So I just discovered that I have been working next to the waste of oxygen that raped my best friend several years ago. I work in a manufacturing environment and I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US). But despite it being a primarily male workforce he does work with several women who have no idea what he is. He literally followed a woman home, broke into her house, and raped her. Him working here puts every female employee at risk. How is that not an unsafe working environment? How is it at even legal to employ him anywhere where he will have contact with women?
Because he’s either innocent until proven guilty or he’s served his time. You can discuss it with HR and express your concerns about him, but unless he’s continued to behave predatorily he’s likely just only going to be subjected to increased scrutiny
The last time he raped someone he was in prison for less than 2 years. Considering that wasn’t his first offence I highly doubt that changed him. Also HR is already aware. Apparently they fired the last person who brought it up to them.
Oh then yeah I’ve got no fucking clue, firing the last person who brought it up absolutely should be illegal.
Depends on the details of why they were fired. We’re obviously only getting one side of the story here
- Be in an industry and location where finding a backup job is not impossible
- Record yourself telling HR you’re afraid for your coworkers and yourself
- Email HR a summary of your meeting
Optional subsequent steps
- Get fired
- Take the audio to a labor attorney who will take your wrongful termination case for free
- Profit
HR hates this one weird trick!
Civil rights attorneys love this one weird trick!
Also make sure you live in a one-party consent state.
Repeat offenders are the one I’d be worried about, america isn’t known for functioning reform system.
I hope your friend can heal, sorry for what your dealing with
functioning reform system
Sounds like you want them staying a Club Med and being waited on hand and foot. Gimme a break! Jk it is an absolute catastrophe and the US should know better since it’s such a fucking pro at locking up about 1/200 citizens. (!!?). sorry.
Where I work, most positions do not require a background check so we have a mix of people (men, women, trans, nonbinary) with criminal convictions, including sex offenders.
The only thing that matters is their behavior in the workplace. You get fired because of attendance or poor performance.
The biggest problem people at my workplace are the people who try to make someones past an issue.
Also, your statement that you “highly doubt that changed him” is very telling. Basically it shows that you are the one with the problem. Unless you have firsthand knowledge then you are trying to justify your negative feelings.
Maybe this last time changed them. Maybe they got help. Maybe they’re in therapy and are trying to change.
This person and your employer are under no obligation to do what you want when there is no justification other than your own personal judgement.
Because he’s either innocent until proven guilty or he’s served his time.
presumed innocent until proven guilty… Is a procedural doctrine for courts. It doesn’t change the reality of whether or not the individual committed a crime.
You murder someone, you’re a murderer, regardless of if you have really good attourneys or you’re really good at hiding the body, etc. the presumption of innocence it to protect the rights of accused people; but has no bearing on actual guilt- even if the court of law finds them not guilty.
while the guy presumably has served his time and deserves fair treatment… the OP is also justified in raising this concern with management. Not that management will do anything, because they’ve already determined it’s not a problem. They will, perhaps, accommodate the OP in scheduling them on opposite shifts or placing them away from him.
I mean you are making a fair argument that there’s a distinction between your own morals and the binding rules in place. You are free to feel a lot of things that are very bad, but when you act on them you will bump into reality.
That said I think the original comment was meant to say that the only reason he is here is because society through the legal process has found him to be safe to work there.
Now to get beyond the feelings against him OP can obviously talk to HR and make sure they get some distance, but if the courts found him not guilty, he deserves to be there. Imagine serving years in prison, working on yourself until the government finally finds you fit enough to enter society again, only for ppl to kick you out of your job again because of something you tried so hard to leave behind. That’s why the prison system usually focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment in most civil countries.
What I’m saying is, the court’s ruling does not have to change the way you feel, but the court also says you have no right to take his job from him unless he commits crimes again. No feeling can measure heavy enough to weigh up against the right for him to live a normal life.
Yeah, exactly. Rehabilitative justice is hard. His victims should never be expected to be near him again, but society needs to give people chances to demonstrate rehabilitation. Denying someone access to half the population guarantees they never rehabilitate. But it’s also fair to say that in America we don’t really bother rehabilitating people and if someone has been to prison multiple times for rape well, I don’t want to be alone with them either and I’d be uncomfortable with my employer forcing me to be alone with them. And that’s the situation as OP has clarified and yeah it definitely sounds like it may be a hostile workplace.
You’re absolutely right, that this guy deserves a fresh start. but the OP also deserves - and has a right- to work in a place they presumably feel safe. If I were the OP… my response would be to bring this up with HR; document every interaction with this guy while also actively avoiding interaction with him as much as reasonably possible, and most importantly shut the fuck up about it.
HR can assist with avoiding him, if that’s reasonable. (opposite shifts, putting out at opposite ends of the facility, or in places where they’re unlikely to cross paths, etc.). But ultimately, the guy deserves a fresh break and OP deserves a place they can feel safe. but if its a one-or-the-other, OP needs to understand; they already hired both of you, so from a business standpoint, that decision is going to come down to… whose loss would be less detrimental to the company’s profits.
Terminating the guy simply because she’s uncomfortable and he’s a convicted rapist… is, unfortunately easily defended in court. If he’s also exhibiting patterns of behavior that suggest he’s not reformed… (catcalling. derogatory/misogynistic remarks.) it’s even easier.
