Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
This should be so glaringly obvious.
A common problem when someone finishes serving their jail time as allotted by said justice system, the (much more low-key) lynch mob doesn't want to hire them just yet.
But what doesn't happen is this: the prisoner, by some stroke of luck, gets a job in a say a car factory, and suddenly everyone else in that factory should loose their job, and I'm a bad person for wanting to drive a car that the ex-felon worked on.
Now all that being said, this is probably just a pendulum swing. It looks like for decades sexual assault was shielded in the media industry - me too is overall still a positive movement IMO, it’s just important to not letting it get too far (and I think those breaking forces are already acting).
I imagine sex crimes to be really hard to proof. Because the difference between a completely legal act and one that is deeply wrong is the state of mind of two people at the time.
The justice system shouldn't convict someone if it can't be sure that the accuses really did the crime.
That would be quite a deviation from what the justice system ‘we’ (in the western world, 21st century, …) agreed on typically do: only take the money people get from a crime (frequently with a fine added), not all their money.
(There may be edge cases, for example: if I steal a million, put all it on red in Vegas, come out with two million, and then get caught, how much money should be taken from me? I can see a judge ordering me to return a million to the owner of the original million and a million to the casino. Those are the exceptions, though)