[ashearer]

None of GP's points would necessarily absolve a suggestible accomplice of a crime that actually occurred. The FBI's cases, on the other hand, were entirely fictitious except for the suggestible person.

It would certainly be a strong case if a suspect had actively sought the final ingredients of a self-planned act of terror, which would have killed people had the FBI not responded to the call first with fake equipment. But the objection in these cases is that when you subtract the FBI-provided motivation, plans, and equipment, all that's left are the person's own suggestibility and weak moral compass. Those don't constitute a criminal act in themselves. Experts could argue that they aren't likely to have ever resulted in one.

The religious targeting aspect is even more unfair. As far as I know, the FBI isn't spending similar time and resources to identify disaffected and suggestible non-Muslims, and then convincing them of the glory and honor awaiting them if only they would help push a button to bomb a local mosque.

Edit: In the above example, the "predictably persuadable" person isn't criminally responsible for murder if the ride was given to an FBI agent, and there was no actual robbery or murder.