[docker_up]

I don't understand the outrage.

He was convicted of a crime, and he served his time. In hindsight, the sentence was too light, but as regular people are we really supposed to understand all the details? If I met someone who went to jail, should she be exiled forever after serving her sentence? I just don't understand. And people get lenient sentences all the time, am I as a non-lawyer supposed to understand this and then give my own sentence on top of that? Or should some people who commit crimes should never, ever be allowed to interact with other humans again?

As far as I can tell, from the perspective of those around him in 2014, Epstein was convicted of a crime, and served his time. By 2014, he had committed no further crimes from what people knew at the time, so why exactly is this an outrage. Obviously in 2019, we know that he committed further crimes and he rightly went to jail, and it's sad that he won't face justice. But in 2014, did anyone know this and should they be treated so harshly if they didn't?

The only real problem was covering up the donation, which Ito definitely should have been fired for, but I don't understand why Epstein at that time should have been considered a persona non grata.

The biggest question is: should criminals never ever be forgiven for their crimes? And should anyone who decides to forgive them and associate with them also be considered despicable as well? Or is it just some criminals depending on their crime? Who judges which crimes should never be forgiven and which should?

[chasing]

I will reserve the right to not do business with pedophiles and sex traffickers — even if they have served time in prison for their crimes. And I reserve the right to judge people who do harshly, especially since I know that horrible people sometimes use these sorts of donations to launder their reputation and I don’t want to be anywhere near that.

Want to remain a part of polite civic society? Don’t rape kids.

[docker_up]

I believe in your right to do so.

But what about people who feel otherwise and think that by serving out his sentence he has paid for their sins? If those people associate with criminals who have served their sentence, are those people worse in your eyes? It seems like not only is redemption for criminals no longer allowed, but you're not allowed to believe in redemption for others as well.

[chasing]

I don’t know what we’re arguing. If you want to professionally associate with people who have raped and exploited kids from a position of extreme wealth and privilege, then I guess you’re probably legally allowed to, as long as you’re not putting people in danger. You have to decide where you’re at on that. I know where I’m at. I think most people do. Which is why they’re disgusted.

[docker_up]

The question isn't about legality. It's about morality. Is it morally wrong to judge people who decide to associate with criminals after they have served their sentence? That to me is the crux of the issue here.

What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?

[NateEag]

> What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?

Sounds about right.

I'll add that it is difficult to forgive people who show no remorse for their crimes.

There are also certain crimes and evil actions that are hard to forgive, period. Sexual abuse, rape, and murder are all very hard to let go of (with very good reason), and even more so when the victims are children.

Epstein checks all those boxes, which is why even the people around him are so tainted by association.

[chasing]

> Is it morally wrong to judge people who decide to associate with criminals after they have served their sentence?

No. Judge away.

> What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?

Correct.

[KZeillmann]

I think the bigger issue with Epstein specifically is that it was an open secret that he hadn't changed anything about his behavior

[empath75]

He never served his time and he continued to commit crimes and yes, people are allowed to not want to associate with someone who raped children and helped others to rape children.

[telaelit]

He raped and trafficked underage girls. He video taped them and flaunted them around powerful people. You really want to defend a monster like that?

[gfodor]

The poster is not defending Epstein (is anyone?) but is instead defending (in the abstract) people who may have met him, heard that he had been convicted and served time for sociliting underage women, and, given no other information about him, decided that given he had served his time with no further convictions that he had been rehabilitated and should not be alienated.

For every Epstein, there are others who have been convicted of similar (or worse) crimes who, ten years later, have served their time, are reformed, and are no longer a threat to society. This doesn't mean you don't have the right to choose to avoid interacting with them (I personally wouldn't when it comes to underage solicitation as was Epstein's conviction), but I'm inclined to agree with the poster that I wouldn't morally judge those who do because they on good faith, and with no contrary evidence, assume the person has faced justice and has been rehabilitated. I think it's important that as a society we don't have a general rule that it's OK to discriminate against convicted felons -- it seems wise and just to, in general, try to forgive and be fair to those who have been convicted of a crime in the past and who have no other evidence to disprove the claim they have changed and are rehabilitated.

To me this has no bearing on the details of this specific case here, because based upon peoples' behavior it seems likely that everyone involved actually knew this guy was still an abuser after his conviction. It sounds like Epstein made a point of telling people about his behavior as a means of controlling them, so in general anyone who took money from this guy I think is guilty of at the very least a moral failure.

[docker_up]

Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm making.

And in this specific case, it sounds like the MIT director attempted to conceal donations from someone he knew was banned, so his resignation is just.

[docker_up]

I'm perfectly okay with executing rapists, sex traffickers, etc, if that were the sentence imposed.

But if you don't impose a life sentence, but then believe a person should continue to pay for their crimes after the amount determined by a court of law, isn't that hypocrisy? Having someone serve their sentence in jail but then making them never able to interact in society again because of outrage over their crime is fundamentally unfair. If you're going to do that, then just execute them or throw them in jail forever, because that's effectively what they're doing. And as I said, I'm perfectly okay with making execution for crimes the punishment for a large swathe of crimes, including everything that Epstein did.

And even worse, if someone believes that a person deserves the right to be forgiven for their sins, and they are thrown into the same bucket for even associating with them, is that even fair?

Apparently Bill Gates met with Epstein several times after his conviction. Should he be punished as well?

[currymj]

here's a story, originally published in 2010, about Jeffrey Epstein:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170606013136/http://www.thedai...

People knew, or should have known, who they were dealing with.

[baby]

Wow. How is it legal to donate to your local police dep? That’s like legal bribery. Tax payers’ money is supposed to pay for this.

[topspin]

The way this usually happens is via donations to FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) organizations.