But the other side of that is too: Terminating OP because she harassed a guy is… also easily defended in court.
the company will fire whoever impacts their profit margin the least.
Correction, right to a safe work place, not feel safe. Feeling safe and being safe are different things. And this disconnect is actually a real problem.
It doesn’t change the reality of whether or not the individual committed a crime.
But YOU cannot know that “reality” unless (either you are the judge or) you have knowledge of the court’s verdict.
Calling someone a criminal without any such knowledge is a false accusation.
Calling someone a criminal without any such knowledge is a false accusation.
Wut?
So. Carrol wasn’t raped by Trump, until 2023?
And therefore Carrol was falsely accusing Trump of raping her until the court made the decision?
Sorry. That’s bullshit. Also, did you catch the part where he has multiple convictions for rape, apparently?
The point I’m trying to make is that a company’s HR team are not a court of law and don’t- and in fact, can’t- operate on the standards you are asking.
They can k my make a reasonable attempt at being fair, and will usually end up doing what’s “best” for the company. They don’t even have to be right. Nevermind moral.
What those standards are basically impossible, considering what you would find moral, what I would find moral; and what… let’s say law-and-order-died-red-republicans would find moral.
What the company has a legal obligation to do? Protect their employees from a hostile work environment. How that goes… I don’t know. Whose right here and whose not… I don’t know.
deleted by creator
If you want to penalty for a crime to be death or life in prison lobby for that.
To try to freeze someone out of functional society but not in the corrections systems invites them to commit more violence since society has rejected them. Integration and community are key to rehabilitation.
How is it at even legal to employ him anywhere where he will have contact with women?
If it was illegal for someone to get a job where they could come in contact with 50% of the population you’re just setting them up for failure. What about murderers? Should they be prevented from having a job where they interact with anyone because there’s a chance they’ll kill them?
deleted by creator
There’s different reasons for murder that could explain how they’re not a threat. For example someone killing the person that molested their child is unlikely to kill a random coworker. That justification doesn’t really exist for rapists.
You know where you messed up? I don’t have tell you, right?
I understand that first sentence it’s makes sense, but that second sentence, now come on a murderer should in fact be made known and jobless for some pretty damn obvious reasons.
I feel like having no way to legally get food or shelter would make it more likely they’d commit crime again, not less.
Can’t reach everyone in this thread. Death penalty still exists in some states.
If someone is executed for murder, then you definitely shouldn’t hire them. But if they served their punishment, letting them out of jail and then not letting them earn the money the need to survive is a recipe for disaster.
I of course mean after the murderer has served their sentence.
What about ex military?
Except the number of people who classify veterans as murderers for what they did in combat situations is extremely low…
I hate to say this, but do you know what he’s done to rehabilitate himself? Do you know why he’s allowed to work there? Have you talked to management about what you discovered?
All of your questions are very very leading. Of course we deplore rape. However, despite what you may think, we should all be given a chance to redeem ourselves.
I can understand why you fear for the safety of yourself and others around you. If you do nothing, that is entirely on you. But I do hope that you have compassion and a sense of forgiveness in your heart too. For all you know, you can also be surrounded by thieves and murderers, but none of those are publicly branded.
I urge you to bring this to the management’s attention. Talk to your female coworkers and let them know.
The concept of Redemeption is sadly one that barely exists nowadays. While the crime of rape is unforgivable, a wise woman once said “If Hell is forever, then Heaven’s a lie.”
If we don’t let people have a chance to better themselves and prove that they aren’t the monsters they used to be, then we condemn them to return to their most toxic behaviors.
That said, if someone has a history of vile behavior, then it’s best to warn those you feel can minimize his harm or are vulnerable. He needs to be given a chance for redemption and self-betterment, but he can’t be given free reign either.
In the absolute majority of rape cases there is no bettering themselves happening because the rapists never face any consequences to begin with.
All of your questions are very very leading. Of course we deplore rape. However, despite what you may think, we should all be given a chance to redeem ourselves.
There are a few crimes that are not forgivable, where you lose all right to any benefit of the doubt and should be labeled as dangerous, suspicious, and existential threat for the rest of your life.
Premeditated Rape is one of those crimes.
Premeditated rape is not a accident. its not a crime of passion. it is a deliberate, multi-step action that result in harming and violating another human being in one of the worst ways possible. There were so many points in which any shred of basic human decency that existed in his body could have asserted itself and changed his course, but it didnt. He followed through multiple steps in the process to follow and ultimately violate and his victim in one of the worst ways a person can harm another human being. Because he is a predator, and a threat.
Regardless of his time in jail, he is a threat. he will always be a threat. There is no one around him that is not at risk.
and worse still, because hes already been caught once, he will have learned… and the chances of the next victim escaping alive are slimmer for it.
There is no redemption arc that can unrape his victim, and erase the threat he poses.
Reminds me of a joke: A guy walks down the street and mumbles to himself angrily: You cook every fucking day but no one ever calls you a cook. You fix your car all the time but people never call you a mechanic. You have a small garden and grow your own food but when people see you they don’t say “Hey, farmer!”. But you rape someone one single time…
But seriously, for the same reason you don’t ban drunk drivers from driving for life or shoplifter from shopping. People have to function in society somehow, even if they did terrible things in the past.
People have to function in society somehow, even if they did terrible things in the past.
No they don’t, that’s what prisons are for.
