law enforcement | David M Masters

Consequences of Law Enforcement Crossing Lines of Entrapment

Sting operations have become a powerful tool for law enforcement, targeting serious crimes such as human trafficking, drug dealing, theft, and other illegal activities. While these operations are often touted for capturing major offenders and dismantling criminal networks, they also carry a controversial side effect: entrapping otherwise law-abiding citizens into actions they would not normally consider. This raises serious ethical and legal questions about the limits of entrapment and the psychological impact of setting up innocent people in scenarios engineered to trigger criminal-like behavior. Here’s a closer look at the issue and suggestions for reforms that might create a fairer approach to sting operations.

Sting Operations: An Overview

The rationale behind sting operations is compelling. By luring criminals into situations where their behavior can be monitored and controlled, law enforcement can prevent crime before it occurs or gather evidence of an offender’s intent. However, this method has blurred lines, often affecting unsuspecting individuals who, under certain manipulated conditions, may be led into making poor decisions. These operations target people already on the path to crime, but the trap can just as easily ensnare people who, in different circumstances, would have steered clear of criminal behavior.

The Mechanism of Entrapment and the “Crime Opportunity”

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement agents induce someone to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. The setup often capitalizes on human psychology, appealing to vulnerabilities, fears, or desires that can cloud otherwise rational judgment. In sting operations aimed at catching drug users, johns, or small-scale traffickers, for example, officers sometimes rely on persuasive undercover agents to manipulate people into action. By creating a low-risk, high-reward scenario, they make it appear easier to engage in criminal activity than to resist it. Under such pressure, even honest individuals might act out of character.

The Dark Side: Targeting the Vulnerable and the Otherwise Law-Abiding

The use of sting operations against high-profile criminals is understandable. Still, often, these tactics lead to the arrest of vulnerable people who fall into a legal snare because they momentarily lapse in judgment. Consider the following examples of sting operations gone too far:

1. “Bait” Operations: In operations against petty theft, police departments sometimes leave items like unlocked cars or unattended bags in public places to lure individuals into robbery. Although these may catch seasoned thieves, they can also target people who otherwise wouldn’t steal but act impulsively in an unusual situation.
2. Prostitution Stings: To tackle prostitution, sting operations often involve undercover officers posing as sex workers or potential clients. While some arrests may include repeat offenders, these operations also lure those who have never sought such services under ordinary conditions.
3. Drug Busts in Schools or Social Settings: Some sting operations involve undercover agents infiltrating schools or social gatherings, setting up drug buys, and then arresting students who otherwise might have avoided involvement. Here, impressionable or naive individuals are drawn in by a sense of peer pressure or an opportunity that wouldn’t exist without law enforcement’s direct participation.

These examples highlight how sting operations can sometimes stray from their intended purpose and lead to undue punishment for ordinary citizens who are neither career criminals nor a genuine threat to society.

Why Good People Can Make Bad Decisions

Research shows that circumstances and perceived opportunity can profoundly influence decision-making. Social psychologists have long studied the power of situational pressures and found that, given the right conditions, most people might be inclined to make uncharacteristic choices. In sting operations, law enforcement may exploit these tendencies by creating circumstances where compliance seems easier than resistance, or people feel drawn to action due to situational pressures, not inherent criminal intent.

Reforming Sting Operations: Suggestions for Ethical Enforcement

Given the ethical and social complexities surrounding sting operations, it’s essential to revisit how they are conducted and define clear guidelines that protect the innocent. Here are some potential reforms:

1. Restricting Entrapment Tactics to Established Offenders: Sting operations should prioritize individuals with a documented history of crime. Targeting those who have previously engaged in similar illegal activities is a fairer use of resources and avoids setting up those with no criminal background.
2. Defining Clear Ethical Guidelines: Law enforcement agencies should create rigorous criteria that define what constitutes entrapment. Clear guidelines can ensure that the operations do not merely encourage criminal behavior but instead act as deterrents.
3. Psychological Screening and Training for Law Enforcement Agents: Undercover agents conducting sting operations should receive training on the psychological impact of entrapment. Such training could help agents avoid tactics that might unduly influence law-abiding citizens to participate in criminal acts.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Public oversight committees should be established to monitor and review sting operations, especially in cases where entrapment is alleged. A third-party review system could ensure accountability and prevent misuse of authority.
5. Limited Use of “Baiting” Tactics: Law enforcement should limit bait tactics to situations where evidence strongly suggests an individual’s intent to commit a crime. Leaving items unattended or creating scenarios that may tempt someone; otherwise, law-abiding should not be acceptable practice.
6. Counseling Programs Over Punitive Actions: For first-time offenders or those caught in low-level sting operations, courts could mandate counseling or educational programs instead of punitive measures. This approach recognizes that momentary lapses do not define a person’s character.

Moving Forward: A Call for Fairness and Ethical Enforcement

While sting operations serve a valuable purpose in law enforcement, their ethical implications must be carefully considered. By recognizing the potential harm that entrapment can cause to otherwise honest individuals, police departments can adapt their approaches to create safer and fairer communities. With reforms focused on ethical practices, accountability, and clear guidelines, sting operations can be used to capture actual criminals rather than ensnaring citizens into temporary lapses of judgment. The justice system must protect people from undue punishment, especially when circumstances could cause anyone to make mistakes.

