Originally Posted by Arcade22
Originally Posted by The Norseman
I agree, this speaks to what qualities were considered permissible, politically. That, in turns, fits in with the hypocrisy some people referred to, of rightwingers strawmanning incessantly about pedophiles, intentionally conflating this with homosexuality and with liberalism in general.
But what I was speaking about is the general principle of rehabilitation.
Take his particular crimes, reprehensible though the picture is. Personally I wouldn't want my young cousin or my hypothetical future teenage children anywhere near him, but is that really fair when you think about it?
So he's a pedophile, and has been demonstrably unable to control his ...urges. (Okay, ephebophile, not pedophile -- I'm channeling that thread of the theprestige's in trotting out that term!) So anyway, after due process of law -- which could mean investigation followed by acquital, or investigation with some penalty and that penalty paid and/or time served -- the law sets him loose again, a free man.
Sure, the law is sometimes an ass, but we can't really base our actions on that principle, can we? We as private citizens, if we in any way sanctioned this man beyond the remit of the law, beyond such checks as the law has currently put on him, we'd effectivey be guilty of a kind of vigilantism. That might be illegal and, in any case, would be unfair to the man. Pedophilia, ephebophilia, these probably cannot be 'cured', but the man may have learnt to put a lid on it. The chance of repeat offense may be real, but we can't, surely, deny the man the chance of rehabilitation, we can't, surely, sanction him beyond what the law has prescribed?
This may be an instance where our armchair judgment might do well to go against our immediate gut feeling (which gut feeling is not unjustifiably further riled given the whole rightwing hypocrisy thing, but still).