Introduction

Solicitation and inducement are concepts in law that examine the involvement of a defendant in a criminal act. In solicitation, the defendant can prove that they did not intend to commit the crime because third parties coaxed them (Anyangwe, 2015). As such, the individual has to have an advantage and potential benefit of committing a crime. Individuals who commit an offense could argue that they did not intend to engage in misconduct (Finch& Fafinski, 2015). However, in the case of an inducement, the convict must certainly face prosecution if he had something to gain from engaging in a criminal act.

The Difference between Solicitation and Inducement

Solicitation. Solicitation occurs when an individual convinces another person to engage in a criminal act. Crimes of solicitation include unauthorized attempts, conspiracy, aiding, and abetting crimes. As such, the court charges defendants with solicitation if they request or persuade another person to commit an act that constitutes a felony (Finch & Fafinski, 2015). Critical elements in solicitation include the intention of involving another person to commit a crime and committing criminal acts aimed at convincing a person to break the law. Therefore, the intent is critical in establishing solicitation (Finch & Fafinski, 2015). In court, the prosecutor proves the first element of solicitation by demonstrating that the defendant had an intention to commit a crime (Anyangwe, 2015). The implication is that individuals may not face solicitation charges if they mistakenly asked other people to commit a crime. Thus, the individual who broke the law may have done so unknowingly.

Moreover, the act of solicitation describes the intention to commit a crime, and, as such, it is easy to complete. Hence, for solicitation to occur, one person must convince another individual to commit a crime in some way. Solicitation can occur through suggestion, request, or an encouragement to commit a crime (Anyangwe, 2015). Solicitation could also exist if an individual forces another or commands them to commit a crime. People who provoke others to commit a crime are also guilty of solicitation (Finch & Fafinski, 2015). As such, the crime of solicitation is complete when suggestion, request, and encouragement occur. However, solicitation is significantly different from attempt and conspiracy, which requires an individual to take further action to commit the crime (Finch & Fafinski, 2015). If a person relents to a solicitation and they decide to complete the offense, the defendant may not only be liable for solicitation but also for aiding and abetting (Finch & Fafinski, 2015). Consequently, the defendant can face charges of being an accessory before the act.

The laws of the United States of America have an explicit provision for the punishment of solicitation. Therefore, solicitation of crime is a reservation of the crimes that are committed (Dressler, 2015). Likewise, the sentence for solicitation is less severe than the punishment for a completed crime. Thus, solicitation is either a misdemeanor or felony based on the underlying offense that is only certain (Dressler, 2015). Many states have adopted statutes to address solicitation of prostitution and minors. Therefore, solicitation of such acts is an offense and criminals are subject to stiff penalties or jail terms (Anyangwe, 2015). In some cases, individuals who solicit minors online become sexual offenders even if they do not make an actual move to meet with the child. Therefore, the adoption of stringent measures to curb solicitation reduces the rate of such crime.

Inducement. Conversely, inducement occurs when an individual uses a benefit or incentive to encourage another party to engage in crime. Therefore, for an individual to succumb to such pressure, influence and persuasion must have taken place. The difference between inducement and solicitation is that the former involves the provision of benefits once the crime is complete (Anyangwe, 2015). Inducement is, therefore, the time used in contract law to describe a promise made to another party to make them agree to a specific contract (Dressler, 2015). Similarly, inducement could occur in the purchasing process when an individual persuades another person to buy products acquired fraudulently by according him certain advantages (Dressler, 2015). Therefore, inducement in criminal law describes the factors that encouraged the criminal to commit a felony.

A typical example of inducement happens in bank robberies where criminals engage in the crime due to the monetary benefits. Likewise, criminals can confess to crimes they committed when offered certain benefits, such as lighter sentences in exchange for the testimony (Anyangwe, 2015). Similarly, acquiring criminal confessions by inducing is also a form of coercion. The legislative framework of the United States of America recognizes all information collected through inducement to be inadmissible in court (Dressler, 2015). Consequently, breaking the law because of any expected benefits is in itself a crime.

How Predisposition Affects the Entrapment Defense

Predisposition affects the entrapment defense because it expresses the intent of the defendant to commit the crime regardless of the conduct of government agents. The entrapment defense centers on the intention to commit a crime where the government may set traps to catch criminals (Pollock, 2015). Likewise, the predisposition test examines the relationship between the individual and the government. The importance of the test is to focus on whether the defendant is innocent or if they have perpetrated other criminal activities (Pollock, 2015). However, government agents may not participate in the crime, but they create an opportunity for a suspect to commit a crime. Consequently, predisposition influences the entrapment defense if police officers coerced the victim.

Furthermore, the state of the mind of the defendant and the evidence of inducement by government agents is essential in setting the predisposition test. However, the entrapment defense may not be helpful for the defendant because law enforcers use strategy and deception to trap a criminal. As such, it is not possible to use the predisposition test because they merely provide the facility and the opportunity to commit the crime (Pollock, 2015). If the government can prove that the police did not allow the victim to commit the felony, then the entrapment defense does not hold (Pollock, 2015). However, evidence may show that the government agents created the criminal design and convinced the person to commit the offense. In such instances, it is possible for the instrument of defense to be useful in a court of law. Therefore, for the rule to apply, a victim must have incriminating evidence against government representatives.

Furthermore, the jury uses the predisposition test introduced and presented by government prosecutors to offer substantial evidence for government involvement. The analysis, therefore, reveals the innocence or guilt of the defendant in determining if they had criminal intent. Moreover, it also establishes whether the motives to engage in crime came from the government (Pollock, 2015). As such, the predisposition test incorporates elements of inducement and predisposition. Consequently, the test is subjective and examines the intentions for creating a crime because it focuses on the state of mind of the defendant at the time of inducement.

Additionally, the predisposition test is a controlling question to ascertain the readiness and willingness of the defendant to commit a crime for which they are charged. However, the defendant may provide sufficient evidence of inducement by the police to commit a crime. At this point, the burden of proof rests on government authorities to overcome the defense of entrapment (Pollock, 2015). Notably, it is critical for the government to prove that the accused was liable. Moreover, they need to show that no government inducement influenced the individual to commit a crime. Therefore, the predisposition test becomes a question for the jury as it examines the state of mind of the accused.

Conclusion

The predisposition test is critical in examining the entrapment defense. Defendants could bring up this rule if they have proof of inducement by law enforcers and government agents to transgress. However, the predisposition test examines the state of mind of the defender by the time at which they were committing the crime. For the defendant to pass the entrapment test, they have to prove that they did not intend to commit the crime. Besides, they need to show that the idea originated from government offices. Inducement directly correlates with the entrapment defense because individuals may perform a crime after they see of the potential benefits.

References

Anyangwe, C. (2015). Criminal law. Oxford: Langaa RPCIG.

Dressler, J. (2015). Criminal law.St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.

Finch, E., & Fafinski, S. (2015). Criminal law. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Pollock, J. M. (2015). Criminal law. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.