Which defense asserts that the defendant would not have committed the crime but for police trickery?

Which defense asserts that the defendant would not have committed the crime but for police trickery?

• A. Entrapment
• B. Duress
• C. Insanity
• D. Alibi

Answer: (A)

Entrapment is when police trick someone into committing a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The defense rests on two ideas: the police induced the criminal act, and the person was not predisposed to commit the crime before the police involvement. If the defendant was already inclined to break the law and the police merely provided an opportunity, it’s not entrapment. But if the police’s inducement is what brought the act about, the defendant can argue entrapment, since they would not have acted without that government influence. This fits the scenario described by the phrase “would not have committed the crime but for police trickery.” Other defenses like duress (a threat of harm coerced the act), insanity (mental incapacity), or alibi (being elsewhere at the time) address different issues and don’t match the idea of police trickery causing the crime.

Entrapment is when police trick someone into committing a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The defense rests on two ideas: the police induced the criminal act, and the person was not predisposed to commit the crime before the police involvement. If the defendant was already inclined to break the law and the police merely provided an opportunity, it’s not entrapment. But if the police’s inducement is what brought the act about, the defendant can argue entrapment, since they would not have acted without that government influence.

This fits the scenario described by the phrase “would not have committed the crime but for police trickery.” Other defenses like duress (a threat of harm coerced the act), insanity (mental incapacity), or alibi (being elsewhere at the time) address different issues and don’t match the idea of police trickery causing the crime.