[nabla9]

Suspicion of hypocrisy or even bad character should not affect the strength of scientist's arguments. It may increase the scrutiny of those arguments and decrease the fanboy attitude around them. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you take the default attitude that every academic is devil incarnate, then look at their argumentation separate from their character, you should be able to stay more objective.

[mc32]

No doubt Epstein is guilty of horrible crimes. And while he is a troubling character, defending troubling people hasn't usually been much of an issue (OJ Simpson, Bundy, Khalid Mohammed, etc).

So why the outrage over another bad guy? I think the obvious answer is some things are to the public conscience more terrible than others, at least at a given moment, specially if they are in the zeitgeist.

As for the weight of the testimony, that should be up to the judge and jury to decide whether it was valid. I mean, lots of these high dollar defenses rest on semantics rather than the spirit of things (tax cases, etc).

[spamizbad]

I don't really have much of an ax to grind with Pinker as an academic but I do find it very sad that he chose to use his considerable intellect to intervene on behalf of an (alleged) jet-setting billionaire pedophile sex trafficker. And I think that reflects poorly on his character as a person.

The Epsteins of the world will always have a tremendous amount of legal resources at their disposal. I wish we lived in a world where the people like Pinker would lend aid to those wrongfully on Death Row or perhaps the economically downtrodden, rather than ultra-wealthy college donors who got jammed up in what looks like, if not for their tremendous wealth and legal resources, something that should be a slam-dunk case.

[nabla9]

According to reporting for BuzfeedNews this article is based on, Pinker offered the opinion to Dershowitz and was not aware who was the subject in the case.

It was linguistic interpretation of what some sentence means. Not defense of any kind.

[spamizbad]

It's only speculation he didn't know who he was helping (and the source of that is Pinker himself). I find it hard to believe that Pinker had no idea who this was for despite Epstein's reputation, the original press coverage of the case, the fact that Dershowitz was involved (and, unlike Pinker, actually fingered by at least one of the women as a rapist).

Pinker is a great mind. I don't think his guileless version of events is a truthful account. What's most likely: This whole thing was embarrassing for his good friend Alan Dershowitz and his Alma, and if Epstein was found guilty of a lesser charge things wouldn't look so bad. He underestimated the ensuing backlash and claims he was just tossing out free legal advice for a friend.

He certainly knew after the fact that a sweetheart deal was struck with Epstein in part due to his legal input. Regardless, he allowed himself photographed with him and made no attempt to speak-out about the fact that he had no idea he was helping Epstein and in fact when on to tweet about his contributions Dershowitz in 2015.

Again, just bad judgement on the part of Pinker. He's not a monster, "bad guy" or anything, it's just frustrating he's defending elite power.

[mc32]

So, I think the right to be represented for many lawyers is like the right to free speech. If you're not willing to defend the worst, then you're not defending the right at all.

[spamizbad]

No disagreement that Epstein is entitled to a fair trial. But the scales of justice as often tipped in the favor of people with Epstein's connections.

For his original charge, he only served 13 months in prison, in a private wing of the Palm Beach Jail w/private security detail, and was permitted up to 12 hours of work release each day. We have people who do longer, harder sentences for marijuana possession.

[tzakrajs]

Totally, but he wasn't even getting paid to be the attorney. He was doing favors.

[mc32]

Hmm, good point.

An unanswered question is why are judges and juries swayed by testimony or opinion which goes contrary to the spirit of the law, unless the law is unjust. I mean in this case, it appears to have rested on how certain things in the analogue world always meant something but then when it goes on to the digital world it should take on different meaning.

Obviously this is sensitive and has controversy, but why is the topic now flagged? It's not party politics, or other really sensitive subject.

[tzakrajs]

Maybe Pinker is the type of thinker who doesn’t care about the relevance or repercussions of his ideas. But then why is he world renown and constantly in the limelight?