That kinda mentality is why america has the most people in prison per capita. Its the only way to rationalize the way the prisoners are essentially being enslaved. So by being commercially productive, people with money (read: with power) will always work to increase the number of prisoners.
I am fine with rehabilitating drug dealers or other non violent crimes and even some violent ones. Rapists should never see the light of day again. There’s no excuse for rape. There’s no “Oh, I didn’t know raping someone was a bad thing” to rehabilitate someone out of. To rape someone you have to be a selfish, shitty person, end of story. We don’t need people like that in society. The resources spent trying to fix them would be better focused on people who need help and have never raped anyone.
Just out of curiosity, what other violent crimes do get a pass for “not knowing it was wrong?”
Like do you believe that people can assault other people with weapons without knowing it was wrong? Can they beat their wives and not know it was wrong?
You seem to have a weird hangup on rape in particular in comparison to other violent crimes when it comes to “knowing it was wrong.”
I’m pretty sure the MS13 guys that butcher people know it’s wrong they just don’t give a shit. I’m sure people who use physical violence to get what they want know it’s wrong but they just don’t care.
Stupid standard, people can rationalize any crime rape ain’t special.
How about instead of dodging their points, you really think about what they’re saying?
I said some violent crimes.
Like do you believe that people can assault other people with weapons without knowing it was wrong?
If someone assaults somebody in retaliation for something they did to them or a family member where it’s unlikely they would harm anyone else many would argue that can be justified.
Can they beat their wives and not know it was wrong?
No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.
I’m pretty sure the MS13 guys that butcher people know it’s wrong they just don’t give a shit. I’m sure people who use physical violence to get what they want know it’s wrong but they just don’t care.
And they should be locked up forever with the rapists.
If someone assaults somebody in retaliation (…) many would argue that can be justified.
Then when someone assaults the assaulter in retaliation for the retaliation? Fuck the rule of law - return to lynch mobs, amirite? Do you say people argue this because you’re one of them and are too much of a coward to say so, or is this an irrelevancy you don’t believe? People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.
No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.
No exceptions, no discussion entered into - guess we’re locking up the military and police. Of course there are exceptions, and of course people are going to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify their actions to themselves. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make your standard a transparently terrible one.
People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.
They do, and that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, what it does mean is you can look at their reasons when determining whether or not they are likely to re-offend. The person who only kills people who rape their kid is not likely to do it again vs. the person who’s threshold for rape is that they don’t respect other people’s body autonomy when they’re horny.
You do know one of the points of prison, besides retribution is rehabilitation, just prisoning someone does not constitute a healthy society.
I see you have no idea what you’re talking about
K
Disgusting sentiment.
Lol leave it to a Lemmy troglodyte to balk at the notion that they should be imprisoned for doing horrific shit to other people.
I bet if the rape victim fought back or shot him, you’d tell her off while you’re throwing her in prison though.
Your sexism is showing and it is gross, warty and about 2.5 inches
I’m the troglodyte, sure. The one who DOESN’T want people imprisoned forever. You making a lot of assumptions based on the two words I said. Troll harder.
Yes, you ARE the troglodyte BECAUSE you don’t want to protect other people by imprisoning rapists for life, serious and extreme criminals who need to be kept away from society permanently.
You are a backwards-ass sexist who belongs in the 20th century. You’d get along well with Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Cosby and all of their ilk.
Prisons are supposed to be for rehabilitation. What you are talking about is penal colonies. If we had a working justice system, those who can’t be rehabilitated could get the death penalty. But right now it is cheaper to keep them in prison for life than fix the system. Since this guy is out, he served his sentence and is deemed rehabilitated.
Idgaf what the “justice” system says. I’m giving my opinion of how it should be. I know of child molesters in my home town who were out in 6 years and continued to be pieces of shit. The kids they raped sure as fuck weren’t over the damage they did in that time. A guy raped a member of my family and didn’t get any time at all. Rehabilitation does not work on rapists. The fact that there is a maximum sentence just goes to show that they don’t get out when they’re rehabilitated. They get out when their time is up.
There’s a maximum sentence for drug dealers too. Is it impossible to realize the harm that brought to the community?
No? That’s why they’re in prison. I don’t think maximum sentences work. You should be in prison until you’re fixed and ready to not be a criminal when to you get out. I’d hardly compare a drug dealer to a rapist though. A drug dealer can be driven into it by a poor financial situation and the people using drugs are doing so by choice. Rapists don’t have any external factors that drive them to it.
I’m sorry but your logic clearly doesn’t track here. If maximum sentences are proof that there is no rehabilitation then why wouldn’t that be true of drug dealers too?
I never said it was. You’re the one who brought up drug dealers anyway. I said maximum sentences aren’t a good way to do sentencing. The sentence should be “until you are rehabilitated”, regardless of your crime.
How are you expecting him to feed himself if he can’t work anywhere? There’s no such thing as a men’s only work place.
I agree that rape should be charged with the same severity as taking a life. But we also need to let ex felons leave that in the past if they can. There’s a lot of abuse and oppression that results from permanent shunning. We made the choices in our justice system that we made because of history. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of history.
I respectfully disagree. Murder is not at the same level as rape. Rape is awful and despicable, but at least you’re alive to recover from it.
That’s the thing, many people never recover from rape.
I think more people don’t recover from death compared to rape
I’m not arguing that lol. But many people would literally rather be killed than raped and it’s frequently cited as one of the things, “worse than death”.
