Wow, that's a lot of hyperbole. Anyway Steve, please feel free to quote the part of the article that said exactly what the guy did and how we know he actually did it. You do realize that "sex offense" does not equal "molestation", right?
And yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sex offenders who don't reoffends tend not to make the news, while those who do, do. The fact is, sex offenses have some of the lowest recidivism rates among all crimes, and with treatment (which doesn't necessarily mean jail time) and effective monitoring, the rates drop even lower. So "unlikely but still moderately possible redemption of a rapist and/or pedophile," is actually wildly incorrect, and may not even be what we're talking about here! We don't know that this guy was a rapist for pedophile!
What's really ugly about this is that the guy was in need. He's on a fixed income, and he's elderly. It would be a very sick thing to deny him aid just because he was conviced of a crime. Why this was even an issue, I'm not sure; it's not like providing aid through this organization would put him in close contact with children or anything. We have to be reasonable; yes, taking past sex offenses into account if someone's trying to become, say, a teacher, is a good idea, but we don't need to stigamtize people or throw them into jail for life for something like public exposure. "Sex offense" includes things like "Luring or enticing a child under the age of 12 into a structure, dwelling or conveyance for other than a lawful purpose," and "Distribution of obscene materials to minor under the age of 18." In addition, in many jurisdictions, any sex offense against a minor under the gaoe of 14 is a felony, so just because this guy plead guilty to a felony sex offense doesn't mean we can assume he committed sexual molestation.
