fajny komentarz do Sawickiej: od 43 min
komentuje sedzia z 9 letnim doswiadczeniem w trybunale konstytucyjnym

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-AURY_400

ale koles pieprzy.. sedzia ktory skazal to robil wszystko zgodnie z prawem, ale juz sedzia ktory uniewinnil to złamał prawo....... debil, hehehe

Zgoda na prowokacje byla nielegalna i bylo to naduzycie uprawnien.

Z tym, ze u nas nie ma ponoc zasady, ze odrzuca sie dowody jesli czesciowo je zdobyto dzieki jakims nieprawidlowosciom.

ale tam wolno prowokowac
chyba.

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; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

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. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

Mozna prowokowac ale przestepcow by im udowodnic wine. Ale nie wolno prowokowac niewinnych ludzi by dopiero zrobic z nich przestepce i to na dodatek prowokowac poprzez granie na uczuciach. To jest typowe skurwysynstwo i dobrze ze takich prowokacji sad nie uznal za legalne.

Cała sprawa to raczej spór prawniczy.

Wiec jeżeli Sawicka wiedziała że popełnia zbrodnie, to według prawa USA była by winna.

This.
Ale trzeba sobie popieprzyć o kompromitacji sądownictwa.

Jeśli prowokacja zostałaby przeprowadzona nielegalnie to zgodnie ze stosowaną w USA zasadą "owoców zatrutego drzewa" dowód ten nie mógłby być wykorzystany przeciwko niej.
Przynajmniej z tego co wyczytałem w internecie. Nie znam się na amerykańskim postępowaniu karnym.