It should absolutely be punished similarly.
That sounds like a great way to make all rapists murderers.
No. There’s a psychological barrier to killing, even in the mind of a criminal. That’s why most murders are actually people who knew each other and had enough emotion to overcome that barrier or people who were scared/abused enough that the barrier was no longer there. (It goes away as a defense mechanism)
That sounds like a blatant threat and attempt at emotional blackmail
-
Many is not anywhere near all.
-
That is an option for the victim in a rape still, there is no option for the victim in a murder.
-
But it is possible to recover, and many do. There is no recovery from being murdered. Personally, I’m glad I’m still alive even if I’m still dealing with my own SA-induced trauma 20 years later.
Murder also has further externalities. When you kill someone, you take them away from their friends and families, who now have to live forever without that person in their lives.
But this whole conversation feels a lot like we’re asking “who was worse, Hitler or Genghis Khan?”, and it’s weird to put either side on the defensive even if there is an objectively true answer to be found.
Yes, but statistically speaking the amount of people who recover from murder (being around 0 to 1, depending on if the Resurrection of Christ is a factual event or mere myth) is a tad lower than people who recover from rape induced trauma…
There is no reason why rape is judged much less severely than torture though.
deleted by creator
I think this attitude where some traumatic event ruins people for life is toxic. Trauma is part of life. People can move on and have fulfilling lives.
Removed by mod
“Trauma is part of life”? Murder and dieing is also part of life. Sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense. Trauma in a clinical sense is certainly not “part of life”.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I can’t send a corpse to therapy for any amount of time that’s long enough for them to recover from being dead, I can say differently about being traumatized…
And honestly as someone who’s used therapy to recover from trauma, I find the idea that “It would unquestionably be better if you were murdered instead” to be so absurdly offensive and dismissive, as if anything of value to me and my continued existence is suddenly moot because I’ve become “Damaged Goods”
Seeing Murder as preferable to Rape is a highly misogynistic way of thinking that draws too much from patriarchal standards about a woman’s worth.
Murder, for the victim, by definition, is not a traumatic event.
Death is always an option, revival generally isn’t.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
You are advocating a known sexual predator be allowed in the workplace, knowing other employees are threatened by his presence.
The company isn’t responsible for ensuring the rapist – who is not supposed to be in society in the first place – is able to put food on the table. It is the company’s responsibility to protect its workers in th workplace, and that means not letting a known rapist work around women.
Honestly, those women could probably go complain to the EEOC. They certainly could win a civil suit.
What you’re asking for is horrific and a blatant violation of the rights of other people. We don’t live under the barbaric practices of the 20th century where anything like this can just be done to you and you have to put up with it. We live in the 21st century where we recognize the rights of victims and communities are more important.
Don’t like it? Do what you’re telling rape victims to do: get over it and move on.
Women aren’t the only victims of rape. Clearly he shouldn’t be allowed to work around anyone right? Actually he shouldn’t be allowed to live near anyone who could be at risk either. Actually he shouldn’t be allowed to go near anyone who could be raped. I think the Soviets already tried a prisoner only island and it didn’t work too well.
Removed by mod
It’s not the company’s responsibility to employ him.
I never said they did.
There are plenty of jobs he can get where he doesn’t interact with anyone.
Like?
OP and the other workers have a serious, legitimate, valid fear of this asshole and their rights are fundamentally more important than his, because it’s their safety and security on the line, not his
A lot of fears are valid, but that doesn’t necessarily justify acting on them.
their rights are fundamentally more important than his
That was true during his prison sentence. Now as much as he disgusts us, he has served his punishment and has his rights again.
or by extension yours. He is not you The people at that job do NOT have to suffer his presence to appease you.
What does this have to do with me?
They do NOT have to endanger themselves by being around a fucking rapist!
They can quit, they can force the employer to fire him, or they can tolerate it. Fundamentally, there is nothing he can change now to make himself more tolerable to his coworkers, and its not his employers job to punish him again.
Their rights are being violated by virtue of him being there
How?
Would you want your cousin or your sister or your mother or your wife to work in a situation like that?
Why is this the argument? Why can’t I have the option empathize with someone myself- why does it have to be a surrogate? But my mom was hospitalized 2 years ago after assault by a student who she still works with. Of course its terrifying know that could happen, but that’s why safety measures are put into place at her work place.
rape apologia is good for us peasants too?
Where did I apologize for rape? All I implied was that under the law he had served his time. He is now allowed to exist in society. If you believe in mandatory minimum of a life sentence for rape, that is a debate that can be had. But just like murderers, kidnappers, torturers, terrorists, and other horrific criminals, rapists are sometimes given a chance at freedom again. But you should separate wanting to protect people, and wanting revenge. Wanting revenge is a motive for criminal justice, but don’t try to hide it with an argument about protection and rights.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Okay. Let’s just keep all the prisoners locked up forever. Well wait, that’s kind of expensive. Let’s force them to work. You know they’re going to have kids, and both parents are no good evil people so the kids must be too. Let’s never let the kids out either.
Congratulations, you’ve re-invented chattel slavery. With the exact same argument of banishing felons from society that was used in the 1600’s and eventually evolved into chattel slavery.
Can we do the civil war now too or do we have to wait?
So if we protect our communities, we’ll enable slavery. So if we don’t want slavery, we have to expose ourselves to rapists.
