What does this have to do with entrapment?

Refer to the comments on the OP's post for clarification of his question, thank you.

I'm sorry, but none of OP's comments make it clear to me why the question of whether the postrefusal persistence constitutes harassment is relevant to the question of entrapment. None of his or her comments even mentions entrapment. Furthermore, the apparent equation of a "normally law-abiding" woman with an "average" woman concerns me. The first could allow one to consider a range of behaviors and attitudes even if they are not common.

@phoog Yes, while I understand the sensitivity of the subject (being a woman myself, btw), I think this is getting slightly off topic because there are further issues with this question even if it were established that this a coercive kind of harassment.

The OP's question could be summarized as, "what part of this situation meets the definition of entrapment that we were taught in class?" The OP does not know why, but the class defined entrapment as including pressuring, which is his best guess. Considering that almost the exact same behavior (sexual advance is made, rejected, re-attempted) would qualify as textbook sexual harassment in a workplace, this would follow - especially given the OP's further indication that we're to assume "law-abiding" is considered "average" in this case.

@phoog Yes, my equation of "normally law-abiding" and "average" may have been a cheap move, but I thought it might be permissible given the intersection of the two sets must also be most of the set of women, since otherwise most women would not normally be law-abiding.

One of the further issues is that Betty didn't complete a crime at all. The crime of agreeing to exchange money for sex (prostitution) also requires an overt act toward completing the exchange (PC647b), e.g. inviting the buyer to a private location. Since she did not make such an overt act, I wonder if this situation could be something other than entrapment. Maybe false arrest?

I don't think focusing on Betty's behavior is going to lead to the answer of, "Why was this entrapment?" because Betty said "No" the first time - not, "No, that's not enough money." "No" does not leave the question open to negotiation; the fact that Officer Jones ignored this is vital. How many times does she have to say no before it's considered sufficient refusal? This situation becomes sexual assault.

@OpenSorceress The officer didn't touch her before the arrest and there is no suggestion he did so during arrest. You are now inhibiting my getting an answer to my question by focusing on sexual harassment. If you continue, I will hold you in contempt of court.

@TQuile1948 I don't suppose that "most women" is a particularly relevant concept. On its face, the question of inducing a normally law-abiding person could be answered in the affirmative if there is at least one normally law-abiding person who would be so induced. I don't know how courts actually apply the rule, however. And, OpenSorceress, I still don't see why sexual assault is relevant here. Does the officer's commission of a crime have a bearing on whether the target is entrapped?

@phoog The sexual harassment idea was that a woman feeling threatened may feel she needs to agree to the exchange in order not to be hurt. There is no suggestion that Jones was threatening, but OpenSorceress seems to have been arguing that the second offer of more money would make a woman feel threatened and therefore coerced into the agreement. And yes that's a good point, I guess "a normally law-abiding citizen" can also mean a single individual who, for example, has no criminal record.

@TQuile1948 whether he touched her has little bearing on whether he sexually harassed her, at least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

@phoog That's true for "harassment", but the term "assault" was used, which is different - it requires touching.

There is no suggestion that she does not feel threatened by the unwanted, persistent solicitations of a strange man. If we're applying "average woman" to this scenario, that is. (Also, I meant that if the situation had moved forward in a sexual manner, coerced consent would result in sexual assault. Sorry if that was unclear.)

@phoog According to this website, California entrapment laws zero in on the officer's conduct; the accused's intent, criminal history, and/or character are not relevant to whether they were, in fact, entrapped. I guess it comes down to the fact that when propositioned, she refused; it doesn't matter if she's a career bank robber, as long as she's not a sex worker by trade. (And again, she said no.)

@OpenSorceress Please see my above comments. You are still diverting the discussion.

If I am diverting the discussion, I must not understand the question or the point of inquiry and will refrain from participating without clarification. Good luck.