Are all lies created equal?

[HoustonGM]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/sh...created-equal/

Two quotes, one from the article linked to in that blog entry, and then one from the blog entry itself.

When police induce a previously-innocent person to commit a criminal offense, the police have engaged in "entrapment." Entrapment is a defense to a criminal prosecution, even though a non-governmental actor offering an inducement of the same sort would not provide an excuse to the very same conduct by the defendant. If the government repeatedly and relentlessly tempts a person to sell drugs until the target finally does so, the target may prevail against a criminal prosecution with an entrapment defense. The basic rationale of this defense is not that the defendant did no wrong, but rather that the crime came from the government. We are thus more disturbed by the government's role in creating a crime and a criminal where there were none before, than we are by the criminal conduct itself, and thus we excuse the latter to deter and penalize the former.

When the government asks a baseball player questions about his own and his teammates' use of performance-enhancing drugs, it engages in a species of entrapment (though not one recognized as a common law defense to crime). The government knows that performance-enhancing drugs have become quite common in baseball, but its investigators and prosecutors have a difficult time gathering specific and accurate information on the subject, because players are predictably reluctant to speak openly. Understanding this state of affairs, the government conducts numerous interviews with players and asks questions, the answers to which are likely to be unhelpful and downright false. Armed with provable falsehoods, government officials no longer need to find out actual facts about drug use. All the government has to do is show that suspected baseball players lied.

We're all on board with the idea that it's not a good thing to lie to law enforcement, at least I hope so anyway. But it is instructive to remember why that's a bad thing: because to do so interferes with law enforcement's mission to protect the public and punish wrongdoers. Does the rationale against lying still hold, however, if law enforcement is truly not interested in the underlying crimes it claims to be investigating?

[TheNamelessPoet]

If I lie and say my g/f doesnt look fat in a dress or like whether I murdered and raped 852 children... I thnk the second one may be just a tad worse

[gRYFYN1]

Its all very tidy to point out little things, BUT ..

They were investigating steroid use, they asked Tejada a question, and he lied mostly to protect his own ass and that is the gov'ts fault? Tjada COULD have just told the truth, he COULD have not been a lying rat that conveniently forgot how to speak english. But those are all for too high a standard to hold anyone to.

Like her traffic law example, it is impossible for police to pull over everyone who violates every traffic law so when someone breaks the law and gets pulled over by police it may be the police's fault ?

That's like asking your child if he ate all the cookies when you know he did, and you know he will most likely deny it. So you shouldn't reprimand him for lying about it ?

AH and TNP: the first example your a lying to protect someone else's feelings and the second you are lying to cover a crime, yes different and Tejada was lying to cover up a crime.

[HoustonGM]

AH and TNP: the first example your a lying to protect someone else's feelings and the second you are lying to cover a crime, yes different and Tejada was lying to cover up a crime.

But a not a crime that the government was actually interested in nailing anybody on...which is the situation the article/ShysterBall brings up. Had the government been trying to prosecute Adam Piatt for steroid distribution, say, Tejada's lie would've been very bad...but the government wasn't doing that. They weren't even really investigating anything other than trying to figure out what baseball players did steroids. That's the 'entrapment' the article talks about. They set out "investigating" something and interrogating tons of players who know that the government isn't actually interested in prosecuting no-name players for steroid possession, but then the government nails players to the wall for lying, even though that lie didn't obstruct any investigation or interfere with with "protecting the public and punishing the wrongdoers."

[etothep]

But a not a crime that the government was actually interested in nailing anybody on...which is the situation the article/ShysterBall brings up. Had the government been trying to prosecute Adam Piatt for steroid distribution, say, Tejada's lie would've been very bad...but the government wasn't doing that. They weren't even really investigating anything other than trying to figure out what baseball players did steroids. That's the 'entrapment' the article talks about. They set out "investigating" something and interrogating tons of players who know that the government isn't actually interested in prosecuting no-name players for steroid possession, but then the government nails players to the wall for lying, even though that lie didn't obstruct any investigation or interfere with with "protecting the public and punishing the wrongdoers."

This article makes quite a damn leap in comparing lying when you're asked straight up by Congress if you took steroids or not & comparing that to entrapment. Is it then entrapment when they ask a murder suspect if he committed the murder as well? The thing is, players knew they were under oath before Congress, and lied. That's pretty damn cut & dry as far as perjury is concerned. It would be entrapment if Congressmen had prompted him to lie in order to help their own motives, and then come back & try to prosecute him for perjury, but I don't think that's the case here.

The thing is, MLB has anti-trust protection from the gov't, so yes, it is under Congress' jurisdiction and interest to make sure that they deem MLB to be law-abiding and 'fair' as it has certain protections most other corporations and businesses don't have (NFL doesn't have such protections to my knowledge). This is to pre-empt the, well if Congress wasn't putting their noses where they don't belong argument.

[HoustonGM]

The point is that the government isn't actually investigating into a crime. Their goal is not to find out who did steroids and prosecute those that did. They're investigating steroid use, but not with the intent of prosecuting anybody for it. The question that comes out of this is "Is lying that obstructs an investigation into a crime worse than lying that does not obstruct any such investigation?" To me, that answer is yes. That's why the murder example doesn't fit. The government is investigating a murder with the intent to prosecute the offender. That's different than the government investigating who did steroids, with no intent to prosecute them for the steroid use.

[etothep]

The point is that the government isn't actually investigating into a crime. Their goal is not to find out who did steroids and prosecute those that did. They're investigating steroid use, but not with the intent of prosecuting anybody for it. The question that comes out of this is "Is lying that obstructs an investigation into a crime worse than lying that does not obstruct any such investigation?" To me, that answer is yes. That's why the murder example doesn't fit. The government is investigating a murder with the intent to prosecute the offender. That's different than the government investigating who did steroids, with no intent to prosecute them for the steroid use.

