this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
1110 points (98.1% liked)
Greentext
4437 readers
874 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't this basically the same thing as entrapment?
Entrapment is coercing someone into committing a crime they wouldn't have otherwise.
This was a honeypot. A bait for those who were already looking to cheat.
There's no evidence that those who cheated were already going to.
The prof said it was only suspected that students were cheating, and instead of investigating and collecting evidence, he fabricated evidence through his own encouragement of the same crime he seeks to denounce.
Entrapment is basically associated with an implied threat, with that threat people do things they normally wouldn't, if there was no threat then it's less likely to be considered entrapment.
Also entrapment only matters for criminal justice, you getting fucked at university for cheating isn't going to care about how entrapment works.
I didn't mean to argue that it's entrapment specifically. I do think that the prof was in wrong, though.
no, not at all. simply presenting someone with an opportunity to break the rules isn't entrapment, you'd have to threaten or coerce them into breaking the rules.