Debate Info

Wrong Right
Debate Score:5
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Wrong (4)
 Right (1)

Debate Creator

TheThinker(1697) pic

Is Police Entrapment Right or Wrong?

Is it wrong to purposely trap someone in an area of weakness such as prostitution?

Another example that date line show on nbc: "To catch a predator." A show that catches pedophiles and put them in jail.


Side Score: 4


Side Score: 1
1 point

No crime is actually being committed that shouldn't be illegal if the police are waiting for someone to do it.

Like, buying drugs is illegal, however the police are encouraging someone to buy drugs in the first place so they're actually involved in the crime.

I'm not going to get too much into it, but if the police are a part of it, it says a whole lot about the morality of whatever it is.

Side: Wrong
1 point

Yes it is wrong. And in many agencies officers get fired if they are found guilty of it. Not only are you tricking someone into committing a crime they might not have committed other wise which means that they aren't actually dangerous thus your not actually making the community safer. It's also dishonest, immoral, completely against the law enforcement code of ethics. And corrupt. But as far as date line is concerned that's not entrapment that's called a sting which is okay because on that show the pedophiles agree to go meet the minor of there own free will. Cops also set up fake drug deals which are fine what's not fine is when you like ask some one if they want to bye drugs they say no and you bug them until they do or threaten them or what ever then arrest them when they do. Just to give you one example.

Side: Wrong
1 point

Punishing anyone for anything is pointless. The point is to make people understand that they did something wrong, they must understand it and learn from it. Well, whether the ones' who say something wrong was done themselves know what is right and wrong is another topic. Not to mention, are the laws themselves right? And here go connections gradually to everything else.

How could entrapment possibly help? Nothing was done. It's like walking up to a random person and punishing him/her for potential future wrongs, it's idiotic.

Effort should be exerted to preventing wrongs, not catching them right before the act, or while ongoing, or even after. What's done that's done, punishing someone simply for doing something is nothing more than torturing the person. It only makes things worse, and above that the time they spend locked up, and us all paying for their living (tax money) while they give nothing back... Rehabilitation for people like that must include teaching them, because obviously many of them cannot do it on their own, even if they cared.

Most crimes are committed, when to look what it comes down to, because of money, because of capitalism which simply enables so much negative and no positives at all.

Almost nothing is done toward preventing them, with capitalism preventing wrongs is pointless. Money creates a negative environment for so many people, so many families. They have to struggle just for food, but since everything has a price, including education, then no wonder where these so called criminals come from. They lack education, they grew up in poor conditions, and as such are easily fallible and go for easy ways of better living (just take it from anyone or anywhere). And by the time they become aware of their deeds it might just be too late. But when you look at who keep it this way, who persistently keep things so messed up that people cannot live a decent life with everything essential enabled to them, no matter how hard they struggle, then who really are the criminals here?

Side: Wrong

Is leaving the keys in a car so that they can arrest you an example of this?

If it is I also think it wrong. Most people don't wake up and plan to commit a crime, but seeing an opportunity causes people to try to take it.

Side: Wrong

I think Police Entrapment is right.

There is much of a difference between agreeing to have sex with a real prostitute to agreeing to have sex with an undercover prostitute. However, if you ask yourself, what if the undercover wasn't an undercover, would he (assuming a "he.") still agree to sex? And mostly likely, i believe yes. The police do not grab your hand and make you exchange money and they do not enter your body and agree to sex. I think getting rid of people off the streets asap is a good thing because prostitution is a deadly business. 1. It can spread diseases. 2. There are women who are trapped in the game of prostitution that they cannot get out. These women can't get out because either they are threatened by their pimps OR they do not have a home to go to. I think police entrapment and lower the business of pimping. The downside is that these pimps can re located their women to other areas of the world. But if every cop in the world in all areas entraps and keep on entrapping, then the pimps would run out of place to relocate their girls and thus, potentially ending prostitution. Some parts of me doubt that it will end because of these pimps motive. Sigh.

NBC to catch a predator i believe is a definite right. Like above, if the case wasn't undercover, the chances that the men would still enter the house is basically the same. Ask yourself, what if there were no cops? Then the child would had been rape, possibly get diseases, possibly get traumatized and pregnant. Yes the cops were luring these predators but the main responsibility lies on the predators themselves. They agree to travel miles and miles to the house and enter the house. If the cops weren't there, these men (or women) would probably still take the opportunity to come.

In both cases it makes sense to say that in a undercover case and in a real case, there isn't much of a difference because the same responsibility in both cases is still taken.

Side: Right