The conclusion reached is that such operations are morally justified under certain conditions, such as that they are effective, there are no lessintrusive methods available, and the inducements offered are ones that the targets of the sting could reasonably be expected to resist.The FBI informant presented himself to the group as an arms dealer.Members of the group tried to procure weapons from him, such as AK s, and were arrested.Five members of the group were convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts; two are serving life sentences, one is serving years.Cromitie initially rejected the offer but agreed after he lost his job.Stings should be distinguished from, firstly, police operations in which a police informant simply observes and <a href="http://coinwatchers.com/">Libby App Library List</a> provides information in relation to a crime, and, secondly, police operations in which an undercover operative might have minimal participation in a particular crime that has already been initiated and that would have been committed or attempted, irrespective of the actions of the undercover operative.For instance, an undercover operative might provide input into the planning of a crime but do so without initiating the crime, without inducing others to carry it out and without participating in the actual execution of the crime.Rather, stings involve law enforcement providing an opportunity for a <a href="http://res://ieframe.dll/dnserrordiagoff.htm#http://jifficlassified.ca/">Title Loaded From File</a> suspect to perform a crime in circumstances controlled by law enforcement, and they involve law enforcement offering some form of inducement to a suspect to commit the crime in question.Stings, if well planned and successful, guarantee that there is adequate evidence for a conviction. There are various legally enshrined ethical constraints on stings and accountability measures to ensure that these constraints are complied with. These constraints vary somewhat from one jurisdiction to another.However, some of these constraints will pertain to the suspect.Although the suspect has not committed that particular offence on that particular occasion since it was a manufactured event, there is an assumption that the suspect would have committed another offence like it on another occasion; therefore, there might be a requirement that the suspect has in fact committed crimes of that type on other occasions.In many jurisdictions, an important accountability mechanism is the requirement that law enforcement be granted a judicial warrant to conduct a sting.Let us now turn to the analysis of our two scenarios.The latter is grounds for further scrutiny of someone but, arguably, not for conducting a sting.This latter scenario presents potential problems, including the recognition that many criminals are unreliable witnesses; for example, they may fail to record exculpatory conversations andor commit perjury, and are prone to engage in manipulation or coercion, for example, offer an unacceptable level of inducement to the target.These problems are compounded given the incentives in play, for example, a reduction of his own sentence or a large payment if a conviction is secured.Accordingly, the reliability and, therefore, credibility of the person with a criminal background is less than that of a law enforcement officer and, as a consequence, the testimony provided should have less weight, other things being equal.Post, the FBI increased its reliance on stings in its efforts to combat terrorism and, in doing so, conducted a significant number of stings.
