Antiterrorism is a national priority and undercover sting operadons are a main antiterrorism tool. As our legal system's primary device for regulating undercover stings, the scope and vigor of the entrapment defense will impact the effectiveness of antiterrorism stings. The federal courts follow the subjective test of entrapment, focusing on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, or if rather the government induced the defendant to breach a legal norm. This Article argues that given the difficulty of preventing terrorist acts and the civil liberties implications of intrusive surveillance—the alternative to stings—there should be a rebuttable presumption that anyone who provides material support to terrorism was predisposed to do so. This Article argues that terrorism is such a heinous crime that it is unlikely the government could induce someone to support such criminals unless the person was one of the few predisposed to do so.
Dru Stevenson, Entrapment and Terrorism, 49 B.C.L. Rev. 125 (2008), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol49/iss1/3