Quote from: Sahara on April 19, 2012, 11:01 pmQuote from: vlad1m1r on April 19, 2012, 10:10 pmQuote from: Sahara on April 16, 2012, 11:31 pmQuote from: a_blackbird on April 14, 2012, 06:53 pmQuote from: vlad1m1r on April 14, 2012, 06:39 pmIn theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.Spot on! Sadly too many people think that the police are powerless idiots. In all honesty: the police we meet on the street are the foot soldiers and many not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. But the police force as a whole include some very intelligent people and some very streetwise people. The only fool in the equation is the person that thinks they can outsmart the scientists, mathematicians, detectives, and informants employed by the authorities.It would seem the law is rather different in the UK to the US. I actually would prefer to face US Justice as you have an unmitigated right to silence, including a right against self incrimination. You also can be compelled to hand over your password or face a prison sentence. God Bless America!V.Do you really mean that? The UK sentencing rational is directed much more towards rehabilitation, while it's all about punishment in the USA. In the UK you'll get about six years for low level dealing, served in a relatively safe prison and you'll only serve half if you behave yourself. In the USA you'll get 30 years in some hell hole where you'll probably get murdered by gangsters.It would seem from what you say that sentencing is more harsh in the USA. Conditions in Prisons are certainly more severe. At the moment the UK Government are considering whether or not to extradite someone to the USA as they are concerned that solitary confinement would amount to cruel and inhuman treatment (despite the fact this is routinely done to prisoners in the US.)This said the cut and thrust of this thread and what I was saying focused on the methods used to detect crime and put people behind bars in the first place. Police in the UK use trap houses and cars for instance to find out the locations of fences but the individual thief cannot be held liable.However if a person refuses to answer questions posed during Police Interview, adverse inferences can be drawn from their silence by a Jury should the case come to trial. The Caution given by an arresting office is worded along the lines of:"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if, when question, you do not mention something which you later rely on in court."When charged with a crime a defendant also has to instruct their lawyer to make a "defence statement" which will summarise the basis for the defence before any evidence from the Prosecution is released. In my opinion, this unfairly weights the case in favour of the Prosecution as if the defence is unwilling or unable to disclose details of key witnesses or evidence they wish to present at trial, then the Prosecution is under no obligation to disclose all the evidence against the defendant before the arrive in court. If conversely they do make a full disclosure then the Crown Prosecution Service as we call them in the UK and the Police have all the time between charge and trial to interview witnesses and persuade them not to testify or try to find contradictions in their statements, to analyse and debunk the defence's rebuttals etc. Bear in mind that the whole time this is happening the Defendant themselves may be sitting in jail not knowing how revealing their hand has weakened their position and be hit with an "ambush" Prosecution when things do come to court.Compare and contrast with the US where you have an absolute and inalienable right for no inferences to be drawn from your silence and that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Moreover if evidence is obtained illegally you have a right to have it ruled as inadmissable by a Judge (once again this is not the case in the UK).I know what I'd prefer but sadly I cannot afford to move to the US - God Bless Uncle Sam!V.