Entrapment is a hot topic in hard to decide cases, dealing with an opinion can be a difficult idea when the law is involved as well. Entrapment is a process whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. In simpler words it’s putting a person in a situation that makes it easy to break the law, and then going about coaxing them into it. Common examples are selling or buying drugs, and prostitution. Countless undercover cops are put in a position to buy or sell drugs to or from people who in all likelihood are criminals already. The main two arguments are people who are against it or those who are for it. Those for it believe that people caught …show more content…
Not all recognize the difference between the two, and others would say there isn’t a difference. The difference can be completely situational, a perfect example is the case: Sherman v. United States. This case was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. The two were both in a doctor’s office getting treated for their recent addictions. One started repeatedly asking the other for drugs seeing that his methadone treatment apparently wasn’t working. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction. The convicted person was not at fault in this situation, when someone is getting treatment for an addiction, especially drugs, they should not be coaxed into obtaining drugs illegally. This case and multiple others quite similar to it are the confusing cases, the ones that are harder to decide. The answer the question of if entrapment is okay bluntly, I would say no. Entrapment is an illegal practice such as seen in the case summary above. This paper goes further than that point, although, the difference between an undercover sting and entrapment is so indistinguishable that people often confuse them