Minnesota Law Review

Entrapped: A Reconceptualization of the Obedience to Orders Defense

“I was just following orders,” and, “The government made me do it,” are phrases from two different criminal law defenses: obedience to orders and entrapment. A military defense, obedience to orders allows a soldier to escape liability by arguing that she was obeying orders when she committed the supposed crime. The civilian defense of entrapment allows a defendant to escape liability by arguing that the police pressured her to commit the crime. Despite the fact that both defenses require a level of government involvement, courts and scholars alike have treated these defenses differently. This Article finally addresses this inconsistency and reorients obedience to orders to more closely resemble entrapment.
Currently, obedience to orders carries dual subjective and objective requirements, similar to other civilian criminal law defenses such as mistake of law and duress. A defendant must have a good faith belief and, more importantly, this belief must pass a reasonable person standard. The purpose behind objectively scrutinizing the defendant’s state of mind is to promulgate a uniform community standard for private citizens. But unlike obedience to orders, where disobeying an order could lead to criminal sanction, neither mistake of law nor duress involves any level of government pressure or coercion.
Entrapment serves as the better model for this defense because both entrapment and obedience to orders involve government agents pressuring citizens to commit crimes. Courts use two different tests for entrapment, but neither carries an objective scrutiny component targeting the defendant’s state of mind. The rationale here centers on the fact that the government plays a key role in the crime, so there is less reason to promulgate a uniform community standard. The same respective tests and underlying reasoning should apply with equal or greater force in the obedience to orders case. This Article presents the first workable reconceptualization along these lines—one that better serves soldiers caught between disobeying an order and committing a crime.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days