Criminal Liability of an Entrapped Person Through the Prism of Goals of Punishment

ანოტაცია

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 unclear whether the goals of punishment are achievable at all if an entrapped person gets sentenced. Thus, it is necessary to comprehend the subject through the prism of goals of punishment namely: 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 reasons 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.