There’s been a lot of attention on Jeffrey Epstein lately. The Florida registrant served 13 months for procuring an underage prostitute in 2008.
Last month, a victim filed a lawsuit in which she alleges she also had sex with, among others, Prince Andrew. Those allegations have put the spotlight back on Epstein.
Yesterday’s The Guardian reports that the US Virgin Islands (where he now lives) is investigating certain philanthropic gestures made by him. Mr. Epstein had funded a Department of Education Science Fair. He also donated more than 100 tablet computers to students.
By any reasonable standard, a foundation’s decision to donate money in furtherance of education would normally be perceived as a good thing, but throw in the word “sex offender” and immediately comes the presumption that there’s some illicit purpose for the gesture.
Isn’t it possible that Mr. Epstein genuinely wants to do something nice? Apparently his foundation has been sponsoring educational programs since long before the offense, so isn’t it possible that this is genuine and heartfelt? Or, at worst, isn’t it possible that this could be some form of a voluntary repentance? Something nice to redeem himself for something bad?
When Timothy Poole won the lottery last month people were outraged and said the money should go to his alleged victims. Now here comes Jeffrey Epstein and through his charitable foundation (not even directly) wants to voluntarily provide educational tools for needy children and people are outraged?!?
Come on!!!! So they want to control where registrants live, where they can go, where they can work and now what they do with their money?
What happened to applying reason to these situations? He’s not buying candy to hand out in playgrounds, he’s sponsoring a science fair and donating school supplies that needy children would likely otherwise not have!
When we’re at a point where genuine good deeds are now off limits to sex offenders, we know things have gone way too far.
In retrospect, I am grateful that Jeff Epstein has not attempted to tap his vast wealth to fund FAC.
Most people on the registry have made attempts to better themselves, their lives, and the lives of others. But you wouldn’t know it from the revelations coming out about Epstein today (as well as the great reporting in the Miami Herald). He appears unrepentant. Everything we say registrants are not, someone can point to Jeff Epstein.
Innocent until proven guilty, I know, and some FAC challenges are need funding, but Jeff Epstein money would be tainted money. We are lucky that he and FAC are seldom mentioned in the same sentence.
I agree – and one could look at these gestures as a type of restitution to victims so what is the problem with people – it never ends!