|
That's real slimey law enforcement and the worst way of trying to deal with the problem, especially not using it to find supply networks or catch dealers. That said, I don't see entrapment here, if anything I'd say these examples were down right predatory in finding perps that would fail entrapment standards. How does an addict argue they wouldn't normally buy drugs if not for the police intervention? peengers posted:I wonder if the NYPD has one of those "the more you bust, the more likely you are to get a raise and/or a promotion" policies. The prosecutors and higher brass certainly love being able to cite these sorts of inflated numbers to prove their tough on crime bona fides, so stings like this are helping advance some people.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Xandu posted:It's entrapment in the sense that these people aren't (necessarily) normally dealers, even if they are users. They aren't charging them with drug posession. Also Oh I completely agree it's morally repugnant, and I wasn't trying to go for the pedantic " *ahem* technically your thread is misleading, it's not entrapment because..." I think law enforcement in this case is specifically doing their best to get away with skirting it through technicalities or their perps being too honest for their own good (and too poor for adequate legal protection). Saying "Well, yeah I did go buy this for him, but users do this all the time and here's why..." is a reasonable/person on the street way of explaining away the absurdity of these folks being 'dealers' but ends up being an admission of "yes I meet the legal definition of a drug dealer, and committed the crime you're accusing me of." I'm glad the two listed in the article had sensible juries, but as the article pointed out most of these cases don't ever make it to juries.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Why would you arrest the dealer in this situation if your goal is to arrest homeless people? You need the dealer. They probably used the same dealer every time and they were probably in on it. You joke, but I think this is one of the ways Bratton is technically complying with his promise to reduce broken window policing. The public would be angry about another few thousand arrests for petty misdemeanors like possession or loitering. So stings like this help push the stats on misdemeanors down and up the stats on felony drug dealers taken off the street, which the public is usually more sympathetic towards, plus you still get to 'clean up the streets.'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 05:47
|
|