As someone who isn't interested in steroid use in sports, I admittedly haven't followed a lot of the steroid cases, but I think it would be hard for them to prove diffinitively if someone did steroids a decade ago, but maybe I'm just not up to speed on this. This also assumes that there is no statute of limitations on the crime of taking what the gov't deems to be illegal or restricted use narcotics (no clue what class anabolic steroids &/or HGH fall under). It would seem to me that they are simply going after a player's ignorance in prosecuting them for perjury. If more players would simply say what they did & who they got the roids from, maybe the gov't would start going after those developing & disbursing the roids.

Again, I don't have any vested interest in these MLB steroid cases & thus don't know any specifics, but that's been my view on what's going on since the initial Congressional meeting w/ sosa, mac & co

[HoustonGM]

That's basically correct. Since they obviously can't nail any of the players on steroid charges for a multitude of reasons including the ones you listed, but still want to them, they go after them for perjury, which is essentially the form of "entrapment" the article talks about.

I have no problem with them going after steroid distributers. Well, I do, but that's because I don't think steroids should be illegal, which is beside the point. Given that steroids are illegal, they should be cracking down on the developers and those distributing drugs. While they do do some of that, they're placing so much effort into nailing the users (and, again, since they can't actually nail them for use, they have to get them to perjure themselves) that the more "noble deed" gets lost in the shuffle.

[etothep]

That's basically correct. Since they obviously can't nail any of the players on steroid charges for a multitude of reasons including the ones you listed, but still want to them, they go after them for perjury, which is essentially the form of "entrapment" the article talks about.

I have no problem with them going after steroid distributers. Well, I do, but that's because I don't think steroids should be illegal, which is beside the point. Given that steroids are illegal, they should be cracking down on the developers and those distributing drugs. While they do do some of that, they're placing so much effort into nailing the users (and, again, since they can't actually nail them for use, they have to get them to perjure themselves) that the more "noble deed" gets lost in the shuffle.

I agree that they shouldn't be illegal, hence why I care about these stories as much as I did about Phelps hitting the bong.

[kenny1234]

The problem with the logic is the assumption that a person is legally required to tell the truth only in the case that there is an underlying crime. Congress investigates issues that are not criminal all the time, and they do it by interviewing the people involved. Those people are legally required to tell the truth - if they weren't it would be difficult for Congress to investigate anything.

[reflections]

That's basically correct. Since they obviously can't nail any of the players on steroid charges for a multitude of reasons including the ones you listed, but still want to them, they go after them for perjury, which is essentially the form of "entrapment" the article talks about.

I have no problem with them going after steroid distributers. Well, I do, but that's because I don't think steroids should be illegal, which is beside the point. Given that steroids are illegal, they should be cracking down on the developers and those distributing drugs. While they do do some of that, they're placing so much effort into nailing the users (and, again, since they can't actually nail them for use, they have to get them to perjure themselves) that the more "noble deed" gets lost in the shuffle.

Well the Government loves getting the users in jail a lot more than the actual developers and distributors. The Drug sham...I mean War has shown that.

[kenny1234]

While they do do some of that, they're placing so much effort into nailing the users (and, again, since they can't actually nail them for use, they have to get them to perjure themselves) that the more "noble deed" gets lost in the shuffle.

Yet I don't think they are intending to prosecute any player for using. They ask the player - did you use steroids? The player has two choices - answer honestly, face the consequences of their sport/fans and not go to jail. Or answer dishonestly and risk perjury. I don't think Congress would have pressed for charges against a player that admitted to using steroids - but they don't like to be lied to.

[gRYFYN1]

I'm not sure how it is entrapment in any sense.

from http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/

In criminal law, a person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit

None of those things were done to Tejada, he willfully lied in order to make himself look good.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. In order to be found to be a victim of entrapment, the entrapped person must have been willing and willing to commit the crime prior to the alleged entrapment. The mere providing of an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party.

Again he was ready and willing to lie, yes the government provided him an opurtunity by asking him a question, but never did they force, entice or persuade him to do so.

If your arguement is the Gov't did things a tad on the underhanded side, sure I'll go with that, but so was convicting Al Capone on Tax Evasion.

You've alreday stated that there was nothing the government could do if Tejada told the truth, which makes him look even dumber for lying.

[200tang]

Yet I don't think they are intending to prosecute any player for using. They ask the player - did you use steroids? The player has two choices - answer honestly, face the consequences of their sport/fans and not go to jail. Or answer dishonestly and risk perjury. I don't think Congress would have pressed for charges against a player that admitted to using steroids - but they don't like to be lied to.

Well if they're a no-name they're pretty much in a win-win situation. The government/media/fans aren't going to care about them.

[gRYFYN1]

From the original article:

When the government asks a baseball player questions about his own and his teammates' use of performance-enhancing drugs, it engages in a species of entrapment (though not one recognized as a common law defense to crime). The government knows that performance-enhancing drugs have become quite common in baseball, but its investigators and prosecutors have a difficult time gathering specific and accurate information on the subject, because players are predictably reluctant to speak openly. Understanding this state of affairs, the government conducts numerous interviews with players and asks questions, the answers to which are likely to be unhelpful and downright false.

This is saying that, when the government ask a person, about something they are investigating, and they suspect the person will lie to them, asking that question is Entrapment.

Is it all worthy of additional prosecution? well that depends on if someone thinks that the truth in the steroids issue will help moving foward, if so they punishing those who impede that is step in the right direction. If telling players that if they know of steriod use and are questioned about it they should divulge that info will help clean things up who knows.