[themeek]

According to Wikipedia: Blackmail is an act, often a crime, ... Essentially, it is coercion involving threats of ... of criminal prosecution.

Similar searches for the legal distinction between extortion and blackmail consider blackmail a form of coercion.

Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment?

DPR did not come up with a hitman as a solution. Law enforcement made the suggestion. They did not use the words, just had their fake identity offer to take care of the situation.

[Natsu]

I think the law guide I linked it to would file this under "there is no chutzpah defense." He had legal options that did not include "hire a hitman" ("do nothing" is a valid option) and he had a big hand in creating the problem to begin with, or there would be nothing to blackmail him with in the first place. And the state didn't corrupt him, he was already leading a criminal operation when they set out to catch him. You don't get to protect yourself from a lot of things you otherwise would when the problems are caused by your own illegal activities and you'll see this again and again with the other defenses, if you read more of that guide. It refers to those scenarios as a someone trying to invoke the "chutzpah defense," following on from the old story about a child who murdered their parents requesting mercy because he is an "orphan."

The overarching point here to protect people who weren't committing crimes from being dragged into them ("corrupted") and the rules are set up to avoid protecting criminals who were merely fooled by the police into exposing their criminal nature.

Nobody made him hire a hitman. They gave him a reason to, but they didn't make him do it. If he needed protection from a blackmailer, he could have turned himself in as well as the blackmailer.

[xnull2guest]

Doesn't "there is no chutzpah defense" imply that he is guilty of a range of other things - then not yet determined in court?

And does it really work that way? You can be entrapped so long as your defense has no chutzpah?

Isn't it the case that law enforcement can be guilty of entrapment AND the defendant guilty of a crime? Hasn't this been established many times before? Wouldn't this exclude 'chutzpah' arguments?

I'm not sure that this really replies charitably to the premise of the discussion - i.e. that there was coercion. According to your argument nothing short of law enforcement physically forcing someone to take an action would be entrapment; so long as there are choices - even bad ones. Nor was there a reply to the fact that the hitman wasn't his idea.

It seems to me that those wishing the justice system overlook these issues already had decided on DRPs guilt and were convinced to get it at, even if that meant sacrificing due process and papering over it.

DPR can be behind bars - I don't care. But due process is something that even those wishing it were ignored for this conviction rely on and need, even if they don't think so.

[Natsu]

He was found guilty of a wide-ranging criminal enterprise. I've already quoted the judge's own words regarding what DPR was charged (and later convicted) of, but HN seems to think it's a lot different than what the court documents reflect.

Further, offering you hitman services is NOT entrapment. This would never ensnare an innocent person: they'd say no!

To the best of my knowledge, DPR's lawyers have not even alleged that the police committed any crimes. That would have allowed them to suppress the evidence and, as learned in the link I posted earlier, the evidence that he hired a hitman WAS allowed in court because it was part of the crimes he was charged with.

I did reply to your other post about it 'not being his idea'. That EXACT argument is explained in the law guide, right here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=646

The short answer is that, even if they offer you a hitman, all you ever had to do was say no. Giving you an opportunity is not entrapment. It just shows that if it hadn't been for the police, you would have committed a crime (solicitation for murder, here).

Finally, 'due process' means that he had his day in court. He got that and was sentenced by a jury of his peers. You can disagree with the reasons behind it, but there are good reasons for these rules which are clearly explained in the guide.

The fact that he was willing to deal with hitmen is the problem here. It's not self-defense, nor can it be. It's not a solution a non-criminal would ever accept. The fact that he had only bad solutions was due to his own guilt--there would be no illegal activities for the blackmailer to expose if he had not engaged in any. And if the blackmail was false, he'd have every reason to want to cooperate with the police and prove his innocence by working with them to catch the blackmailer.

[xnull2guest]

> Further, offering you hitman services is NOT entrapment.

Nope, but creating a false circumstance of blackmail is. That's what we're talking about.

But we've gone in circles. I think we both need to talk to other (knowledgeable) people. Thanks for the chat.

[Natsu]

Well, I gave links to a lawyer's explanation. I everything you're saying is entrapment is listed under the 'entrapment myths' so I don't know what to say here.

[xnull2guest]

Right, it was just an explanation on an issue that wasn't a charitable representation of the DPR case. Which is what we were trying to resolve. Thus both our frustrations. It's cool, man. Let's both give up. :)

[omegaham]

> "there is no chutzpah defense."

This. If he hadn't created a multi-million dollar drug empire, there would've been no blackmail. Therefore, the fact that he had to resort to murder to stop the blackmail is no defense at all.

[Natsu]

Not to quibble, but it's also not the case that 'hire a hitman' is the only solution to being blackmailed. That's not exactly the first idea a law abiding citizen would come up with as the solution now, is it? It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so.

[xnull2guest]

He didn't come up with it. Law enforcement did.

"It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so."

That's not how blackmail works within the legal system.

[Natsu]

It doesn't matter what the police offer, if he chooses to hire a hitman (even a fake one) with their help, he's guilty, because an innocent person would say "no".

You don't get to kill other people to cover up your own crimes, period. Self-defense is the only possible justification, and that requires an imminent threat to his life (or at least grievous bodily injury). Threats to incriminate you don't count for anything.

Please refer to the guide, it explains all of these myths. If you think things work some other way, cite law to the contrary.

[xnull2guest]

Please refer to what guide? The webcomic?

Can you be specific about which webcomic had law enforcement blackmailing someone? I didn't see one that covers our case there.

> 'because an innocent person would say "no".'

Doesn't that imply that all entrapment is legal? And is it even true? People can be blackmailed for things they haven't done and even easily give false confessions of guilt...

Thanks for the conversation Natsu. I don't think you're the legal expert I was hoping would be in this thread. Again thank you for sharing your opinion.