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?

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • L1to@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          47
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think more people don’t recover from death compared to rape

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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)

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago
              1. Many is not anywhere near all.

              2. That is an option for the victim in a rape still, there is no option for the victim in a murder.

        • beefcat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          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…

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s not an either/or situation. But congratulations. You are the second or third person to respond with a ridiculous logical fallacy.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          39
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • puppy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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?

              • puppy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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?

                  • puppy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You parrot the same thing over and over again without answering any of questions directed to you. I was asking about innocent people, not rapists. You want to execute rapists, sure fine. What about the wrongly convicted? You haven’t even spared sentence for them amongst all your ramblings. If you are serious about seeing what you’re preaching implemented, the wrongly convicted has to be addressed. If you are not going to accept that your ramblings are just that. Ramblings.

      • xe3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.