Entrapment is typically a defense when government agents induce a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only for minor offenses
• D. Only after confession

Answer: (A)

Entrapment defense hinges on government actions creating criminal intent in someone who wouldn’t have acted without that pressure. The key idea is that liability should not attach when the government induces you to commit a crime you were not predisposed to commit.

Two elements matter. First, there must be inducement by a government agent—someone like an undercover officer or informant who persuades, pressures, or provides a means to commit the offense. Second, the defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime before the government involvement. If the person would have engaged in the conduct anyway, the defense doesn’t apply.

This defense can be used for any offense, not just minor ones, and it isn’t tied to whether the person has confessed. A classic example is an undercover operation that repeatedly urges someone to sell drugs despite the person having no prior intent to do so; if the person would not have committed the crime absent the government’s inducement, entrapment is a viable defense.