Stings aren't entrapment

Globe Editorial

November 25, 2008

BOSTON City Councilor Chuck Turner raised the possibility that his arrest last week on bribery charges was a case of FBI entrapment. It might be an easy sell to Turner's supporters who rallied for him yesterday on City Hall plaza. Others will take a lot more convincing.

The entrapment argument assumes that, in offering payoffs during sting operations, federal investigators have done something wrong. In fact, the FBI brings public corruption cases against hundreds of federal, state, and local officials each year, and a few juries find that the agency has gone too far. In 1998, a Chicago alderman was acquitted of bribery after the jury found he was browbeaten into taking money from a conniving waste hauler. The FBI affidavit against Turner indicates no such duress. It was Turner, the affidavit suggests, who seemed to go out of his way to get the $1,000 bribe from a cooperating witness who was seeking a liquor license. Last week, a federal grand jury indicted former state senator Dianne Wilkerson in connection with the same case.

As guardians of public welfare, elected officials must be held to the highest standard of conduct. The FBI has been sending out intermittent reminders since 1980, when several members of Congress were convicted of bribery and conspiracy in the Abscam investigation. One of those convictions was later overturned.

Voters don't expect their elected officials to be magically free of human weaknesses, including greed. But courts have ruled that stings are a legal law enforcement technique, and anyway those entrusted with the protection of the public should know to refuse offers of cash. That's why some police departments surreptiously drop wallets in front of their officers to see if the valuables will be returned. Such an act would seem like overkill in a regular workplace. But lawmakers and law enforcers take an oath, and they need to uphold the law.