Stuff Happens (consequences)

Stuff happens. When you do stuff, stuff happens to you. Sometimes directly or indirectly, but pretty much it’s true, what goes around comes around. It’s all a process of watching, evaluating, finding a relation to things that have happened in the past, calculating and projecting variations of how this might look in the future, and basically trying to learn from your wins and/or mistakes.

You try different things, and when you discover a method that gets you what you want, it’s a keeper. It might not be politically correct, maybe a little inappropriate, but it works. In this way, you are the result of what works for you.

When people try to get you to do something that you don’t want to do, there is an initial natural resistance because, of course, you don’t want to do whatever it is. Something happens when you do stuff that is resistant, this “something” is called consequences (you might have heard of them).

This energy is the substance of the stuff which happens to us. Sometimes consequences are imposed upon us by those bigger, tougher, and meaner than us or in authority over us (parents, teachers, bosses, law enforcement, and the government).

In other times, natural consequences are just a “natural” energetic response to the decisions we make and the action we take. The hope is that we might learn from our experience with consequences, natural consequences, at least.

Imposed consequences appear to not be as effective method of training as we might like to think, as the spare-the-rod-and-spoil-the-child model of punishment doesn’t seem to be working very well in our modern society, or else our prisons would not be overflowing with those who insist in noncompliance regardless of any imposed consequences.

Punishment eases your mind if you’re witnessing someone being punished for doing something you don’t like. It makes you feel vindicated and is like a reward to your ego for taking the high road. It’s like, you’re not awarded any recognition for doing the right thing, but it feels good to see others punished for doing the wrong thing. This is punishment’s reward for you, seeing others suffer.

But does it work? No.

Whenever you tell someone, “Don’t,” (fill in the blank), it doesn’t work very well. If you tell a young child, “Don’t touch the burner. It’s hot and it will hurt you!” The child will obsess over the burner for the rest of his or her life, unless he or she tests it out to see if there truly is any natural consequence. If the natural consequence is severe enough, learning happens naturally. If burned from touching the burner, the child will probably never touch a burner again.

Punishment, or discipline, is not a natural consequence, they are unnatural consequences imposed by you or someone else, and the imposition of them does not foster learning. Instead, resentment is the more likely result, which causes the offender to see any imposer of unnatural consequences as a threat who must be defended against, or even punished for bullying the offender who sees him- or herself now as the victim.

Even if you or some arm of the system have obtained compliance via threat of unnatural consequence, the people who have complied will harbor resentment which may be suppressed. On the surface, this may look like a huge success for the imposer, but the truth is, there is little or no respect or love, only resentment and fear.

Repressed resentment will eventually explode into some manifestation of rebellion unless so much fear is imposed that the offender sees his or her self-submission to a life of slavery as an acceptable means of survival.

There are people who either naturally or unnaturally found their own sense of inner balance. They do not need to be told what is right or wrong or lorded over to force them to behave a certain way. They just have a knowingness within and an innate desire to do the right thing.

We would like to see more of them.

Unfortunately, our society has become so obsessed with crime and punishment that even these otherwise self-governing good people are caught up in the punishment-for-compliance system and find themselves being punished, not for doing something bad, but for being in the wrong place at the right time, or inadvertently crossing a law that was put in place to catch criminals, when no crime was committed.

We have so many laws on the books now, who could possibly keep track of them all?

Once you have broken the spirit of one of the good ones, they, too, become one of the other ones, as they give up and surrender to the system of the herd.

I think there should be only one law: Do whatever makes you happy, unless it interferes with someone else’s right to their happiness. That’s all.

Otherwise, let reaction, anxiety, fear, and panic run the show and see where that gets you.

Imprison the Mentally Ill

I was having a discussion with a client who was creating a program to assist the homeless. Now, I have a particular view about the homeless, because my brother is responsible for helping many of the homeless in Washington D.C. Even with plenty of services, shelters, food, clothing and training offered to support them, you still see them sleeping in alleyways and panhandling on the street corners, or holding Will Work for Food signs at intersections.

Having the privilege of serving the State of Washington for over a decade in law enforcement (2 years in juvenile) I am (as well as all the other multitudes who support the law enforcement community are) aware that an uncomfortably large percentage of the criminal population consists of individuals with mental health issues, placing an inordinate strain on the legal system.

The mentally ill, who do not have access to the necessary treatment and/or medications overpopulate the jails and prisons, as well as probation and parole systems, also contributing to the homeless population.

Though it may sound Hitleristic, we here in the United States forcibly sterilized over 30,000 mentally ill patients in the first 40 years of the 1900’s while they were incarcerated or in State mental hospitals as an approach to decreasing mental health issues over time.

Prior to 1960 just under 600,000 mentally ill patients were able to find the help they needed at State run mental hospitals. Over the next 40 years, State mental hospitals had kicked over 500,000 mentally ill patients to the curb. Now the legal system is left as the only available resource to deal with nearly 1 million sufferers of mental illness, basically criminalizing them for their respective conditions.