Yeah, no, you can take your inflammatory, enabling garbage and shove it.
Imprison rapists for life. Stop letting them out in society. Don’t let situations like OP’s happen in the first place.
It’s not an either/or situation. But congratulations. You are the second or third person to respond with a ridiculous logical fallacy.
Removed by mod
Uh huh. Sure and which of those have you observed in my posting?
Because draconian punishments are typically associated with conservative political positions. Hardly the bastion of women’s rights. And above is the real history of how slavery in the American Colonies was started. It was successive pushes for harsher and harsher punishments until they just decided to take the mask off.
Forgive me if I don’t want that to happen again.
Removed by mod
You got shit backwards. War is now. Deny or don’t still happening.
This isn’t a civil war. I’ve seen a civil war. And this is nowhere close.
That’s not what I said.
Me - … Civil War…
You - … war is now…
Me - … Civil War…
You - Not what I was talking about!
Are you just being purposely obtuse then?
Removed by mod
Any reason or just being a blatant idiot?
Removed by mod
Or we can accept the past actually does matter, protect our communities and offenders can be the ones to accept the short end of the stick.
You know, like a sane society
If you don’t allow people to have second chances, then recidivism rates skyrocket. Being tough on crime creates more crime (and more prisoners).
Look at the Scandinavian prison model. Reform is what ought to be the focus.
But in the US, recidivism is kind of the goal. After all, we need to keep the for profit prisons full.
For profit prisons are creepy and ought to be illegal, but they’re also a small percentage of US prisons. They’re not to blame for the high prison population. They’re another symptom.
If you dress up enabling rapists, who do not belong in the community, through flowery rhetoric, you deny that second chance to everyone else.
Society doesn’t owe rapists anything. It owes everyone else their safety. If the rapist doesn’t like it, they should not have raped anyone. If you don’t like the fact that your rapist friend is ostracized from the community, you should stop being friends with rapists.
This is why we need to throw rapists in jail for life, and quite frankly, to start jailing their enablers, so communities can rebuild and the trauma from those acts can heal.
When did the person you responded to say they were friend with rapists. When you resort to ad hominem attacks on peoples character, you’re signalling to everyone you have already lost the argument and have nothing of value left to say, just take the L.
Well, when did anyone say they were ostracizing a rapist? You want to talk about logical fallacies, you best look at yourself and your compatriots here.
Firing them from a job like that, where they have to work closely with women and have the opportunity to reoffend, isn’t ostracization the way you’re flagrantly exaggerating it to be. It’s called common sense.
The other employees have every right to fear being raped because there is a known sexual predator in the workplace. It’s a specific and credible fear that not only is grossly immoral if the company doesn’t act, it also will put them in a position of extreme liability. That scumfuck should never have gotten past the background check in the first place.
And you don’t care about that because all you care about is yourself. Because like the other apologists here, you’re thinking from a perspective of “But what if I get caught?” and that means you believe you or someone you know will rape someone someday – and you’ll keep them in your life anyway, because you don’t care about justice or morality, you only care about shielding your friends from consequences.
Seriously, that was my only comment and now I’m also a rapist according to you. This is something else, I can’t say I’ve ever encountered someone this toxic on Lemmy since I’ve been here. You extrapolated all sorts of things I never said from 2 sentences.
Not that you are remotely deserving of a respectful response at this point, but I’ll still give you my thoughts:
I’ve been sexually assaulted and have had people close to me be sexually assaulted and raped. The insinuation that I am a rapist would be personally harmful to me and retraumatizing if I wasn’t aware that you are doing this because you are unable to articulate your opinions on the matter effectively, so you resort to insults. I totally understand the visceral need and desire for vengeance and justice when you or someone close to you is the victim of vile acts. There is someone I grew up acquainted with that if I saw them again in person I would have an intense desire to cause physical pain because of what they did to people close to me. I totally understand the desire for vengeance, and I suspect everyone else on this thread does too.
With that said, when societies make rules you have to decide what the goal is. Is the goal vengeance and punishment, is the goal a better future for society in general, or is it a little of both. We have the sum total of human experience to look back on, we can see what societies systems of punishment result in better outcomes for society at large. We know what systems of punishment result in recidivism more often, what systems result in rehabilitation more often, and we know what systems perpetuate a cycle of violence that never ends. We don’t rehabilitate criminals and sex offenders for their sake, we rehabilitate them for societies sake. Because we can conclusively show that if systems of punishment make it their goal to rehabilitate instead of get vengeance, it usually breaks the cycle of violence whether it be physical or sexual. You’re basically saying you would prefer vengeance, even if it is at the expense of sexual and physical violence being perpetuated through society generation after generation.
I strongly suggest you read this article: https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons#:~:text=Prisoners in Norway lose their,crime rates in the world.
Norway has the lowest recidivism rate in the world exactly because the treat their criminals like human beings. Guess who wins, all of the non-criminals that enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
What kind of society are we going to have if we do that though? Societies with forever punishments are worse places to live specifically because it ends up being used as a weapon. It gets easier and easier to get that forever punishment because this exact argument gets deployed for lower and lower offenses. Your three options are slavery, banishment, or death. And it’s usually for an ulterior motive like votes or money. Humans have tried all three in the past and they’ve all led to more heartbreak and violence than they’ve stopped.
