What Is Entrapment

What Entrapment Is

Entrapment is a legal defense based on the idea that the criminal plan originated with the government rather than with the defendant. In many systems, the core claim is that law enforcement — or someone working on its behalf — induced a person to commit an offense that person would not otherwise have committed.

The concept matters because criminal law is generally aimed at punishing conduct that flows from a person’s own choice. Where the government is the one who designed the crime and pushed the person into it, the usual justification for punishment becomes harder to sustain. Entrapment is the legal mechanism that allows a defendant to raise that challenge.

The Crucial Distinction: Inducement vs. Opportunity

The most important line in entrapment analysis is between inducement and merely being provided an opportunity to commit a crime. Getting those two things confused is where most misconceptions about entrapment begin.

Providing an opportunity generally means that law enforcement created a situation in which the offense could occur — an undercover officer posing as a buyer, for example, or a sting operation that makes contraband accessible. In most systems, this alone does not constitute entrapment. The government is broadly permitted to create conditions where crime can happen and to observe who takes advantage of them.

Inducement is something different. It involves more than setting a stage — it implies active pressure, persuasion, repeated appeals, appeals to sympathy or friendship, or other means that go beyond simply making the opportunity available. The idea is that the government did something that moved a person toward the offense who would not have moved there on their own. Where the line sits between “setting up an opportunity” and “inducing a crime” is one of the central questions in any entrapment analysis.

Two Ways Courts Analyze the Question

Different legal systems approach entrapment through different lenses, and the lens a court uses can significantly shape the analysis. Two broad approaches appear most commonly.

• The subjective approach. This lens focuses on the defendant. The central question is whether this particular person was predisposed to commit the offense before the government became involved. If the defendant was already inclined toward the conduct, the government’s involvement is treated as having done little more than provide an opportunity. If the person had no prior inclination and was drawn into the offense by government action, the argument for entrapment is stronger.
• The objective approach. This lens focuses on the government’s conduct rather than the defendant’s character. The question becomes whether the methods used by law enforcement would have induced a hypothetical law-abiding person to commit the offense — someone with no special vulnerability or prior inclination. Under this approach, a defendant’s own background is less relevant; what matters is whether the conduct crossed a line that a fair system should not permit.

Jurisdictions vary considerably on which approach applies, and some systems blend elements of both. Whether entrapment is even available, and how it is analyzed if raised, depends on the rules of the particular system involved.

Entrapment as an Affirmative Defense

Entrapment is what many systems classify as an affirmative defense — a defense that does more than challenge the government’s evidence. Rather than simply arguing that the prosecution has not proven the elements of the charge, an affirmative defense raises a separate ground for acquittal based on circumstances surrounding how the offense came about. The guide on affirmative defenses covers that broader concept and how it operates.

In practice, raising entrapment often means the defendant acknowledges that the conduct occurred while arguing that it should not lead to conviction because of how the government brought it about. That framing has implications for how a case is presented and what the focus of the defense becomes. Questions about who bears the burden of establishing an entrapment claim, and how much must be shown, connect directly to the ideas in the guide on the burden of proof.

Where Entrapment Most Often Arises

Entrapment claims come up most frequently in cases that involve undercover officers or confidential informants. These are situations where the government — or an agent working on its behalf — has been embedded in the events leading to the charge. The guide on confidential informants covers the mechanics of how informants operate and how their involvement gets scrutinized in a defense context.

Typical scenarios where entrapment is raised include:

• Undercover operations in which an officer posed as a buyer, seller, or co-participant and initiated contact with the defendant.
• Sting operations where an informant cultivated a relationship with the defendant over time before the charged transaction occurred.
• Situations where law enforcement or an informant made repeated requests, applied pressure, or appealed to personal loyalty before the defendant agreed to participate.

None of these scenarios automatically equals entrapment — the analysis still turns on inducement, predisposition, and the applicable legal standard. But they are the contexts where the question most commonly arises and where understanding the concept matters most for making sense of what is being alleged.

Questions to Explore About Entrapment

Questions that tend to clarify whether entrapment is worth examining in a particular situation:

1. Who first introduced the idea of the offense — the defendant or someone working with or for law enforcement?
2. Did a government agent or informant make repeated requests or apply any form of pressure before the defendant agreed?
3. Was the relationship between the defendant and the government contact cultivated over time, or was this a one-time encounter?
4. Does the applicable system use a subjective test focused on predisposition, an objective test focused on government conduct, or a combination?
5. If predisposition is relevant, what evidence — if any — bears on whether the defendant was inclined toward this type of conduct before the government became involved?
6. How does the system allocate the burden of proving or disproving entrapment, and at what stage of the case does that question arise?