How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?
How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?
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?
Sorry, too many arguments.
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.
- 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
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.
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.
From a Norwegian point of view, once someone has served their time, they've served their time and should be encouraged to get back into society. Freezing people out of society will only cause harm, and push them towards anti social behavior.
The US model of punishing criminals is clearly proving to do more harm than good, so why would you push for that model even further?
Because puritans.
That said though I wouldn't be comfortable working with a known rapist either.
Well said. I know a lawyer in Singapore, and they have a band where they perform with the very people they put away as a means of reintegration and rehabilitation of convicts post incarceration. As society, we need to do better than labels and prejudice.
I'll just leave this here
crime-free-association.org/about_crime_free.htm
You can't leave it there if it's not a link! Lol
While I agree that restorative justice is always better than punitive justice, nowhere in the post does OP mention that any justice was served at all, and statistically, it is almost certain that the rapist never saw a day of prison, and potentially isn't even on the sex offenders list.
They also never said they wanted them punished, but rather, that the safety of women be ensured, and in the same way known paedophiles shouldn't be put in positions where they have access to children, it isn't unreasonable to at least wish that a known rapist wouldn't be put in a position where they have access to potential victims. This is not punishment, it is consequences for actions.
If the person wasn't convicted for rape, at what grounds should the company fire the person on, rumours?
And I don't think you can compare it to child molesters not being allowed to work with children. Women are ~50% of the workforce, you'll interact with them in nearly every work scenario. Your only option would be isolate a sizeable percentage of people from most jobs, with all the ramifications such a move would have.
For most crimes I 100% agree. Rape is different though. There is no legitimate cause for rape. There is no frame of reference where rape is acceptable. The only reason you rape someone is because youre a rabid animal who is fundamentaly unfit to be in society. The only thing you can do with people like that is mitigate the risk they pose to others. In this case that would mean not allowing him to work somewhere where he has access to potential victims. In the post covid era that is incredibly easy with the supply of low skill remote work jobs.
Why is rape always different than murder? You go on this whole tirade about how "but rape is different", but is it? So you'd rather be next to a repeat murderer?
Is this really motivated by logic or by emotion? You don't speak facts(many of the things you said apply to murder as well, but "only rape" qualifies for you) and your description of them as "rabid animals" is all the more telling. I'm not excusing their previous actions, but your behavior isn't better.
You want a society where people grow and developed and are rehabilitated? It starts with losing outdated nonsense like that. He served his time. He's allowed to be part of society now. I suspect the other employee who was "fired for bringing it up" probably made some big show or threat, in which case, yeah, they should be fired for creating a hostile workplace for the other employee. Protections go both ways, bud.
In what way is it different from murder or non sexual assault? They're all inexcusable, and the offender should be locked up for x amount of time for rehabilitation. Around 4-16% of men in US college(seriously, wtf) commit sexual assault, you can't just brush them under a carpet hope it all sorts out.
Social isolation sounds like the worst possible solution if you want to stop repeat offences. Rather, they should learn how healthy social interactions work and where the line of personal space is drawn.
There is no legitimate cause for rape.
There is no legitimate cause for murder. If you're found guilty, it wasn't something like self-defense.
The only thing you can do with people like that is mitigate the risk they pose to others.
Your judicial system has determined that the risk has been mitigated. I'm not sure if I'd agree with the overall assessment, but I would bet that gainful employment helps with the mitigation.
Some places treat rape as a mild crime. If you're in the US, which you might be, I've always found that weird... anything sexual is incredibly taboo, but the punishments for rape in some places are so "toned down", like punishments for neglectful killings involving vehicles. It's like they tone the punishments down because they don't think they're that bad.
That wouldn't really solve anything though, as long as they're still out and about in society. So if we follow this argument basically where we end up is prison for life.
If we are to release people we have to give them a real chance go get their life right. Releasing people from prison only to cripple them and make sure they can never live a normal life is not likely to solve any problems.
Was he tried and has he served his sentence? If so, it's incumbent on society to put aside the personal feelings and help the criminal (yes that's what I said) re-integrate into society. It's either that, or fight for a different system.
