Police using half-naked cooperators?

Remove all ads!

I think I'm missing something. I've read the excerpt that started this thread several times, and NOWHERE does it say that the woman was working for the police. Did any of you stop to think that perhaps the police were simply staking out the right place at the right time? Apparently Berliner Park has quite the reputation as a place to do you thang. A quick Google search reveals that many people jumped to the same erroneous conclusion, but testimony at the firefighter's trial shows that she was NOT a police collaborator, and that the cops were simply making best use of situation.

Think with your big heads, guys.

 

Hmm, trust Rally to spoil our fun.

You're right, Rally. It doesn't say that she was a cop. Which pretty much throws water on the whole "why would the police resort to this kind of thing" debate.

We're guys. That's not what we typically do. Besides, it's chev's fault - he started it.

 

Yes, it was chev, and we believed him And yes, you are an evil spoilsport Rally

So it appears that the police acted not nearly as bad as I suspected. Good for Columbus, Ohio But anyway, the woman remains silly considering (a) that she allowed herself to become a public spectacle, and (b) that she still participated in the act she encouraged the man to commit, (c) that it would have been entrapment had she cooperated with the police and not merely provided the opportunity and (d) that entrapment sucks, anyway

 

The woman was not officially working with the police, but they knew what was going on and they used her. Somehow she isn't answering for instigation either.

 

Chev, didn't law school teach you that no position is less defensible than the moral high ground? If you would have it that the police aren't allowed to monitor potential explosive situations, please tell just how you would prefer that crime be prevented (or quelled beore it gets too far out of hand). The park was a known problem spot for MALES. The woman's behavior, while promiscuous, was not illegal. Anyone who knows human nature would expect someone to do something stupid sooner or later, and be watching.

Would you have it that low-level mobsters aren't allowed to cut deals, when prosecutors are trying to nab the bigger fish? You're on that slippery slope.

 

Rally,
lying isn't criminal, I could lie all day long, with abandon, and no one would give a damn. If I lied to you about what you'd get from me for your money, I'd commit a fraud, and the lie would be part of the criminal behaviour. So it depends on the circumstances.

What I tried to point out is that instigation is participation, and that whatever it was she did that was per se merely promiscuous but not illegal - it became a criminal act by, and consciously so, instigating that man to his criminal act. Chev is right to ask for her trial.

 

Oh, I agree that the woman should be held responsible for her actions to the fullest extent the law allows, don't get me wrong! The part I can't swallow is letting the guy off (or diminishing his sentence) by calling it 'entrapment'. In my mind, there has to be some grain of knowledge on the part of the enticER that the enticEE is going to be nabbed by the cops for entrapment to apply.

Then again, since that idea is based solely on common sense, I'm sure there's plenty of legal precedent to shoot it down.

 

I can't argue with Rally's basic statement however I do have some opinions that may or may not relate to this incident.

When it comes to sex men are the weaker sex. I do hold women to a higher standard of behavior, The woman did entice and encourage the man and unless there was some extenuating circumstance such as emotional problems or nymphomania I consider her behavior morally wrong. It may not have been illegal but it was certainly wrong.

Rally has looked into this matter much more thoroughly than the rest of us and let that be a lesson to us not to jump to conclusions and be judgemental.

 

Rally, something the law school taught me very early on was that criminal instigation was, well, criminal. Therefore, what the woman was doing was illegal. Somehow the police choose to let her engage in her illegal hobbies while reaping the harvest of possibly one-time pervs.

That's a different institution. The legal part of it consists in letting criminals go if their crime doesn't cause any serious harm (whatever they call this in a given legal system) or if they substantially cooperate with law enforcement (crown witness). The illegal part consists in letting them disappear in exchange for some information. At any rate, mafia crimes and deals with low-level mobsters don't have much in common with luring first-time offenders.

As for not letting the guy go, obviously, he committed that crime while still having some choice. He should answer for it and so should the woman and the cops.

As for entrapment (well, again), with my limited knowledge of common law and some common sense, I'm trying to reconstruct an entrapment pattern in the behaviour of the policemen rather than the woman, or rather the policemen making use of the situation. Since what she was doing was illegal - asking someone to commit a crime is already illegal, much less inducing, enticing and what have you - then she also saw it through and at that exact time the cops popped up. So they used the trap that was naturally forming and grabbed the guy. Grabbing both of them would have been fair.

