Hacker News Reader

Comment by calvinmorrison | Hacker News Reader

He pled guilty in 2008 for hiring child prostitutes. Joi mentions they met in 2013. If you don't do due dilligence, or even a cursory Google search, I believe you might bear some moral culpability in being willingly associated with a pedophile.

Frankly, nobody seems to have given lark about this guy until the new broke again this time. I'm not sure if it was his connections with many obviously famous people and the time peroid this took place, but before the MeToo movement it seems like many famous people had things like this swept under the rug or people looked the other way. I'm sure it's still happening, but hopefully more light will be shed on bad people in positions of wealth and power.

View on HN

After he paid for his crime, doesn't he deserve a second chance?

I'd argue he didn't pay his debt to society and was not rehabilitated. His previous sentence and it's execution were a complete joke. It's well documented that he continued to keep incredibly young companions and surrounded himself with plenty of "art" of scantily clad very young women.

Even if both of those had been appropriate, his sentence fair and he was making obvious efforts to avoid past behavior, you couldn't be sure that you weren't taking money that was generated from the trafficking of other human beings. That's where Ito fucked up, plain and simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Conviction_and...

This is part of the problem; at that time Epstein hadn't "paid for" his crimes in any meaningful sense.

Rehabilitation/reintegration of sex offenders after they're released from prison is a real discussion that we'll need to have as a society sooner than later, but I think we should start with the folks on probation/parole listing a walmart parking lot as their residential address because they can't find housing, not a billionaire that gets a slap on the wrist.

> If you don't do due dilligence, or even a cursory Google search, I believe you might bear some moral culpability in being willingly associated with a pedophile.

If they didn't know they were a pedophile, then they didn't willingly associate with a pedophile.

if you're taking a quarter of a million from someone whose sex offenses are listed on their wikipedia page then you didn't just not know, you didn't want to know.

He's either lying or he was willfully ignorant, both of which amount to the same complete disregard of ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com