A sane society wants and works towards peace. You get peace with rehabilitation and treatment.
A better one.
See, in the real world where adults pay bills, your actions have consequences. Those actions tend to be for everyone else and are extremely damaging if you rape them, so what sane societies do is prioritize the interests of the victims and the community at large over the rapist. They imprison or preferably execute the rapist, to guarantee they cannot hurt members of the community anymore without forcing the community to bear the burden of the rapist’s presence, for their mere presence is now a problem.
Communities do not owe anything to rapists and are under no responsibility to integrate people like that into it. The act of doing that endangers a community because now they have to live alongside a rapist.
Communities have a large moral obligation to establish a Moral Event Horizon and accept that individuals who do horrific things like rape don’t belong in it anymore regardless of circumstance. The community has to be willing to discriminate who can participate or not based on actions. That’s what a community does to maintain itself.
A community unwilling to do this is an unprincipled one that usually just thinks rape is morally acceptable or at least necessary to reproduce. A community unwilling to permanently remove a rapist for any reason is just, quite frankly, an evil one.
Rapists don’t have a permanent right to participate in the community. The idea that they do has destroyed our society. You have to earn the privilege to participate through following the laws and good action, and if you refuse, you can no longer participate in the community.
Communities have an obligation to establish rules and enforce them through threat of losing the ability to participate.
It’s not hard when you don’t enable rapists.
Let’s say we agree on your governance model. There are non-trivial cases of men falsely been accused of rape by women. Some have even been convicted and their innocence proved many years later. How does your governance model that proposes execution of the convicted account for this?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
They imprison or preferably execute the rapist, to guarantee they cannot hurt members of the community anymore
It does matter because you brought it up, this is what you said, word for word. Do you hope your proposed legal framework to be implemented at any point in time and therefore willing to give it some serious thought or are you just venting?
Removed by mod
Sounds more like a backwards medieval society than a ‘sane society’.
Most modern and sane societies have a concept of rehabilitation and have found that we are all better off when a justice system is centered on rehabilitation and addressing the roots of crime at a deeper level, beyond just punishment, punishment is not very effective on its own.
Removed by mod
How can you say all that when you don’t even know what the victim was wearing?
Removed by mod
I am not serious, lol. Can I ask how you think we as a society should handle these individuals? I know you said that they “should get the short end of the stick”. Does that mean execution? Life-imprisonment?
Removed by mod
I think it might be easier for OP to reason through this question by themselves if the person in question hadn’t “raped [their] best friend”. I support restorative justice… unfortunately in the USA we often get neither restorative justice nor justice, just punishment.
What do you think can restorative justice look like for crimes like torture (that is what rape is)?
An argument from ignorance that ends in a false equivalence.
I love the maturity in the responses to the question here. I was honestly expecting more people to agree with the OP, but it’s been a delight to read such colourful articulations on the reasons why they are wrong. I don’t even need to weigh in here as it’s been said perfectly by so many people here.
Agreeing with OP is the same as saying you don’t believe people can change or get better.
deleted by creator
The same reason a lot of jobs drug test- insurance requirements
Now ask yourself why those insurance requirements exist
Because companies don’t want to take on the liability of hiring someone that they don’t think they can trust.
I don’t really get your narrative about someone hiring a thief over a rapist- both felony convictions will limit your opportunities.
You’re not listening. Companies shouldn’t hire either. And we’re talking specifically about rapists, not thieves. Don’t waste my time trying to strawman.
So what do you propose those convicted do after they’ve served their time?
Good point. Companies willfully hire murderers because you can’t murder a company.
deleted by creator
No, it isn’t. You can fully believe in people’s ability to rehabilitate and change, while also being aware that not everyone rehabilitates and changes.
The needs of the perpetrator of a crime need to be balanced against the needs of society at large. This is why you get your license taken away from you when you drink and drive, or why you end up on a sex offenders register.
In this case, there’s a valid argument to be made that this person represents a danger to society, and the need to protect/inform people from him outweighs his desire to not have past crimes revealed.
If you can get a psychologist to sign off on him having uncontrollable urges then yeah. Otherwise he needs the same chances as every other ex felon.
So what is this guy supposed to do to support himself?
Obvious. More crime.
You can feed and house them, of course.
No, people should be able to feed and house themselves.
Yes, they should be able to feed and house themselves, which they can’t do if they’re being forced to work around a rapist.
You can fully believe in people’s ability to rehabilitate and change, while also being aware that not everyone rehabilitates and changes. (…) In this case, there’s a valid argument to be made that this person represents a danger to society
What is that valid argument? OP said that indicates an ongoing danger, and if they’re an ongoing danger, what do we do in response to that beyond not covering up their crimes (which are already reported on the sex offender registry)?
The law is far from perfect, but it’s hard to overstate the danger of basing the rule of law on vibes - which you appear to be doing.
This is why I am so glad I abandoned Reddit.
Preach, there was a video of a woman on the front page of Reddit, obviously intoxicated and clearly of her mind, and she kept yelling the n word. All while she was getting assaulted. She mentally was clearly not there but all the top comments were defending the assault and saying all kinds of unspeakable shit. Reddit likes to pretend they are smart liberal and enlightened but I’ve seen it descend into a pit of shitheads so many times.
The short and unsatisfactory answer to your question is that this isn’t a hostile work environment. A hostile work environment is narrowly defined. You telling everyone about his rape of your friend is closer to the definition than him being a rapist.