Life in prison
If that's what you want to happen to you, I'm sure we can help
So we shouldn't try to reform people - just piss away a human life at a cost of $14K-$70K per year to the taxpayers in what's already the most incercerated population in the world, where it's well established that the threat of prison does nothing to reduce crime, and there would be no puntitve difference between a single rape and a spree?
Got any more of those great takes you'd like to share?
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?
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 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.
You do know one of the points of prison, besides retribution is rehabilitation, just prisoning someone does not constitute a healthy society.
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.
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.
There is no reason why rape is judged much less severely than torture though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unless he's doing things that currently put other people at risk, maybe mind your own business? Part of rehabilitation is convicts re-integrating into society, including having a job, paying for their own way in life, etc. If you really want to make sure that people keep bouncing in and out of prison, sure, keep doing your best to get people fired for things they've already served their time on.
You insist that no rapist can ever e rehabilitated; on what metric do you base that belief? Or, in other words, what kind of objective evidence do you have that this is true?
I just found out that if you are caught having sex in prison (in the USA), you are guilty of a sex crime regardless of if both adults consented or not.
This is only tangentially related to OPs post, but I just thought it was interesting.
I'm going to need a source to believe that. Any sex between guards and inmates is automatically considered rape now, but between prisoners?
When I read the title question, my immediate answer was "If the rapist is a gay man, or a straight woman."
If you aren't going to find a new job, document any inappropriate behavior. Talk to the other women and get them onboard. Let them know who he is. It wont take much to have him out on his ass if he does anything. Bring up his conviction when you report misconduct as well.
There are plenty of jobs he can work that aren't with the best friend of his victim.
This is an understandable sentiment, but telling everyone about the charges for which this person has served their sentence in order to rally the rest of the workplace to look for ways to get them sacked is super-likely to see you face consequences for bullying.
If you don't want to work with this person, consider explaining the circumstances to HR (noting that your friend was a victim), and say it'll be too traumatic to work alongside them. This seems like a reasonable request to me, which should be accommodated - particularly if HR are already aware of the conviction.
If you want vengeance, figure out a way that isn't going to put your livelihood in jeopardy. Don't squeeze more negative consequences out of an already shitty situation.
Finally, you need to consider the society you're advocating for - if we're abandoning the rule of law to keep people out of work and unable to support themselves after serving their time, we're relegating them to be either wards of the state or homeless. We've already seen the issues caused by felons being barred from voting and its interplay with racial and political dynamics - how do you think manufacturing a desperate criminal underclass will work out for society?
You said what I intended to say much more eloquently than I could. Thanks.
Great comment.
Wow, holy shit 🤣 Okay, let's break this down:
This is an understandable sentiment, but telling everyone about the charges for which this person has served their sentence in order to rally the rest of the workplace to look for ways to get them sacked is super-likely to see you face consequences for bullying.
Uniting with other people who feel the same way isn't bullying, it's a sign the complaint is legitimate. If a group of people complaining about another coworker is bullying, then nothing could be done about anyone. And they couldn't unionize either.
Bottom line is, employees coming together over a common problem, even one employee rallying others, is done for many legitimate reasons, situations like this included. Even if you don't agree with anything standing in the way of a known rapist working around women.
If you don’t want to work with this person, consider explaining the circumstances to HR (noting that your friend was a victim), and say it’ll be too traumatic to work alongside them. This seems like a reasonable request to me, which should be accommodated - particularly if HR are already aware of the conviction.
Which will force the victim, or potential victim, to cede territory to the rapist, enabling the rapist to continue harming others. 🤔 Legally, it may or may not benefit OP depending on how they respond, but it's really not asking enough. They need to ask for the rapist to be moved. For which they'll need the backing of other people.
If you want vengeance, figure out a way that isn’t going to put your livelihood in jeopardy.
No one even mentioned vengeance. Strawman elsewhere.
Don’t squeeze more negative consequences out of an already shitty situation.
