Law

Entrapment defenses in criminal law or charges are said to be exculpatory defenses. Exculpatory defenses can be described as factors which excuse a person from being liable to an act of crime (Brody  Acker, 2009). Entrapments do exist if the officer enforcing laws encourages one to commit crime with an intention of instituting against them criminal prosecutions. Entrapment defenses cannot be permissible if the law enforcer can provide material evidence for the crime.

Entrapment defense is unusually classified because the crime being committed to necessitate this defense may not be easily identifiable with the specific intention. In addition, whether or not the crime requires having this type of defense is uncertain. A person may have committed a crime knowingly but without any purpose. Conversely, they may commit the offense for lack of the means of preventing their involvement in that crime. This situation may arise due to duress or being coerced to commit such a crime. The accused may therefore enjoy the entrapment defense. They may as well find that they cannot self-defend using it (Renteln, 2005). Furthermore, one cannot commit a crime while aware that it is against the law, defend themselves, and still be held innocent. The entrapment defense can be said to be unusually classified because the material of crime that is provided by the enforcing officer may have biasness. One may thus find themselves being held guilty for acts which they had no purpose of committing but were just forced into.

Moreover, entrapment is classified unusually because it does not seem capable of strongly defending someone. This is because laws should be known by everyone. A person cannot therefore defend themselves by claiming ignorance. By committing such crime, they never knew since the law - which should always be provided - was not available then (Bergman  Berman, 2009). This defense should not be classified as such since it is not strong enough like the other defenses which do not have a lot of loopholes. Rather, it should be strong enough to defend one since the act of committing the crime was not through their motive. The offense could otherwise have resulted in them being harmed or harassed if they never did the act (Gardner  Anderson, 2008). It should be able to defend the person without focusing on the material provided by law enforcement officials.

Having in mind that law enforcers tend to be authoritative and can force one to do acts which may be against the laws or legislation, entrapment defenses should have the ability to defend that persons who have committed crimes due to pressure from another person. The crime is passed to the person who induced the crime to be committed (Criminal Resource manual 645 Entrapment). This defense should have clear definitions on how one should conduct himself themselves even if he or she is induced to commit a crime by a law enforcer although under any situation they should not accept.

In conclusion, entrapment defense is classified differently from the criminal defenses. There is thus a need for this defense to be reconstituted in order for it to be strong and reliable to defend one. Criminal charges that can be defended by this entrapment defense should first be analyzed to have the clear understanding of how they were committed rather than merely providing the crime material.