I am conflicted about this. On one hand I understand the emotional response and find rape and cp incredibly repulsive but on the other hand I wonder if this goe

I am conflicted about this. On one hand I understand the emotional response and find rape and cp incredibly repulsive but on the other hand I wonder if this goes too far since apparently the person served their sentence and it's been a decade since (without any inappropriate or illegal activites?). From their proposed letter[1] they say: "We are not pursuing this person throughout their professional life trying to remove their livelihood." while simultaneously saying: "In this case we see no other option than to remove the person fully from the conference and we recommend that most other C++ communities consider this as well." And they re-iterate over and over that the offender shall not be named (while simultaneously being known to quite a few people apparently - which would be a prerequisite to have the offender removed from other communities as well) and therefore the only alternative is removal to prevent the offender from abusing their position of power to harm someone again. While this is a little shaky I wonder why there should not be other options. Since apparently the board knows who X is, they could easily book security for the event and keep a tighter watch on the person. I will go out on a limb and say if person X was excluded from the conference while also seeking to repeat their offenses they will find another venue so the problem is not solved, rather offloaded on someone elses shoulders. Surely the person proposing the removal would not see that as a viable alternative? There is also a linked petition to ban convicted sex offenders from the standard meetings which I would find more rational if the crime was very recent, the person had repeatedly commited the crime or shown inappropriate behaviour since. It[2] verbatim says: "The choice WG21 has is between an individual convicted felon and diversity and inclusivity. There is no third option, as inaction is a decision for the status quo and the convict." which I find bewildering. First of all I don't understand the logic behind only including sex offenders because even in their frame of reference inclusivity would be threatened by people convicted of fellonies regarding racism or any other type of violence, and second of all - leaving their frame of reference - why is it that they insist that a person who did something bad will do it again. They make it sound like the harm that has been done is inevitably gonna happen again. I am not so sure if this is a smart position to take. I was very hesitant to write this and I'd like to be educated if I am missing something fundamental here, but I have trouble agreeing with the position that people who served their time after being convicted of a crime (which is the legal and at its core societal measure for "things being settled") should continue to get punished because someone feels like it's not enough. And I also have trouble seeing how harm is actually prevented this way and not just off-loaded. [1] https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__include_cpp_position.html https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__inclu... [2] https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso-c-standard-meetings https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso...