Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment? And should we then shame those who do work with people who went through the justice system?

What about hiring people who are ex felons who served time?

Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with? I'd like to know ahead of time, because I want to give the right people a second chance, but also avoid having my career ruined for giving the wrong person a second chance. Which twitter mob will enumerate this for me?

Perhaps in this case the problem is that corruption resulted in Epstein getting far too light of a sentence. I think it did. Is it the fault of normal civilians for not realizing and compensating for judicial corruption? Should we ruin their careers for the failure of our elected officials to prevent corruption?

I'm generally of the opinion that the way we treat registered sex offenders is counter-productive and that this article seems to be implying for more guilt than is reasonable, but saying that Epstein served his time is a stretch. He settled MANY civil cases out of court, and every judge involved that I'm aware of stinks to high heaven. First case found about 40 underage victims of things like paying them to undress and massage him, yet he comes away with a single assault charge. Eventually he is sent to jail, but basically comes and goes as he pleases - with a pretty generous work release schedule and probation agreement that he ultimately didn't even have to stick to. For a year.

Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders. It was well known at the time that he got off very easy for his crimes. There was a lot of media coverage.

Optically it's bad, morally it's bad. There's also more to this than just "work" as well. If someone was a convicted child rapist, would you invite them and a bunch of young women to your parties and take pictures like this?

https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728

I recognize the point you're making, and I think it's fair to an extent, Epstein was a weird disturbed man. But my general point remains: who can make this clear for me (us?) ahead of time. If the rule is "give people a second chance, except those accused of the following sex crimes -- they must be shamed forever" fine. But I want it clear. Otherwise I worry we will find ourselves in a world where everyone, in fear of their career, avoids ever associating with the wrong person.

If we think our laws aren't working, so we need Twitter vigilante shame justice, i would prefer we rework our laws

I don't think this is that unclear. 99% of people would not invite a convicted child rapist and his entourage of young women to a party, take pictures with them then fly in a private jet (already called the "Lolita Express") to his residences that have already been in the news for being the locations of child rape.

he funded some scientists, whom he met by attending scientific conventions, or attracted via TED, etc, in many cases.

I don't think there is any claim that these scientists attended his under-age orgies, and were thus granted funding.

Yeah I agree with you, that's pretty clear. But I worry about edge cases, people who affiliated with him briefly.

> Yes, it's not a good idea for high profile people (or anyone really) to work with convicted sex offenders.

Doesn't that apply to all crimes that include victims? If I understand it correctly, that's the question there: do we treat a convicted sex offender differently than, say, a murderer or ponzi scheme operator? Critique regarding his deal and the punishment aside, do they get a clean slate after they've "paid their debt to society" or not?

Should we ignore the fact that money unfortunately matters in the judiciary? There is no mechanism right now to counterbalance that greater power that comes with wealth. You are right, people who've served their time or paid their due should be afforded a second chance. After all, the goal of penalties is not revenge, it is rehabilitation: the hope that a person has changed their ways.

However, in this particular case, insofar as events have even made it to a court decision, it seems at no point this person changed their ways, and simply used his wealth to fund the legal details of continuing his behavior. I'm not sure what methods exists or what methods could be invented to account for such misuse of wealth, but it is clear this person was afforded too many second chances: he seems to have never intended to correct his behavior. It seems to me that in that space it is valid to exercise your personal right to not associate with a lastingly suspect character.

> Should we shame and refuse association with people who have already been tried and convicted and served their punishment?

1) His "punishment" was an illegally arranged joke.

2) There's a vast chasm between shaming someone convicted of a crime and Epstein's welcomed return to polite society. He should've been working a wage-slave job like the rest of us.

So to be clear, I agree. It was a miscarriage of justice. My specific question is by what metric should we decide to ruin the career of a person who worked with him? Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result?

It's a moral metric, of course. But this case is so egregious I don't even know how to answer your question.

> Should we reasonably expect all persons to notice when justice isn't served due to corruption, and then ruin their career as a result?

For a well-documented monster? YES!

Don't worry there are thousands of scientists ready to take the place of people like Pinker and the other "fallen heroes".

Has anyone's career been ruined by this association? I don't think e.g. Trump or Clinton have suffered a bit...

> Who should decide what ex-cons we can and can't associate with?

The answer to these questions is: It's totally up to you who you associate with.

There was a difference between Epstein and the typical victims of overzealous moralizing sex offense prosecution, like 19yo boyfriends of 16yo women and drunks who urinate in public.

Is it necessarily damning even then? I mean, if he had $25,000 to give to medical research, would you really care if he was a sex offender, or bank robber, or whatever?