Councilor Chuck Turner has said, according to the Herald, that his arrest is the result of a “sting operation in order to try to entrap me.” The Council is to meet today to consider what action, if any, to take against Turner. And Turner’s lawyer, Barry P. Wilson, has asked: “What happened to innocent until proven guilty?” Of the Council’s meeting, Wilson said: “This is out of control – out of control. They have no right to do this.”
Let’s agree that entrapment, if proved, is a defense to an accusation of crime. It seems to me that it is not a political defense. A politician who takes a bribe, even if entrapped and therefore not guilty of a crime, is unfit to hold office.
So Wilson’s point, attempting to connect the notion that Turner has not been proved guilty of a crime with the notion that the City Council should not act now, seems unsound to me. Assuming that Turner took the money as alleged in the affidavit, he is unfit to hold office even if he can successfully prove entrapment.
What do you think?