It's a pretty safe bet, though.
I'd nearly argue that it would be in his worst interest to participate in defrauding something since it might have revealed his horrible offenses.
Nobody said that
> they are a horrible, detestable human
Nobody said that either
All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.
No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument.
Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.
1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".
or
2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".
being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement
The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."
But only because that'd be pretty hard to pull off.