◆ SpookStack

eo a a aro __ Judge Fullam's premise that providing "extremely se amount at which a bribe offer becomes so generous as. _itl x t ' f ; i rs ‘ r generous financial inducements" offends due process. is; respectfully, unsound. The subjective entrapment approach, | the only entrapment approach acceptable to the Supreme Court, see section V-A, focuses upon the predisposition of a particular defendant, so what constitutes a "generous | financial inducement" necessarily varies with the circum- stances of each person being induced. If the courts were to establish a threshold amount beyond which no public ; official could be convicted of bribery, the rich and the powerful, those most likely to be in a position to.demand large bribes, would automatically have the benefit of this defense and thé crime of bribery as we know it would become the poor public official's burden. There can be no per to constitute entrapment as a matter of law. Under the subjective entrapment approach, of course, the jury may consider all these factors on the question of predisposition, . but a per .se rule with respect to the size of monetary inducement is illogical, unworkable, and unfair. Judge Fullam recognized that in evaluating “out- rageous" conduct a court must consider the nature of the’ crime involved and the tools available to combat it. See Twigg, 588 Fad at 378 n.6. The restrictions he would place on governmental investigations of bribes, however, reflect