Critical Criminology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 467–483 | Cite as

Explaining the Emergence of Entrapment in Post-9/11 Terrorism Investigations

  • Jesse J. NorrisEmail author


A growing number of studies have examined post-9/11 terrorism sting operations, typically concluding that entrapment is frequent in these cases. Yet no research has documented the full array of mechanisms driving these preemptive prosecutions. Based on in-depth interviews and documentary research, this article identifies the key factors shaping the widespread emergence of entrapment in terrorism sting operations. It concludes that an interconnected set of discursive and policy shifts, institutional processes, and cognitive biases explains the post-9/11 proliferation of terrorism prosecutions with compelling entrapment claims. Neo-orientalism is proposed as the ultimate driver that has set into motion and enabled many of these mechanisms, giving rise to a cultural and political economy of convictions in which a type of racialized police misconduct—itself a state crime—is normalized and rewarded.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Aaronson, T. (2013). The terror factory. New York: Ig Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Aaronson, T. (2015). The sting: How the FBI created a terrorist. The Intercept. 16 March. Accessed January 2, 2018, from
  3. Alimahomed-Wilson, S. (2018). When the FBI knocks: Racialized state surveillance of Muslims. Critical Sociology. Scholar
  4. Ashworth, A. (1999). What is wrong with entrapment? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, (Dec), 293–317.Google Scholar
  5. Aziz, S. (2011/2012). Caught in a preventive dragnet: Selective counterterrorism in a post 9/11 America. Gonzaga Law Review, 47(2), 429–492.Google Scholar
  6. Brent, J., & Kraska, P. (2010). Moving beyond our methodological default: A case for mixed methods. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambliss, W. (2001). Power, politics and crime. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Damphousse, K., & Shields, C. (2007). The morning after: Assessing the effect of major terrorism events on prosecution strategies and outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(2), 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, K., & Heilbroner, D. (2014). The Newburgh sting [motion picture]. United States: Q-Ball Productions.Google Scholar
  10. De Goede, M., & De Graaf, B. (2013). Sentencing risk: Temporality and precaution in terrorism trials. International Political Sociology, 7(3), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lint, W., & Kassa, W. (2015). Evaluating US counterterrorism policy: Failure, fraud, or fruitful spectacle? Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 23(3), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dratel, J. (2011). The literal third way in approaching “material support for terrorism”. Wayne Law Review, 57(1), 11–97.Google Scholar
  13. Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward Puritans. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. German, M. (2013). Manufacturing terrorists. Reason, 56. Accessed February 11, 2019, from
  16. Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2013). Rediscovering grounded theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg, D. (2002). The racial state. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, J. (1975). For Harold Lasswell: Some reflections on human dignity, entrapment, informed consent, and the plea bargain. Yale Law Journal, 84(4), 683–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, P., & Ward, T. (2004). State crime: Governments, violence and corruption. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  20. Grewcock, M. (2008). State crime: Some conceptual issues. In T. Anthony & C. Cunneen (Eds.), Critical criminology companion (pp. 146–157). Sydney: Hawkins.Google Scholar
  21. Hallsworth, S. (2006). Racial targeting and social control: Looking behind the police. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 14(3), 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hay, B. (2005). Sting operations, undercover agents, and entrapment. Missouri Law Review, 70(2), 387–431.Google Scholar
  23. Human Rights Watch. (2014). Illusion of justice: Human rights abuses in US terrorism prosecutions. Accessed January 2, 2018, from
  24. Jackson, R. (2007). Constructing enemies: ‘Islamic terrorism’ in political and academic discourse. Government and Opposition, 42(3), 394–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, R. (2015). The epistemological crisis of counterterrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(1), 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joh, E. (2009). Breaking the law to enforce it: Undercover police participation in crime. Stanford Law Review, 62(Dec.), 155–198.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, A. (2009). The 2008 FBI guidelines: Contradiction of original purpose. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 19(1), 137–174.Google Scholar
  28. Kramer, R., & Michalowski, R. (2005). War, aggression and state crime: A criminological analysis of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 446–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laguardia, F. (2013). Terrorists, informants, and buffoons: The case for downward departure as a response to entrapment. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 17(1), 171–214.Google Scholar
  30. Larkin P. (2013). Public choice theory and overcriminalization. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36(2), 715–793.Google Scholar
  31. Lichterman, P., & Reed, I. (2015). Theory and contrastive explanation in ethnography. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(4), 585–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch, M. (2015). Afterword: Criminal justice and the problem of institutionalized bias-comments on theory and remedial action. UC Irvine Law Review, 5(4), 935–943.Google Scholar
  33. Marcus, P. (2009). The entrapment defense. New York: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  34. Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: U. of California.Google Scholar
  35. McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2014). Toward a profile of lone wolf terrorists: What moves an individual from radical opinion to radical action. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCulloch, J., & Wilson, D. (2016). Pre-crime: Pre-emption, precaution and the future. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. (2016). Chasing ghosts: The policing of terrorism. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  38. Naseem, A. (2012). The literal truth about terrorism: An analysis of post-9/11 popular US non-fiction books on terrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5(3), 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris, J. J. (2015). Why the FBI and the courts are wrong about entrapment and terrorism. Mississippi Law Journal, 84(5), 1257–1327.Google Scholar
  40. Norris, J. J. (2016). Entrapment and terrorism on the left: An analysis of post-9/11 cases. New Criminal Law Review, 19(2), 236–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2015). Estimating the prevalence of entrapment in post-9/11 terrorism cases. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(3), 609–677.Google Scholar
  42. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2018a). Entrapment allegations in right-wing terrorism cases: A mixed-methods analysis. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 53(June), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2018b). Racial and Other Sociodemographic Disparities in Terrorism Sting Operations. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. Scholar
  44. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2018c). Temporal trends in US counterterrorism sting operations, 1989–2014. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 11(2), 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peeters, R. (2015). The price of prevention: The preventative turn in crime policy and its consequences for the role of the state. Punishment & Society, 17(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roach, K. (2011). Entrapment and equality in terrorism prosecutions: A comparative examination of North American and European approaches. Mississippi Law Journal, 80(4), 1455–1490.Google Scholar
  47. Ross, J. (2004). Impediments to transnational cooperation in undercover policing: A comparative study of the United States and Italy. American Journal of Comparative Law, 52(3), 569–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross, J. (2014). Undercover policing and the varieties of regulatory approaches in the United States. American Journal of Comparative Law, 62(Supp.), 673-683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rothe, D. L. (2009). State criminality: The crime of all crimes. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  50. Rothe, D. L., & Collins, V. E. (2014). The normality of political administration and state violence: Casuistry, law, and drones. Critical Criminology, 22(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sageman, M. (2016). Misunderstanding terrorism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  52. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  53. Said, W. (2010). The terrorist informant. Washington Law Review, 85, 687–738.Google Scholar
  54. Said, W. (2015). Crimes of terror. Oxford: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. St. John, C., Cabral, L. & Sutcliffe, D. (2015). (T)error [Motion Picture]. United States: Ro*co.Google Scholar
  56. Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  57. Swenson, S. (2011). ACLU lens: FBI using biased counterterrorism training materials. Accessed January 3, 2018, from
  58. Szpunar, P. (2017). Premediating predisposition: Informants, entrapment, and connectivity in counterterrorism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(4), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner, J. (2012). Theoretical principles of sociology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward, G. (2015). The slow violence of state organized race crime. Theoretical Criminology, 19(3), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welch, M. (2004). Trampling human rights in the war on terror: Implications to the sociology of denial. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 12(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York At FredoniaFredoniaUSA

Personalised recommendations