I don't want to weigh in on popular media things that are, categorically, none of my damn business and that couldn't possibly have involved me even I'd (insanely) wanted them to. I don't want to be one of those commentators with a nugget or two of information and an otherwise wildly ill-informed opinion based totally on emotional response and general assumption. I don't want to comment on this. I don't want to get into the proverbial fray. I don't want to say things I'll be taken to task for or, alternatively, take people to task for things that have been said. I don't want to stick my nose in. I don't want to assume I know better. I don't want to overtly judge. I'm beginning to feel like Lloyd Dobler: "I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that." I really have tried to avoid it, you know? I mean here, in The Crypt. I've worked hard to avoid it even though a Crypt favorite keeps on getting name-dropped into the middle of the mess and so on and so forth. I don't want to throw my hat into the ring.

But there are three things that must be said for the record, on the record, speaking now before forever holding my peace, to get them off my chest, to be heard, etc. So I'll just say them. And then we can all go back to just, you know, living without this in our lives because really, honestly, it affects so few of us on an actual reality-based daily basis that it seems just silly to have to say out loud that it should be left to the law at this point. Begin.

1. Thirteen is still, legally, psychologically, and within the structure of western society, a child's age. You can't drive yourself around at thirteen, you can't legally buy alcohol at thirteen, you can't legally buy drugs at thirteen, you can't vote at thirteen, and you can't legally have sex at thirteen. So even if you claim a thirteen year old looks twenty-five and voluntarily gave you a lap-dance while talking up her favorite tried-and-true kama sutra positions, you, as an adult, can not legally (I'm speaking strictly legally to avoid rants) have sex with her. If you do then legally it is rape. Which means you would be a rapist. A child rapist. Period.

2. It is entirely possible to separate the personal from the professional. It is possible, for example, to live comfortably in a house built by a paroled murderer without specifically condoning murder. It's a complicated thing to know what a person does in their private life because it does tend to flow over and taint their professional lives which doesn't need to be the case. Justice needs to be served, the law upheld, moral obligations met, ethical concerns considered but when push comes to shove it is still possible to separate man from myth, art from artist, person from preference, do you see what I'm saying? You can, if you wish, still enjoy a painting by a pedophile if said painting is not on the subject of pedophilia. You can read books written by misogynists. It is possible to separate the product from the person. You don't have to but you can. Don't misread me: I'm not saying to be deliberately blind to all things involved in a product nor am I saying nothing matters if you like something enough. I am merely pointing out that if the thing in the private life of the artist that offends is not present in the public art, you are capable of choosing to separate the two.

3. The law is an entity unto itself that must be served. At some point crimes duly prosecuted must be paid for in the manner decreed by the justice system in play. On crimes for which there is no statute of limitations, "it was so long ago" is not a defense. The act was done, the law enforced, and if the sentence was not handed over in a timely fashion it must still be honored when it finally is. That's the point of a statute of limitations and that's the point of upholding any sort of legal system. To honor it. To work within it. And to not assume that personal character claims and individual specialties will matter an iota to the grinding wheel of whatever justice is due to be doled out.

And that is the sum total of what thoughts I have on all counts. Points one and three speak to the criminal and crime committed. Point two speaks to the masses who seek to assuage their own guilt over having enjoyed the criminal's art by removing due legal retribution from the criminal.

I don't want to comment further. I think we should all step back and simply let what is coming come and the matter resolve itself legally so the parties involved can each move on in whatever way is open to them. In this case, opinion does not play. There are facts that can not, must not, be ignored and a legal proceeding that is long overdue. So let come what may.