An unsafe work environment applies only to physical hazard, so the same goes there. You’d have to demonstrate and prove that he is causing you current harm. Basically, unless he sexually harasses you or attempts to rape you, and you can prove it, there is no leg for you to stand on.
The law was built by men. It’s built on what has happened, not what could happen. It doesn’t protect victims, only inconsistently avenge. The bulk of protections in place are for accused/ perpetrators.
What someone did in the past doesn’t mean they’re going to do it again. You may be paranoid about it, but imagine how they feel if they’re a legitimately changed person? That said I’d still be cautious.
I agree with @captainlezbian Was he convicted, or found innocent? Unless he’s doing weird shit that doesn’t justify continued discrimination.
Important to note: in the US people are not found “innocent,” they are found “not guilty.” It may seem pedantic but it’s important to remember that a lack of a conviction is not evidence that they didn’t commit a crime, only that a jury believed there was enough doubt in the evidence to decline to find them guilty.
This is especially relevant to rape cases, where evidence is difficult for outsiders to interpret and a trial result of “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean a rape didn’t happen or that the defendant didn’t commit it.
Similarly, “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “guilty, but we couldn’t prove 100%”. So, a lack of conviction is not evidence that they did commit a crime, as you’re implying. This is especially relevant to rape cases.
Why is this “especially relevant to rape cases”?
Not sure how you got that out of my comment which was in reply to someone talking about people being found innocent rather than not guilty.
You’re stating that “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent.” I’m adding that “not guilty” doesn’t always mean “guilty but got away with it.” Which part confused you?
So, a lack of conviction is not evidence that they did commit a crime, as you’re implying. This is especially relevant to rape cases.
Guess I’m confused where I said anything remotely like that.
If they didn’t do it they get the same ‘not guilty’ verdict, so what is the recourse for someone who was falsely charged?
I am specifically thinking of the US where there are a lot of black men falsely convicted of violent crimes they did not commit because of racist eye witness testimony or even victims who blame a random black person to avoid social stigma and prosecutors who want higher conviction rates.
A false accusation or conviction isn’t even necessarily because of ill intent from anyone involved (although let’s be real, cops almost always have ill intent); people can just be wrong about who raped them. Eye witness testimony is bad in a neutral setting and horrible in an emotionally charged setting, and if for some reason DNA evidence is unavailable then unfortunately victims are left with nothing but their (human, fallible) eyewitness testimony of what happened.
Intentional false accusation is a whole other ball game, and is already a crime.
He was found guilty both times he raped someone. Considering he served less than 2 years in prison for his last offence I highly doubt that changed him.
Also considering that he’s a rapist I don’t give a damn how he feels. Rape isn’t like other crimes. You don’t rape someone because you don’t know any better. You don’t rape someone out of necessity. You don’t rape someone on accident. You rape someone because you’re a rabid animal who has no place in society. You don’t fix someone like that. You can only mitigate the risk to others.
In your the last sentences of your last paragraph you could exchange the word rape for murder and it would still be true. Similarly for most crimes there is no necessity. So I really don’t understand why you think “rape isn’t like other crimes”.
It seems like you have your own irrational opinion that you don’t want to change so I really don’t see the point in this discussion.
Murder doesn’t get laughable sentences. Like under two years for a repeated offender.
Murderes also normally don’t have a whole bunch of people online rallying behind their right of redemption. It’s only rapists who get this and suddenly everyone turns into Jesus online and demands the victims better forgive them!
The direct answer to your question is… because the actual risk of aggravated sexual assault against a co-worker are infinitesimal. There’s practically no risk. If he’s going to rape someone it will be someone less likely to id him.
Honestly, it sounds like you just don’t want him around and are looking to justify that. Your feelings are perfectly valid, I’m sure I wouldn’t want to be around him, it’s just good to acknowledge your feelings.
Sure, but let’s acknowledge that “rape” describes a vast range of crimes.
Most victims do know their rapists, because most rapes are perpetrated by dates, ex partners, family members in non-consensual but not necessarily violent sexual encounters.
This guy seems to be a perpetrator of violent sexual assault - he broke into someone’s home and violently assaulted them. What percentage of victims of this type of rape know their rapist?
Just like exmuderers do. But I do see your point.
I think someone who’s committed murder is a perfect analogy actually. For people who serve their time or whatever after committing murder, there’s no legal standing for not employing them. You might feel uncomfortable as their coworker, which is totally valid. You may also believe that there is no forgiveness or second chances after committing certain crimes like rape and murder. But unless the employer has a good reason why an ex-murderer cannot perform their work duties or is currently doing illegal things at work, I don’t think they can not hire them just based off of that.
They can actually, refuse to hire them. Ex Felons have to report their conviction for the rest of their life and they absolutely have a harder time getting work.
Not everywhere, mostly that’s a thing in the US (which is a pretty shitty society when it comes to how they treat their ex-cons and consequently to re-offending-rates) or with jobs where the past could have an impact (for example if you are to work in law enforcement)
Op didn’t say he was convicted. If he was, aren’t felons one of the only classes we can legally discriminate against. I would assume they could have not hired him based on the felony but now that he is hired I have no idea. Op should talk to a lawyer if they want but I doubt mich can be done legally.
