If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you we

If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you were caught red handed in the act, unless of course you can prove entrapment, which is extremely difficult ... when you are doing something wrong, and you know it, even if you are being pressured by those above you to do that, you still know it's wrong. This is why we have whistleblower protection and this is also why soldiers can be court-marshalled for following orders that they know to be illegal. Did he convict an innocent man due to his own wrongdoing and did he knowingly withhold evidence? Clearly. Did he prove that he was coerced into this behavior in some way, thus proving entrapment and absolving himself of any guilt in this matter? If he had, it's doubtful he would've been fined and sentenced to jail time and community service, ergo, I'd say he did not. So he did something wrong, he did so knowingly, even if he had "surrendered his sense of self" to the institution, he is still guilty of wrongdoing that destroyed another mans life - by the very same argument that the entrapped would have to prove that the entrapment led him to behave this way. What's the difference?