Abstract
Present work was written as a part of doctoral research. It aims to generate reasonable arguments on whether it is just to prosecute and punish a person that was entrapped by an agent-provocateur. In other words − does criminal entrapment constitute a substantive defence for an entrapped person or not? In scientific literature the matter is traditionally discussed within the scope of criminal procedure (admissibility of evidence, fair trial etc.) while arguments from substantive criminal law are rarely addressed. Thus, it remains un- clear whether the goals of punishment are achievable at all if an entrapped person gets sentenced. Thus, it is necessary to compre- hend the subject through the prism of goals of punishment name- ly: restoration of justice, special prevention of crime and general prevention of crime especially since all three are well-recognised by science of criminal law and current legislation. After detailed and consistent analysis done within research, there are good rea- sons to conclude that prosecution and following sentencing of an entrapped person: • Hinders restoration of justice • Hinders special prevention of crime • Partially hinders general prevention • Eventually, all that constitutes an important argument to consider entrapment as a substantive defence for the entrapped person.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
