In light of the MeToo Movement, it has become increasingly harder to reach common ground on how long those who commit heinous acts must be punished before they can begin their path to redemption.

Comedian Louis C.K. was one of many celebrities outed during the movement, and less than a year after the initial exposure, he is back to doing standup comedy. This has been met with backlash from both comedians and the public and has sparked conversation around the timeline for redemption and getting back to one’s job.

I think that the biggest problem with C.K.’s quick return to comedy is that it shows a lack of compassion, as well as a pure lack of respect for not only his followers but the women that he has affected and the movement that resulted in his exposure.

I have always been a fan of comedy and specifically believe that C.K. is a brilliant comedian. While I enjoy his work, I think that accountability is particularly important in sexual-assault cases, and I don’t think that returning to comedy so quickly is a move based on compassion. It is a move based on carelessness.

While I understand that people cannot be punished forever if they show a willingness to change, the move to return so quickly is completely detached. C.K.’s return to comedy should have been less about when he was ready and more about when people were ready to listen to him again. That time is not now.

There are various steps that C.K. could have taken before returning to the stage that likely would’ve warranted a warmer welcome back into stardom and the community of entertainers.

Perhaps donating some of his impressive fortune to a charity or organization centered on sexual-assault victims or even issuing an apology on stage would have shown a sense of accountability. Instead, C.K. took a rather brief hiatus and popped back up as if nothing had ever happened.

Of course, people will go to see C.K. perform, because he is still a talented comedian, but I think that it was a decision of greed. That he has decided that he’s paid his dues without allowing even a year to pass is not only a bad career move for C.K., but the action makes me think that he might be as much of a schmuck as his poor actions frame him to be.

I think that it’s rather difficult to establish a line on what is and isn’t OK for someone to do after making such terrible decisions.

For one, accountability does not expire, and at no point should C.K.’s actions be forgotten or dismissed. I do believe in a path to redemption, though, and I think that there should always be a chance for rehabilitation and growth. I don’t think that C.K. should be banned altogether from performing comedy, though I’m sure specific theaters and platforms will refuse to work with him.

I do think that it was inappropriate for C.K. to assume that enough time had passed that he would be welcomed back or that he even deserved to work in such a privileged and celebrated position at this time. As a celebrity, there is an even greater need for accountability, and respect, two things that I think C.K. showed a clear lack of understanding of.