Ever heard of benefit of the doubt, or extenuating circumstances?
Ok, we know the guy cheated on this paper.
There's a whole lot we don't know though:
who is this guy?
what led to the cheating?
was it his first offense?
is this paper really relevant to his professional career?
was he looking to profit from it?
Many more things we don't know and for which it's usually better to handle such things away from the Internet.
For one, I'm not excusing the crime, I'm merely stating that the punishment should fit. Secondly, you sound pretty adamant in your declaration. You know, having had my share of experience with the human element, I'm sometimes curious with the attitude of the morally superior people who can't see shades of gray and are so willing to cast the first stone. I wonder what we would uncover if we were to put their own lives under the magnifier.
>I wonder what we would uncover if we were to put their own lives under the magnifier.
I'm unclear as to what this has to do with the fact that plagiarism is always wrong, 100% of the time. Just because one may be guilty of doing something they know is wrong doesn't mean their declaration of that action being wrong is somehow invalid.
Ok, we know the guy cheated on this paper.
There's a whole lot we don't know though: who is this guy? what led to the cheating? was it his first offense? is this paper really relevant to his professional career? was he looking to profit from it?
Many more things we don't know and for which it's usually better to handle such things away from the Internet.