How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?locked
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?
You are viewing a single comment
Correct. So it's better to throw away the key than let monsters back on the streets.
"The system doesn't work. Instead of fixing it, let's just ruin people's lives forever. Nevermind the fact that people can change."
It doesn't matter if people can change, it's not up to a victim to suffer the presence of their abuser to satisfy an abuser's interests. Ever.
Your garbage ass rhetoric is the exact same chief enablers use to justify choosing their abusers over the rest of their families, and they destroy their households as a result.
This is why we clearly need to cut people like you out of society as well. You don't belong here either.
No u
I didn't say don't fix it. I said don't let them back out when nothing was done to rehabilitate them.
"Nothing was done to rehabilitate them, so rehabilitation doesn't work."
There's literally no logic here...
If nothing was done to rehabilitate them, then they are not rehabilitated. How does that not track?
It doesn't track when the argument is that they should be rehabilitated rather than just locked away.
I never said they shouldn't be, assuming they can be. What I said was if they are not, don't let them out. Currently there is very little rehabilitation going on and those who are released are still a danger. This is not a good thing. If you don't fix the rehabilitation problem first all you get are repeat offenders. Releasing un-rehabilitated criminals < locking them up forever < rehabilitation.
And the shocking percentage of innocent people who are forced into bad plea deals or railroaded by the system? Do we throw away the key for them too?
Those people are why I didn't say we should execute them. They can still prove their innocence and get out.
The system doesn't work, we should just throw away the key, and somehow the innocent will prove they are so from behind the gates we locked forever?
That's not logical.
Neither is letting out convicted rapists and murderers on the off chance some of them are innocent. The fix to that problem is not to release people early, it's to reform the investigation and trial process so that wrongful convictions don't happen in the first place.
Who said anything about letting people out early? You just decided I was talking about early release, but I never said that.
The answer is, as always, spending some money on actual rehabilitation and letting them go at the end of that, or their sentence.
If they have a defined sentence instead of "until you are rehabilitated" then you are letting them out early.
In some kinds of Justice "until rehabilitated" is the sentence. And other systems part of rehabilitation is accepting the rest of your sentence with equanimity. You are so dead set on the idea of releasing some slavering barbarian early that you're missing the entire point of the conversation.
If that was true in ALL kinds I would be fine with it. It's not. I've personally known people released from prison who were no better than when they went in.
I agree that's a failure of the system. But that doesn't mean we create an oppressed class. It means we fix the system.
One the system gets ahold of you, it's almost impossible to escape it regardless of your innocence.