From a purely law enforcement perspective this blows my mind. Rather than fighting crime, they are generating crime to them fight it. It would be like an SWE intentionally creates a bug and then fixes it in the name of "making the system bug free"
If you view the world in black-and-white with "Good" people and "Bad" people, then this makes it easier to ensnare the bad people and won't affect the good ones.
> The second seems desirable, given the "known murderer" part. And once you've setup something to do that, it becomes very easy to feed others into it.
If you haven't done the first, how do you get to the conclusion they are a "known murderer"?
If you have a known murderer that is free presumably he's already paid for his crimes, no? So luring him into doing it again is extremely anti-ethical to me.
There's no pre-crime... yet. This is where you get profiling and abuse of power everywhere.
IDK how we can say manipulating people into commiting crimes is a good option. That's a crime. If we're going to commit crimes in the name of "preventing crimes" then why not go and arrest/kill the suspect directly? It's simply a different crime, right? But since I have the monopoly on violence, I can do what I want and case closed.
FBI was created when Teddy Roosevelt used the Secret Service for political reasons and got banned from using them for most stuff. He then created the FBI by moving over all the SS agents he previously had targeting political enemies. It's always been a political operation.