Entrapment and Equality in Terrorism Prosecutions: A Comparative Examination of North American and European Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The entrapment defense is no longer peculiarly American and has been recognized in Britain, Canada and by the European Court of Human Rights. This article provides a comparative analysis of North American and European approaches with a focus on the application of entrapment defenses to proactive terrorism investigations. The first part briefly reviews the leading entrapment decisions in the American federal system, in Canada, in England and in the European Court of Human Rights. The second part of this paper evaluates the ability of different approaches to entrapment to detect and disapprove of discriminatory targeting of the accused in terrorism investigations. It suggests that all the entrapment defenses to various degrees allow the accused to argue that they are the victims of a discriminatory targeting decision that it is motivated by the political and religious beliefs of the accused rather than whether they will commit a crime involving terrorism. The third part of this paper explores the future evolution of entrapment defenses in light of the possible impact of terrorism cases. Although the terrorist context will likely give the state more leeway in how proactive stings are conducted, the state’s initial decision to target the accused should be carefully examined by the courts in all the jurisdictions examined in this article. Courts should be cautious about allowing the accused to be targeted for intrusive strings simply on the basis of their association with places of political or religious extremism. In the long run, requiring the state to have reasonable suspicion or to establish a predisposition to commit a terrorist crime will bolster the legitimacy of applying the criminal sanction to terrorists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".