The release of millions of heavily censored documents, photos, and videos regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein makes me reflect on the murky nature of voyeurism and moral accountability. Do the many victims of Epstein’s lurid schemes deserve some measure of redress for their suffering at the hands of rich and powerful men? In a word, yes, though the U.S. Department of Justice is unlikely to comply with their pleas. But what then to make of still images of well-known figures cavorting in Epstein’s high-roller orbit? Should men like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, and then–Prince Andrew be detached from their accomplishments and tossed wholesale to the dogs? Are these indictments of their own accord because they captivate the imagination? Good questions, all. I remember being tossed from an 8th-grade class for rebutting the teacher’s characterization of Hitler as the greatest of monsters. I had insisted he should be labeled an evil genius instead. I thought likewise of Stalin. That three Kennedy brothers and a preacher named King had their way with women mattered less to me than their legacies. The Epstein story is graver and more appalling, and yet it too is tarred by boundless voyeurism. Is there a way around so much primordial lust among the wealthy and the potent, almost all of them ambitious men? The answer, I am sorry to say, is no. Call it the human stain.