Which of the following best describes the affirmative defense of 'entrapment'?

Prepare for the New York City Corrections Peace Officer Test. Review multiple choice questions with detailed explanations. Get equipped for your exam success!

The affirmative defense of 'entrapment' is best captured by the idea that it is based on coercion by authorities. In legal terms, entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers use improper methods, such as undue persuasion or coercion, to induce a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. This defense acknowledges that the criminal act was precipitated not by the individual's own predisposition to commit such acts, but rather by the proactive involvement of law enforcement in creating the opportunity to commit the crime.

For the other options, the claim of lack of intent typically pertains to defenses where a defendant argues that they did not have the necessary intent to commit a crime. A mental health-related defense would involve arguing that a defendant was not competent to commit a crime due to mental illness. Lastly, a claim of ignorance of the law involves the assertion by a defendant that they were unaware that their actions were illegal, which is generally not a valid legal defense. In contrast, entrapment specifically relates to the methods used by authorities to elicit criminal behavior from an otherwise law-abiding citizen, making the correct description centered on coercion by those in law enforcement.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Examzify

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy