◆ SpookStack

™., s . “38 ment agent? If it was, was the defendant "predisposed" oe to commit the crime? This sub jective-approach=focuses——-—— upon the conduct and propensities of the particular defendant , - in each case. It is for the jury to determine, first, whether there is sufficient evidence of "inducement" and, if so, whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was "predisposed". In theory, ; the subjective approach to entrapment is grounded in legis- . lative intent: if an otherwise innocent person was entrapped by a government agent into performing a criminal act, the legislature never intended that his conduct be punished. Sorrells v. US, 287 US 435 (1932); US v. Russell, 411 US 423 (1973). "Objective" entrapment is a term applied to either of two different concepts. Under one view of “objective entrapment the focus is not upon the propensities and predis- positions of the individual defendant, but instead upon an objective standard of "persons who would normally avoid - crime and through self-struggle resist ordinary tempta- tions", Sherman v. US, 356 US 369, 384 (Frankfurter, Jey concurring), in order to determine whether the inducement . . 9 tendered by the government agent was unaccceptable.~ The. second view of “objective™ entrapment focuses upon the conduct of the government agents in each particular case to determine whether that conduct "falls below standards,,