In principle when it comes to elected or appointed posts, whether it's in a political party or not, it's a matter of what kind of image you want to have thats important. This is because it acts as a kind of testament to the quality of the candidates you have to offer, and thus the quality of the organisation as a whole.
A convicted murderer or rapist might make a great politician or head of some public agency, but having them in any position of any kind of importance or prominence (even if it's just nominal) easily gives the impression that you didn't have a lot of other candidates to choose from. Couldn't they choose someone who was a great choice but not a murderer or rapist?
I mean it's not like you can't use your talents from behind the scenes and without harming your organisations reputation.
A one time thing... maybe. Maybe. Probably not, but perhaps.
But this guy was a serial offender; and the crimes were "creepy" which means they're morally repugnant. Why in the world would I or anyone wish to trust that this guy wouldn't also do other morally repugnant things while in office, possibly betraying the very public trust that's inherent in the job in the first place?
He demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he was willing to corrupt the youths of society in a most depraved manner.
I find it hard to think that this would be in any way equivalent to, say, a one-time DUI or carrying a concealed firearm without a permit or something else that's unrelated to a government office -- like theft or other financial crime which could have a direct bearing.
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).