Maybe it’s in a comment (trying to remember from yesterday) but I’m sure OP said he had spent 2 years in jail for his most recent conviction.
Also, I don’t think a lawyer is the right person to talk to in this case. If you want someone charged you talk to the police.
Yeah I guess the employer could choose not to employ them but I don’t think they have to not employ them.
I guess that is what I am getting at. You can choose to not hire an otherwise qualified felon, but you can’t do the same to a protected class because they are a member of that class.
Generally when you commit a crime, you get convicted, complete your sentence, and then you get all of your rights back unless you’re deemed a risk to the public in which case you may have additional restrictions on your freedom.
Not everyone re-offends. In fact, for many types of crimes, the recidivism rate is fairly low. Your assumption that this person is going to put women at risk is short sighted, especially given the fact that a person is FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted by their own romantic partner than a random person.
The problem with banning someone from any sort of employment where they have contact with the other gender, is that that essentially prevents them from working in any capacity. There are no industries with only a single gender across the entire organization. If they hired only men, it would be considered discriminatory and they could be sued.
It also doesn’t in any way reflect the fact that this person will encounter women everywhere, from the grocery store to the gas station. Work is hardly the only place where people encounter others.
This isn’t entirely true. In many cases rights are permanently lost. Quite a few states specifically disenfranchise individuals who have a past conviction of a felony. Those that are most intimately knowledgeable of how terrible the conditions are for prisoners and those that would have the most motivation to see reform are prevented from participating in our democracy and having their voices heard.
In my opinion, this is pretty terrible and is just one of many. Many reasons or criminal justice system needs reform.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, decades of being “tough on crime” has done nothing but to make more criminals.
We set up polling stations in prison in my country, which I completely agree with.
I AM NOT A LAWYER nor have I slept in a Motel 6 recently, but I believe in California, someone convicted of a sex-related crime becomes a “registered sex offender” for life. They can’t live near schools and there are other restrictions. During employee-onboarding, HR must have discovered that this guy has a criminal record. If not, you should discuss this with your manager and HR. If they’re a registered sex offender, then the company should follow the guidelines for employing such people.
Who said anything about California?
They are replying to:
Generally when you commit a crime, you get convicted, complete your sentence, and then you get all of your rights back unless you’re deemed a risk to the public in which case you may have additional restrictions on your freedom.
I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US)
You can definitely fire someone for being a sex offender in the US. Outside of a few exceptions that probably don’t apply in your case, you can also fire someone for being merely an accused sex offender.
You can also fire someone for laughing in a weird way, or wearing a color you don’t like, or being born on a Monday when you don’t like Mondays.
people don’t think it be like it is but it do.
anti-discrimination laws just mean employers can’t give the real reason so they’ve gotten really good at making up legally acceptable reasons.
And in
right to work“at-will” states, not even that much.You’re thinking of at-will employment states. Right to work is about joining unions and making that difficult.
Ah right. Thank you for pointing that out.
“Right to work” means employees can work in a union shop and receive the benefits of such without having to join the union or pay dues. It’s a set of laws that have successfully destroyed unions.
You’re thinking of “at will” employment laws, which means an employer can fire an employee for any reason or for no reason, but not for an illegal reason (which varies depending on state but includes the right to organize and rights against discrimination and retaliation).
Oh, of course. Thank you for pointing that out.
Sorry - I should have realized others would point that out as well. I didn’t mean to pile on.
No worries, I assumed it was done in good faith and appreciated the heads up. Thanks!
You mean “at-will” states and that functionally means any state but Montana.
Indeed.
Many US based companies also do pre-employment background checks. So either OP works for a company that doesn’t or they work for a “second chance” company that is OK with violent backgrounds. Either way the company is fine with his background and is very unlikely to fire him for something they likely knew about at hire.
In the US you can be fired for any reason except for protected reasons (gender, sexuality, race, religion). Being a convicted sex offender is not a protected class.
*in a right to work stste
In an at-will state, which I think is most or all of them.
Right-to-work is different; it means you can’t be required to join a union in order to take a job.
In a right to work ststeSome cities and counties have additional protections, but at the state level, the only one that’s not at-will is Montana and the entire population of that state would fit in a single decently sized city. So, I think that’s a distinction that wasn’t really necessary, but you do you.
I thought for sure this was about Trump.
Isn’t everything?
In his mind, yeah.
deleted by creator
Trump raped E. Jean Carol.
deleted by creator
No they didn’t.
deleted by creator
It did not say it’s not rape. Rape is a criminal term to be used in criminal court. Sexual Assault is the civil court term for rape. He was not punished, he was sued.
What college did you go to kiddo? You seem real dim.
deleted by creator
Right, how do you think he sexually assaulted her 30 years ago? They didn’t have the evidence to support full blown penetrative rape because any fluids or internal damage to her body would have long been healed over or ejected. The SA liability came with an $83.3M price tag. Do you get slapped with a punishment like that for grabbing a boob?
deleted by creator
Posting this seperately: OP, you have a right to feel unsafe. Talk with your other coworkers, then go to managment with a safety plan. You probably can’t get this guy fired, but it’s completely reasonable to ask for some sort of safeguards, given he’s a multiple offender. If you need inspiration, look at the sort of practices medical facilities have: multiple people required to be in the room, clear boundaries being set, agreed-upon followup if rules are broken, etc.
They didn’t say that he was a multiple offender, just to clarify.