Hahaha you just come right the fuck out and say it.
No negative consequences for rape allowed, rapists should be able to rape and live their lives unabated.
And if we say otherwise, well, negative consequences might come upon us.
Finally, you need to consider the society you’re advocating for -
Ironically I agree with you. This is a horrifying authoritarian slave racket masquerading as a representative democracy, which is run by rapists. And we unironically do have to consider their feelings, because they are the cops, judges and employers who tell others what to do and can do anything they want to you with no consequences. If we let offenders experience consequences on others for doing terrible things, that means they might have to face the music, and we all know they shouldn't have to handle that.
No man should have to experience consequences for rape. It'd be too much of a threat to the society that built itself on rape.
if we’re abandoning the rule of law to keep people out of work and unable to support themselves after serving their time, we’re relegating them to be either wards of the state or homeless. We’ve already seen the issues caused by felons being barred from voting and its interplay with racial and political dynamics - how do you think manufacturing a desperate criminal underclass will work out for society?
-
A company is not an agent of the law and what it does has no bearing on the rule of law
-
Banning rapists from working around women in no wa would break the rule of law if it was an actual law. We already have sex offender registries and yet somehow the world will keep on turning
-
Rapists can go take jobs that doesn't require them to be around other people.
-
Blackmailing and threatening us with the implied threat of harm from disenfranchised rapists is the exact same vengeance you accuse your opponents of having. You literally became exactly what you claim to hate. You. The one wielding it like an emotional cudgel when no one brought it up. But it is certainly like you to project your faults onto others. It's what rape apologists do, after all.
-
How does employing someone who’s been convicted of battery not create an unsafe work environment for everyone?
He needs to work somewhere and as long as he doesnt continue to harass or worse anyone I dont see the issue
Yes, but also keep your guard up and trust your instincts. It sucks, but life is messy.
The average user of Lemmy has more empathy with a two times convicted rapist than with Amber Heard or that one woman from this atrocious Tiger King series.
He had his redemption arc and now is a better human being than 95% of his co-workers. Duh.
It could either be:
- The rapist did not disclose the conviction
- The HR group didn't perform their due diligence with background checks
OR
- The rapist was not convicted
OR
- Charges were never filed
OR
- Charges were filed but dropped later on
Or he was charged, found guilty, served his time, and got out.
See the first example.
You missed, he did disclose it and HR hired him anyways. Which is legal.
Look. I get it. But, understand the only reason you feel that way is because you haven't committed a crime severe enough for you to do any significant time.
Recidivism for rape is 13% to 35% Link to source
I would seriously recommend checking your privilege on this one.
Check your privilege? He just said this person followed a woman home and raped her. His best friend. And that he's worried for female coworkers. All valid feelings. I'm guessing you're a man and don't have to fear sexual assault. Check YOUR privilege.
The fear of criminals committing crimes after incarnation is irrational and unfounded. For example murder has the lowest residencism rate of any crime followed by possession of underage porn. Two extreme and serious crimes.
Moreover, there are on average two million people incarcerated in the United States at any given time. That means a large portion of the American population are ex-fellons. Chances are you've been around felons of serious crimes on a daily basis and you'd never even know.
Fear mongering about some made up issues like rapists and murders working and living in our society is completely unfounded and irrational.
Take the sex offender registry, it has done absolutely nothing to deter sex crimes and is generally disliked in law enforcement due to its uselessness.
OPs feelings are valid in the same sense that a racist's feelings are just as valid about how much they hate minorities. Just because a feeling is valid doesn't make it right.
So, I'll say it again. The only reason you and op feel this way is because you're probably not felons, therefore check your privilege.
His attitude answers OP's questions most succinctly.
Rape is low-key respected and condoned.
Sorry that must be really horrible working near someone like that. I'm also sorry there are a lot of shitty comments. It's quite shocking he only served 2 years.
You could ask an attorney, it's possibly you could already sue your employer. There are also surely people or groups who have experience with this kind of thing.
Talk to a lawyer for sure. Don't be surprised when they tell you there is no recourse just on those facts though.
