Oregonian taking a lot of heat from readers for this one. What do you think?

And let's be honest - the bullshit "columnist never covers us" argument is just a way to divert attention from the fact that fanbois there are cheering for an admitted child molester. That's when they aren't making excuses for his crime and trying to rationalize it and figuring out ways he's really innocent ... even as his current statements fly in the face of that.

Oh yeah, "he's not that person anymore."

 

I hate this sentiment. Now we're denying people educational opportunities at a public school?

People commit crimes. They face consequences. Once those consequences are fulfilled, they should be a member of society again.

This crime is particularly awful, but we can't put all of them on an island because we don't like the thought of them walking around us.

 

That's fine. In general I agree with you.

He did this when he was 15. I'm not cool with dropping a registered sex offender into a college environment just three years after the crime.

 

So when could he go to college?

 

Don't have a great answer for this. How about when he's no longer a registered sex offender? How about taking online classes until then?

How about more than three years after committing felony sex crimes?

 

Can he work at McDonald's, a restaurant frequented by children daily? Can he travel to a national park, where families camp?

This is just my opinion, but it's possible that your idea of college - that is, the privilege you perceive it to be - plays a role in whether you think a sex offender should be a part of the environment.

 

No, I don't perceive it to be a privilege.

I perceive it to be a place where a lot of teenagers are thrown together to try to enter adulthood together in tight spaces. A lot of them struggle to handle it -- particularly it terms of their behavior with people of the opposite sex. I think putting a registered sex offender in that environment -- a guy who is just three years removed from molesting a kindergartner -- is a really, really bad idea.

 

Dude, I'm not EVER copping to being a child molester when I'm not. Maybe you have no principles, but I've got money and if I have to spend it to protect myself, then that's what it's there for.

 

Bad idea for whom? Him? Women?

In the sense that he'll re-offend? That he'd be a candidate to unusually prey on unsuspecting women?

If some woman had been assaulted by him, I think you would have heard from her - well, her lawyer - as she sues Oregon State for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Perhaps we still will.

Molestation is awful. Sexual assault is awful. That's not up for debate.

What's up for debate is how many rights those people ought to have and what they ought to be able to do.

 

Yes, bad idea for women. And yes, he'd be a candidate to prey on unsuspecting women.

Look, I get that some of you want to get into a "when does he get to live a life?" debate. That's fine. It's a valid question.

He was a student at Oregon State three years after repeatedly sexually molesting a 6 year old. That's absurd.

Are you OK with a registered sex offender living in college dorms?

 

You're an adult. He was a 15-year-old boy when he made that decision. I read the story in Sports Illustrated and it sounds like he did as he was told. I'm not saying I believe him or that he belongs in the majors, but in that particular area, his age clearly matters.

I posted the question on the MLB thread, but maybe it should have gone here. The draft when a team might take him is going on now. Through 10 rounds, he hasn't been taken.

 

LA Times talked to scouts who said he may not be worth the trouble

Will a major league team draft Oregon State's Luke Heimlich despite ugly confession from his past?

“For me, there are too many red flags,” said one major league talent evaluator, granted anonymity in order to speak candidly about the delicate subject. “I think some team will draft him.”