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?