Hey Chris, thanks for the education on “that web site”. I had no idea it had any connection to prostiution.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s political beliefs. I’m only saying that it’s just as wrong to jump to the conclusion that entrapment existed as it is to jump to the conclusion that entrapment didn’t exist. There’s not enough information in the article, regardless of ones belief that police officers are automatically in the wrong. It’s also pretty naive to think that the police officer in this case wasn’t just as seasoned. They’re trained pretty rigorously in how to avoid allowing any perception of entrapment to allow the judge to throw out the case on those grounds.

I’m glad you concede that “maybe using the school computer was a bad move”. It’s more than a bad move, it’s a dismissible offense for every employer I’ve worked for in both the private sector and government.

I don’t believe I am missing the point.

“Ok, maybe using the school computer was a bad move”

And she should be reprimanded accordingly.

And please spare me your naiveties when talking about police officers. We live in a policed state where law enforcement have far too much power over the general populace. If she was a seasoned performer as stated in the article she knows better than to suggest sex for money. It is up to the John to approach that topic…

You want to know how to find a crooked cop? Pick up the phone and call the police station, it really doesn’t matter who answers…

You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether prostitution should be legalized. I believe it should, but that’s neither here nor there. The fact that she used her employer’s resources to further her second career is the salient issue. That’s clearly wrong. Employer’s resources exist for employees to use to do their job as defined by the employer that provides the resources.

With regard to entrapment, we need to know far more than the article tells us. Being under cover does not constitute entrapment. Entrapment only exists when the officer is the party that suggests the illegal activity. The fact that the teacher advertised her services in the section of a Web site that’s well known for it’s connection to prostitution goes a long way to suggest that it most likely wasn’t the officer that first suggested sex for money, but the story doesn’t give enough facts to be able to clearly state that entrapment existed.

As for this woman, getting arrested and convicted of a crime would be a good test as to keeping her. If she didn’t get convicted, she should be able to stay at the school UNLESS she violated policy by using the computers for a non-work purpose and that violates a policy. You have to be able to show that any employment action against an employee is job-related. If there’s nothing in place about outside-of-work issues reflecting on the school, that will make a difference too.