing expedition where you take your fishing rod, put the worm on the hook and wait and see how many pervs are stupid enough to take the bait. What is the key problem with using agent provocateurs is that the police acting like that is not cracking down on crime. They are instigating the crime that they then fight. Last time I checked instigating an offence (which is in German law defined as creating in the mind of the perpetrator the intent to commit the criminal act) is participation in that criminal act, and criminal behaviour itself, no matter whether giving shoulder massages and doing some dirty talk is in itself legal or not.

 

Aww.

Yeah, it's more like testing the citizens than actually fighting the crime.

Same here. Instigators answer under the same articles as main perpetrators. Even if the crime doesn't happen, they can still answer. They can avoid liability by fessing it up and giving out the perpetrator but only if they hadn't engineered the whole thing to set him up.

 

Scary new variation from New York:

Apparently the NYPD ensnared 300 people during 2007 via "Operation Lucky Bag". Police place IPods, cell phones, wallets, and shopping bags containing items in New York subway stations. The items appear to be dropped, lost, or abandoned. Anyone who picks up one of the planted items and passes a uniformed cop without notifying him is arrested for petty arceny, a misdemeanor. The NYPD says that the property left as bait has not been abandoned, but is the property actively left by an officer who is still in the vicinity. Now how great for them to hold that view. But sadly that subtle legalistic distinction, a grand exercise in legal hair splitting, isn't visible to the citizens the NYPD is there to protect and serve (sucker and screw?).

As if this isn't is bad enough, it is in conflict with New York law, which allows someone who finds property 10 days to turn it in to the police or to find the owner. Never mind such trifles, the NYPD is now raising the stakes, literally, by planting valid credit cards issued under cover to the NYPD in those shopping bags as well, making it grand larceny - a Class E felony, those convicted could face sentences of up to four years. Combined with mandatory sentencing practices or fun like the 'three strikes' rules that's a recipe for certain excess.

It is indeed about frying enough people and creating deterrence through the gruesome (and well publicised) faith of those hapless enough to fall for the bait, and thus generate fear for the law and thereby educate the unruly citizenry through harsh punishment, apparently based on the peculiar view that everybody is a potential criminal given the chance - q.e.d. - in a setting guarantees that this self-fulfilling prophecy will manifest. It suggests an antagonistic view of law enforcement toward the citizenry, a thing that I find particularly worrying. On a more practical side it's quite obviously about making examples under the pretext of (generated) individual culpability. How over the top is that? All this makes me fear that the US is (a) heading in an overwhelmingly legal positivist direction and (b) that a(ny) sense of proportion is getting lost.

 

If they're trying to instill some respect for the law and teach the citizens to report found items to the police, then that's fine. But baiting people into misappropriation crimes (hopefully not plain theft) on the grounds that the lawful detentor (the real owner would be the police or the municipality) was around and maintained some mental link... Come on. If the owner or other possessor doesn't wish to part with the item, he can pop up and say it's his.

Well, in that case if a judge were to sentence the "criminal", that sentence would be so obviously flawed that it should go out the window in the appellate court. Should is the keyword, though.

By the way, if the police is aware that the crime has not been committed according to the law, but nonetheless initiates criminal procedure and accuses the man before the court, it's technically the crime of false accusation. If they hold some bizarre interpretation of some law, which conflicts with the letter of another law (10 days is pretty literal), it can't really be presumed they don't know the law saying 10 days. In that case they choose to accuse someone despite knowing fully well of a law which says he's not guilty. Crime, crime, crime.

Trampling laws which protect citizens while interpreting other laws in a particularly vexatious way is not legal positivism. A positivist is concerned with the letter of the law and the will of the sovereign. Those folks are concerned with ruling the citizens through fear. IMHO there's a problem with IQ's in the law enforcement unless too many people have taken the LE shift.