In Mark White (ed.), Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy. Oxford University Press (2011)

Mark Tunick
Florida Atlantic University
I address the question, ‘Should a retributivist support an entrapment defense and if so, under what circumstances?’, by considering the culpability of entrapped defendants. An entrapment defense is invoked by defendants who claim they violated the law because they were enticed to crime by the police and would not otherwise have committed the crime. There are different rationales for the defense: people who are normally law abiding, and who are not predisposed to commit crimes, do not commit crimes merely when the opportunity is presented, without further coaxing—only criminals do—and so spending resources to entice and then punish such “false criminals” is wasteful from a utilitarian perspective. Several theorists assume retributivists must oppose the defense: entrapped defendants have broken the law and, according to one version of retributivism (Mabbott), this itself might warrant punishment; they are still culpable although they were enticed, because succumbing to temptation is no defense—there is no ‘private entrapment defense’; and to not punish the non-predisposed who are enticed to crime by government, while punishing those who are predisposed, is wrongly to assert that a person’s culpability hinges on their predisposition and wrongly to punish someone not for their present conduct but for their character or past actions. I explore some reasons why a retributivist can support an entrapment defense. First, entrapped defendants may be less culpable than the privately enticed insofar as they do not cause harm. As police control the situation, no actual harm is caused, and whether one actually causes harm may bear on one’s culpability; and if one’s predisposition was weak and required substantial police coaxing to be triggered, we might say that the police action and not the defendant caused the crime in the relevant sense. Second, applying Robert Nozick’s account of coercion in a novel way, I consider the argument that entrapped defendants may be less culpable insofar as their action was not fully voluntary, in that unlike in private enticement cases, they necessarily underestimate the probability of being caught before making their choice.
Keywords Entrapment  punishment  coercion
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Coercion.Robert Nozick - 1969 - In White Morgenbesser (ed.), Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel. St Martin's Press. pp. 440--72.
Punishment.J. D. Mabbott - 1939 - Mind 48 (190):152-167.
The Moral Obligation to Obey Law.Mark Tunick - 2002 - Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (3):464–482.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Reality TV and the Entrapment of Predators.Mark Tunick - 2012 - In Peter Robson & Jessica Silbey (eds.), Law and Justice on the Small Screen. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. pp. 289-307.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Problem with Entrapment.Dan Squires - 2006 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 (2):351-376.
What is Wrong with Entrapment?Paul M. Hughes - 2004 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):45-60.
Entrapment Through the Lens of the Actio Libera in Causa.Leo Katz - 2013 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (3):587-595.
Entrapment in the Net?Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (2):95-104.
Entrapment as an Intrument in the Course of Making Evidence in Criminal Procedure.Raimundas Jurka - 2013 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 20 (1):249-265.
Neuroimaging, Entrapment, and the Predisposition to Crime.Carter Snead - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (9):60 – 61.
Punishment: Theory and Practice.Mark Tunick - 1992 - Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Cognitive Psychology, Entrapment, and the Philosophy of Mind.Alan Gauld - 1989 - In The Case for Dualism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Entrapment: An Ethical Analysis.B. Stitt & Gene James - 1985 - In Frederick Elliston & Michael Feldberg (eds.), Moral Issues in Police Work. Rowman & Allanheld. pp. 129--147.
A Hegelian Theory of Punishment.Jami L. Anderson - 1999 - Legal Theory 5 (4):363-388.
Annulment Retributivism: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment.Jami L. Anderson - 1999 - Cambridge University Press 5 (4):363-388.


Added to PP index

Total views
255 ( #42,806 of 2,504,868 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #44,126 of 2,504,868 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes