[glasshug]

Entrapment is an invention of 20th century American courts. See William E. Mikell, "The Doctrine of Entrapment in the Federal Courts," U. Pa. L. Rev. 90 (1942), calling entrapment as a defense a "purely American doctrine" not considered by earlier English writers on criminal law.

Trivia aside, no. Entrapment is a specific concept narrower than "a fed lied to me."

[quietbritishjim]

Given the mention of "across the pond", it seems the parent commenter was talking about the English law meaning of entrapment. That is where you are enticed to commit a crime by a law agency. Technically it's still a crime and there's no legal defence based on entrapment, but courts will tend not to prosecute if "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".

[tptacek]

I'm assuming you pulled that from Wikipedia, which is what Google points to for that phrase. You've radically oversimplified Wikipedia's coverage of UK entrapment, and Wikipedia oversimplifies UK law. "More than an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime" is just one factor in a complex analysis. The "exceptional" opportunity starts the consideration of entrapment; it doesn't end it.

[quietbritishjim]

Yes I got that quote via Wikipedia. It, in turn, is a direct quote from a judgement from the Law Lords, which set a precedent – the main precedent on the subject if that Wikipedia article is to be believed. So it's not just a random Wikipedia editor's view on the subject.

Yes, no kidding it's a more complicated subject than that one short sentence. But my point was just that it's different from any notion of entrapment, or lack of, in the US.

[tptacek]

The point is that it's simply not the case that the state tends not to prosecute in cases where "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".