You. Don't. Matter. Your employer is disgusted they have to pay you. They are your enemy, treat them as such. I'm not talking about your coworker (although dropping a chair on a rapist is understandable), the business however needs you to fail and be on life support so you can only accept their wage.
Legally fuck your company up from the inside.
Holy shit, how is he not in prison?
OP says in the comments that he served his sentence already.
Jep, Not even two years for his second rape.
I doesn't butbit is what it is . In my opinion rapists should be put to death or given life sentence in prison where they can work till the end of their life.
"I don't support the prison industrial complex, but when I do I choose Dos Equis."
ITT: people reallly pulling for a rapist.
I'm honestly with OP on this one. Rape is up there with torture and child abuse. You've gotta be a real scumbag to do it. It's not something you get pressed into by circumstance, like e.g. stabbing someone in a bar fight. At some point, the right of everyone else to be free of threat outweighs one guy's right to reintegrate with society.
OP, you live in the US, and you have 2nd Amendment rights. Start carrying to work.
You do not have a 2nd Amendment right at work. Your employer controls your ability to carry on their property.
Edit to Add - it's not about the Rape part. It's about the Ex Felon part. Today it's a Rapist. Tomorrow it's the guy who stole bread for his family. The day after that no one can ever be released so we bring back lifetime indentured servitude. We've seen this story before and it ended with a civil war over slavery and a civil rights movement.
You don’t answer the question about how this person can support themselves. They committed a horrible crime, but have served their time. It isn’t pulling for a rapist, it’s wanting to see someone rehabilitated.
People on one hand say they want to rehabilitate offenders. But when it comes to it, they want to permanently ostracize them, prevent them from working, and prevent them doing the daily tasks of living. You think they are a threat, wait until they are forced to live in the streets starving and see how they will lash out.
And are you seriously defending stabbing someone in a bar fight?
And, no, you don’t have the right to carry a gun on someone else’s property, including your employer’s.
I can absolutely see how someone who gets into fights can be rehabilitated. You can work with anger management, threat responses, removal of triggers, avoiding people or areas that cause the behavior, etc.
Rape? It's an intentional, sadistic crime. I don't really see how rehab would even work with a multiple rapist.
wanting to see someone rehabilitated
Tossing somebody on the street and hoping for the best isn't rehab. Rehab involves active monitoring, behavioral modification, restrictions on liberties, etc. It also involves owning up to your crime to the community. If that makes life harder for the offender, that is their burden to bear.
They don't because the answer is simple: YOU feed them, since you want to protect and defend rapists, and thus rape itself.
Or just put them back into jail for life. They're a rapist. They don't belong here no matter how much you want them to be, and the fact this was even allowed to happen in the first place is a testament to how you have caused society to destroy itself by defending rape.
Their inability to feed themselves is simply not our problem. They brought that onto themselves. We don't have to let them into our communities and you can't force us to.
The fact that people on this platform are siding with the rapist is either evidence for bot activity or a sign the platform should be isolated and defederated from everyone else.
Would it be illegal to put up fliers all over the workplace with his mugshot and information about his crime?
Hey OP, if all else fails, there seem to be a whole mess of people in these comments who would be more than happy to give a rapist a job, so he could always go and babysit their kids, or drive their sister home late at night in a taxi, or be the orderly watching their sedated aunt who is recovering in hospital, and so on, I'm sure none of them would mind any of that..
There's a pretty far cry between leaving a sex offender alone with your child and just having them in an office where there are other people.
What is the alternative to giving rapists jobs? Either they literally are in prison for life, they get the death penalty, or they live on the streets. None of these options seems ideal. Prison is hugely expensive and doesn't give any opportunity for rehabilitation. The death penalty is rightly abolished where I live, I don't believe any crime is worth it. And just casting rapists into society with no hope of rehabilitation is a sure way to make them reoffend in one way or another.
Heavens forbid hiring delinquents associated with usernames known to make disparaging remarks on the internet! They should be doxxed and prevented from participating at any level of society! MAGA!