What about the careers of those abused by him? I'm sure the social shun and stigma of being a sexual abuse victim can be more career-destroying than that of being the perpetrator. Just look at POTUS.

A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles in the media.

There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.

the right for a fair trial with a Presumption of innocence IS A RIGHT. trial by media does not honor that right.

No, there is no right to a fair "trial by media". Quite the opposite in fact: restricting the media to a government-defined standard of "fair" would infringe upon a free press. In general, the free press is most important when it is reporting on a legal situation that opposes the government's narrative.

The right about trials is about a fair trial by the government, and is a check on the government's power to punish.

NO, I disagree the right of a fair trial holds regardless of the system. it's about the accused not the system. otherwise lynch mobs would be justified.

Being publicly criticized for your actions is not the same as being lynched. Please stop.

A lynch mob is not justified because a lynch mob goes on to enact punishment, usually via hanging, which is murder.

If you are using the word "lynch mob" in a rhetorical way to refer to people who are not depriving you of life, liberty, or property, arguments about actual lynch mobs do not apply. A so-called "lynch mob" that merely has opinions about you and does not do anything to you is not unjust any more than a high school mock trial club is unjust. A so-called "lynch mob" that has opinions about you and goes on to do entirely legal things, like exert their free speech rights to publish their opinions about you, is not unjust, either.

responding now might be inappropriate but for the record: one of the main premises of my response is that public ostracization is used as a form of punishment. ( I stated if in one of the previous comments).

historical data support my claim as wikipedia points: "Public humiliation is the dishonoring showcase of a person, usually an offender or a prisoner, especially in a public place. It was regularly used as a form of punishment in former times, and is still practiced by different means in the modern era."

"Trial by media" is not an actual trial, it's a term made up by people who don't like how the media is covering things.

I'm not sure that I follow. My point is that credible allegations of repeated rape and sexual assault should be career destroying even if they are not met with a guilty sentence in a court of law. I could not in good conscience let this person near my coworkers or colleagues for fear for their own physical safety. I don't need a court to send him to jail to make that assessment.

If you commit or admit to crimes in a non-privileged context (when talking to your therapist, doctor, lawyer, chaplain) then you have to deal with whatever consequences ensue. Nobody owes you discretion.