> I am not sure you are engaging in good faith if you believe rape can be non-violent, but the article makes very clear it was known to basically everyone at th

> I am not sure you are engaging in good faith if you believe rape can be non-violent, but the article makes very clear it was known to basically everyone at the time - so many people that Ito had to lie about where the money was coming from. I didn't say that rape was non-violent. I said that what Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of in 2008 was non-violent. And it was. > Believing someone should be able to vote and be in jail are not in any way contradictory; certainly not that someone should be able to vote but not be able to throw their money around to excuse their sexual abuse! I suppose the conceptual contradiction is in the belief held by most liberals (in which I include myself) that prisoners who've served their sentence ought to be reintegrated into society, and as much as possible treated like normal citizens. They ought to be able to vote. They ought to be able to have jobs (with some specific exceptions: sex offenders working with children, financial fraudsters working on wall street, etc..), and generally ought to be treated normally. Now, in retrospect we all know that Epstein was continuing to commit his crimes. But it is unfair to judge people like the MIT Media Lab based on what we know today, rather than what they knew then. What they knew then was that he was convicted of hiring an underage prostitute in 2008. A serious crime to be sure, but one for which he had served his, admittedly light, sentence at the time.