[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.