Explaining the Emergence of Entrapment in Post-9/11 Terrorism Investigations
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.
- Aaronson, T. (2013). The terror factory. New York: Ig Publishing.Google Scholar
- Aaronson, T. (2015). The sting: How the FBI created a terrorist. The Intercept. 16 March. Accessed January 2, 2018, from https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/.
- Ashworth, A. (1999). What is wrong with entrapment? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, (Dec), 293–317.Google Scholar
- 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
- Chambliss, W. (2001). Power, politics and crime. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
- Davis, K., & Heilbroner, D. (2014). The Newburgh sting [motion picture]. United States: Q-Ball Productions.Google Scholar
- Dratel, J. (2011). The literal third way in approaching “material support for terrorism”. Wayne Law Review, 57(1), 11–97.Google Scholar
- Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward Puritans. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- German, M. (2013). Manufacturing terrorists. Reason, 56. Accessed February 11, 2019, from https://reason.com/archives/2013/03/15/manufacturing-terrorists.
- Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2013). Rediscovering grounded theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, D. (2002). The racial state. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Green, P., & Ward, T. (2004). State crime: Governments, violence and corruption. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
- Grewcock, M. (2008). State crime: Some conceptual issues. In T. Anthony & C. Cunneen (Eds.), Critical criminology companion (pp. 146–157). Sydney: Hawkins.Google Scholar
- Hay, B. (2005). Sting operations, undercover agents, and entrapment. Missouri Law Review, 70(2), 387–431.Google Scholar
- Human Rights Watch. (2014). Illusion of justice: Human rights abuses in US terrorism prosecutions. Accessed January 2, 2018, from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2014/07/21/illusion-justice-0.
- Joh, E. (2009). Breaking the law to enforce it: Undercover police participation in crime. Stanford Law Review, 62(Dec.), 155–198.Google Scholar
- Jones, A. (2009). The 2008 FBI guidelines: Contradiction of original purpose. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 19(1), 137–174.Google Scholar
- 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
- Larkin P. (2013). Public choice theory and overcriminalization. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36(2), 715–793.Google Scholar
- 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
- Marcus, P. (2009). The entrapment defense. New York: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
- Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: U. of California.Google Scholar
- McCulloch, J., & Wilson, D. (2016). Pre-crime: Pre-emption, precaution and the future. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. (2016). Chasing ghosts: The policing of terrorism. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rothe, D. L. (2009). State criminality: The crime of all crimes. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
- Sageman, M. (2016). Misunderstanding terrorism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
- Said, W. (2010). The terrorist informant. Washington Law Review, 85, 687–738.Google Scholar
- St. John, C., Cabral, L. & Sutcliffe, D. (2015). (T)error [Motion Picture]. United States: Ro*co.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Swenson, S. (2011). ACLU lens: FBI using biased counterterrorism training materials. Accessed January 3, 2018, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/aclu-lens-fbi-using-biased-counterterrorism-training-materials.