There exist many programs to assist the homeless… Why hasn’t it occurred to someone that the segment that is the most neglected – having access to the least amount of service or support – is not the homeless (though their numbers are often counted here), but the mentally ill?

In my opinion the crime is not mental illness, even though we prosecute, house and feed them in our jails and prisons, as they accumulate a rap sheet a mile long. No, the crime is forcing individuals with mental health issues to acclimate to the revolving door of our criminal justice system.

I am not convinced that having the State pick up the bill and expand their mental hospital services and facilities is the answer. I believe society has turned its back on those unable to adequately deal with their mental health issues and has forced them to be lumped in with the criminal element and I believe it is up to us to find – and provide – a solution to this growing problem.

There is indication that without a lengthy criminal history and institutionalization, that many of these suffering from lack of mental health treatment could become productive members of society if afforded the opportunity to engage in treatment and proper therapeutic intervention.

Yes, this would be an expensive undertaking, though I believe privatizing the care and treatment would be a more cost effective alternative than wasting 110-times as much by allowing State or Federal bureaucracies to deal with the problem.

I believe we – you and I – as well as our organizations, non-profits and churches could deal with this problem, creating an effective alternative for those dealing with mental health issues as an alternative to imprisonment, just as we are making progress with the issues of homelessness.

What do you think?

Innocent Prisoner Released After 18 Years

149 innocent prisoners who had served an average of 15 years behind prison walls were released last year

Unfortunately, this happens too often to believe it’s an anomaly; innocent men or women are convicted of crimes they did not commit, and their lives are ruined as they are plucked from their families and society and imprisoned to rot away… Why? Because someone thought they were undesirable, someone needed a scapegoat, and the accused did not have enough money to defend themselves in court adequately.

Thankfully it doesn’t happen every day, but it happens enough to make you wonder,

How many innocent people are serving time in prison?

There is a lot of motivation to convict someone of a crime. Local law enforcement wants the community to feel safe and like they are effectively keeping their promise to serve and protect us. The more convictions the prosecution gets, the safer the community, and the more likely a prosecutor can promote.

We are part of the problem, too. If a crime has been committed that leaves us crying out for justice to be done, this adds pressure on law enforcement to find someone to offer up as the perpetrator of the crime. If not, how can we feel safe knowing someone “out there” could perpetrate a similar crime against us?

So, they round up the usual suspects and seek out someone who meets certain criteria that will result in a likely conviction. The candidate usually has limited financial resources (will have to rely on a public defender), could have limited intelligence and/or social skills, has had some legal issues in the past (even if minor), and might be considered undesirable by peers (perspective jury). This makes for a perfect conviction cocktail.

Even if wrongly accused, we are satisfied and feel safer knowing that someone is behind bars who “committed” this crime as we light our torches and shout out, “Kill the monster,” as if we were characters in the climax of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Then there are the other types of crimes that are committed, even harder to prove because the details are vague, evidence is lacking, and there are few witnesses. Still, the crime is grisly enough that we want to see someone incarcerated for it, even if the crime did not actually take place.

Local Police Catch and Release

Catch and release is a policy demonstrated by local police departments. When responding to a call or questioning a pedestrian, they can be compelled to find a reason to detain the individual, especially if the person appears to have a low income or mental health status. The individual is booked and released as soon as an audience with a judge has been arranged. The individual is just happy to be out and not convicted of something they didn't do.

But they are now in the system, just in case their character comes into question when associated with some other crime in the future.

Poor Man’s Revenge

This is how the dregs of society use (or abuse) the system to execute revenge on someone else within arm’s reach of their position in society at no cost. Simply accuse the person of some wrongdoing of a criminal act, have a compelling story to tell that will enrage the community, be capable and willing to lie on the stand under oath and you could get your free revenge served up by our legal system with a smile.

We’re likely to convict someone we don’t particularly care for. If nothing else, our communities look better with those who contribute little to society behind bars. We feel safer, and it bolsters our faith in the system charged with our safety and security. Plus, who doesn’t like a good story where someone is wronged, and the perpetrator pays the price for the evil deed (whether they did it or not)? And we don’t mind expending tax dollars in this manner. Besides, “I always knew there was something not right about that guy,” or gal.

We’ll likely think our community is better off without this individual on our streets anyway. And speaking of a jury of peers… Really? In most cases, where the wrongly accused is of a low economic (and/or mental health) stature, the members of the jury are likely not. (Although adequately selecting authentic peers would make for an entertaining reality TV show.)

Organizations have sprung up in recent years to help those wrongly accused and committed. Still, their resources are minimal, the demand is high, and they hand-pick their cases, which usually involve life sentences. There aren’t many resources available for imprisoned innocents serving less than a sentence of life in prison.

Is our system broken? Yes.

Can we fix it? Not likely any day soon.

Too much of our economy relies on our clunky legal system. While those who run the system attempt to make it look as good as possible and continue to enjoy their lucrative incomes, regular promotions, and benefits.

That’s all well and good unless you have been wrongly accused, stood trial, and been found guilty and sent to prison for something you didn’t do.