Incidentally, another argument against the legalisation of topless sunbathing on the grounds that it's "not sexual". Good joke. Even if a bare-chested woman doesn't have to be sexual (art museums, anyone?), we all know what topless sunbathing is about and this example proves it.

 

But this is where your argument (which is thoroughly sensible, by the way) falls apart on fact. The woman's behavior WAS NOT illegal. She had been creating something of a spectacle, but there was nothing the cops could do about her except ask her to move to a less-prominent section of the park - which they did. Berliner Park having earned its reputation as a hotbed of illicit activity, the police had good reason to suspect that her move wouldn't completely quell the situation and were wise to keep an eye on things. It certainly didn't hurt that they were already running a sting there.

 

Rally. Inducing someone into committing an illegal act is illegal. Asking someone to commit it, is illegal. The woman asked him to show his penis to her and showing his penis to her was a crime. Therefore she asked him to commit a crime, followed by a prolonged enticement. Therefore her behaviour was illegal.

 

GOTCHA! On that part of things, you and I are in complete agreement.

 

Great. That's why I say she should see her part of justice and the cops weren't really all that when they took advantage of the situation. Doesn't make the guy innocent. Perhaps if the woman were a cop of it were proven they coordinated their activities (I'm a bit less sure of that than I was in the beginning, but the coincidence still looks amazing to me), then the common law construct of entrapment could protect him from liability. In civil law countries, it would be much more difficult - we don't have entrapment as an exculpation, we only have much easier and more transparent liability of instigators. The entrapped criminal could obviously claim he was entrapped and so on, which would give him a more lenient punishment, but that's where it would end. I can't really say which model I'm more comfortable with because there are obvious good sides to letting people go if the police provocateurs overdo their enticement - it will remove the incentive to overdo provocations and it will protect citizens from falling in temptation just because someone was very convincing in putting them through a test. However, since a crime is obviously a crime, perhaps it might be better to punish both the criminal and his instigator.

In this case, well, he does need a slap on his wrists, although I'm not sure the whole hassle with the police wasn't enough. I mean, lewd behaviour of a topless woman rubbing against men and asking them to show the penis is unpunishable, but showing the penis gets you a field action by several cops plus a trial? A bit disproportionate, I'd say. Besides, he was indeed badly entrapped in this scenario. It's hard to put the blame for the whole entrapment either on the woman (who wasn't even a cop or, as it now shows, not even a collaborator) or the cops (who nonetheless knew what was going on and I think some coordination occured even if there was no contact between them and her), but all in all, the actions of both the cops and the woman contributed to the offender's situation in which he was entrapped. If I were his defence lawyer, I'd probably be pushing this line. Proving some factual cooperation (coordination of timings even) should help seeing their actions jointly. Indirectly, this would be helped also by noticing that the woman's illegal instigation was tolerated and even used in catching the err... exposer. That is, after all, some form of deal - she helps them get the perv, they let her go. All this helps establish a link between them, making entrapment a feasible ground of defence.

 

Well, I don't mean to brag or anything, but ...

In all seriousness though:

That's the key there. For entrapment to apply, the woman would have to know that the cops were present and would arrest the guy. From the information we have available, she didn't know this.

That having been said, the man likely would NOT have committed the crime if not for the woman's actions. While the park may have been a hotbed for some illicit activities, I can't imagine many of them are taking place in broad daylight. Since the woman was sunbathing, I have to assume that this was during the day. I find it unlikely that the man, in the middle of the day, would have walked into the park and pulled out his penis. While the woman's actions do not exculpate what the man did, I think that it would be justifiable to see this as a mitigating factor during his trial, and he should receive a lighter sentence than whatever is standard. (Put him on probation for a time or something of the like.)

 

What if the police knew of the woman's illegal act and used it as a trap on the guy, providing unspoken immunity to the woman? Wouldn't that be enough of a link?

 

Possibly it would be enough of a link. Unfortunately, the statement is entirely speculative, and utterly impossible to prove.