Question-1

Please read the hypothetical below and click on the link above respond to the questions.The rubric is found in the forum "Rules of the Board".

HYPOTHETICAL:

Thomas Townsend has an embarrassing criminal past. In 1985, he was convicted of pedophilia, having had sexual relations with a 15-year-old child (at the time, Townsend was 29 years old.) By all accounts, Townsend has led a relatively uneventful life over the years since 1985, spending most of his time building and selling musical instruments to earn a living, and reclusively "keeping to himself" on his property on the edge of town.

Local police investigators are curious whether Townsend has truly learned from "the error of his ways." The local sheriff has received a number of complaints from area citizens, who are appalled that a child sex offender is "among their midst." Working in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI,) local police authorities devise and implement a plan to determine whether Thomas is leading an innocent life. Over the course of an eighteen-month period, police investigators mail Townsend a circular they have created, advertising a fictitious publication called "Lustful Lads and Lasses." Among other pronouncements, the circular entices readers to "order now before publication ceases; see young boys and girls aged 12-16 engaged in all sorts of acts only big boys and girls should be allowed to do!"

Having received the circular each month and having declined on seventeen occasions, Townsend finally responds to the circular on the eighteenth occasion, mailing in the $39.95 purchase price. Local, state and federal authorities immediately intervene, arresting Townsend for solicitation of child pornographic materials.

At Townsend's arraignment hearing, his attorney moves for immediate dismissal of the charges, arguing entrapment.

QUESTIONS:

Do the police efforts described constitute entrapment? Does entrapment justify dismissal of all charges against the accused? Rather than dismissal of charges, why not simply sanction those authorities responsible for the entrapment?

Question-2

( comment on this discussion)

I believe Gunner's shirt is constitutionally protected free speech. Gunner's shirt does not explicitly encourage others to smoke and it does not pose a danger to anyone, the shirt is not obscene and does not contain any fighting words. If we also assume the hypothetical is set in contemporary times then there is the precedent of growing legalization of marijuana in the United States and with that in mind, laws were definitely not broken because it was just a shirt and thus the only thing the shirt offended was the principle's sensibilities. Gunner's shirt therefore does not have any rational limitations on it in relation to free speech and as a result the Principle is wrong to suspend Gunner. If Gunner had worn the shirt in question on school property then he could be violating the school's dress code or perhaps Gunner could be infringing on the school's code of conduct but Gunner was wearing the shirt in a public space and should be able to wear it.