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?
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
Optional subsequent steps
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
50% of the population is women. How would that even work?
It's actually 50.5% female in the US. Not that it really changes your point much.
I bet you are fun at parties :P
people who are knowledgeably often are
Remote work.
Sounds like a bad idea considering:
a lot of past convicts that have been rehabilitated shouldn't be allowed into 87.3% of all jobs
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
And further considering the innocence project claims that about 4% of those are false convictions.
https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/
Obviously I do not want to downplay the situation you're in, but making society better is not done with broad brush strokes. No single person without the respective systemic knowledge will be able to design a solution for this in a matter of months.
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.
The "justice" system completely failing to address sexual and gendered violence doesn't mean that violence didn't happen (what is well documented is that both police and "justice" system regularly either dismiss accusations outright, or worse - put the victim through such abuse, known as a "second rape", that many don't even bother complaining in the first place because the additional trauma is enough to push them over the edge).
Also the fact that women are 50% of the population doesn't change a person choosing to make themsleves a threat to that 50%, nor does it excuse them from facing the consequences of their choices. Why is it that children deserve to be protected but women don't?
There are, especially nowadays, plenty of jobs where you hardly even interact with other people face to face, so their gender doesn't matter. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways this person can still be employed and make a living (hell, being an open and proud sexual abuser won't even keep a man from becoming president)
I also have to wonder if you're as concerned with rape victims being isolated from work places where they don't feel safe (something I assure you happens significantly more than a rapist having their job threatened in any real sense, again, because most rapists aren't even convicted, and are free to continue to live their lives), as you are about rapists being somehow deserving of all of this consideration.
So again - if you're going to commit a heinous crime, you should be willing to deal with the consequences, even if the patriarchy has convinced you you shouldn't have to, because in our society in around 98% of cases rapists walk away with their life unchanged. Having your choice of workplaces limited for the safety of the other employees is not a punishment. It is a perfectly reasonable consequence, a loss of a privilege that was never guaranteed, unlike the bodily autonomy of another person, which was violated. Restorative justice isn't about just keeping people out of prison, it is about keeping a community safe.
A flawed justice system is still immeasurably better than vigilantism.
I agree that legal systems around the globe are not able to effectly convict rapists, but that doesn't mean companies should be able to fire a person based on rumours. Though for the record, in this instance OP mentioned that the person was convicted for his crimes.
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.
To be fair, this isn't a "learn about consent" problem. OP describes it as a violent assault after breaking into the victim's home.
There is no legitimate cause for murder. If you're found guilty, it wasn't something like self-defense.
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?
It's even more dire, because where in the developed world can you incarcerate someone for 14k? I would estimate that depending on the kind of treatment these people get, you're looking at costs of at least 50% GDP/capita, if not more.
US GDP/capita is around 70k USD, average costs per inmate per year are around 40k USD.
Germany GDP/capita is 46k EUR, average cost per inmate are at around 43k EUR.
So essentially we either kill them or house them inhumanely like livestock forever, OR we reintegrate them and use incarceration as a last resort, there is no other way. People who advocate for life in prison for anything but murder have no clue what they're talking about.
Apparently you can incarcerate someone in the US for $14K p.a. - though this is at the very low end. Apparently, it's $18K in Mississippi or $136K in Wyoming.
Sources vary, of course - but this is the general consensus on the ballpark figure. I don't think it's wise to use Germany as a proxy for prison costs in the US - the US has too big a prison population and too sadistic an attitude toward them for this to be a reliable reference. That said, average costs appear comparable, and I've provided the approximate range.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%20in%20Norway%20lose%20their,crime%20rates%20in%20the%20world.
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.
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?
It literally doesn't matter because this isn't a discussion of the death penalty. This is an individual asking about a serious situation at work you deliberately ran off the rails to push a political agenda. Take your anti-justice garbage and shut it.
Oh, and by the way, OP's friend being expected to work alongside their rapist functionally is worth than death.
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?
It doesn't matter because the only reason I even replied was because I didn't realize you were purposefully derailing the thread to push an agenda, and using OP and his serious, personal situation to do it.
You and your goons have said, all over the thread, the most vile, disgusting, anti-woman shit, because the truth is you condone rape and don't want to see other males suffer for it. It didn't occur to you that you could suffer such a thing and have no recourse. You clearly dismiss the extreme moral crime of expecting a victim's friend and potential victims to suffer under circumstances like that -- of course, everyone else in that place can just go find another job, right? Rapists have the right to work wherever they want but not good, normal people. The world revolves around you and your ilk, after all.
You're quite simply a rape apologist. There's no way around it. And so are the mods of this sub apparently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
8 out of 10 victims know their rapist.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence#:~:text=Perpetrators%20of%20Sexual%20Violence%20Often%20Know%20the%20Victim&text=59%25%20were%20acquaintances,were%20strangers%20to%20the%20victim
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:
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.
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?
Great comment.
You said what I intended to say much more eloquently than I could. Thanks.
Wow, holy shit 🤣 Okay, let's break this down:
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.
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.
No one even mentioned vengeance. Strawman elsewhere.
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.
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.
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.
Would you like me to point out why your nonsense is nonsense, or would you rather take the opportunity walk back the things (I assume) you said because you were using me as a proxy for your dislike of the way reality works?
Helpful hint: Responding to this requires one line not 20 paragraphs.
I would like you to stop being a rape apologist and actually think about someone other than yourself.
You wouldn't know it for the walls of text you and your ilk have been dropping on people in the thread non-stop all day, but sure, go ahead and completely ignore everything you were told so you can avoid facing how monstrous your stance is.
Hopefully you won't ever be in a situation like OP. But then again, if you were, you'd destroy your relationships with your coworkers defending the rapist, so 🤷
Don't embarrass yourself further by telling me what other people think as you're getting downvoted this hard.
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:
OR
OR
OR
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.
Sorry, too many arguments.
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.
I'm not "for"anyone here, but "carry a loaded weapon to work" sounds like the worst advice possible. I guess you could justify that workplace safety isn't a thing, but that's no reason to throw kerosene into a fire.
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.
"Not wanting to work with a multiple rapist is the same as slavery"
Well no. That's a radical simplification. I'm explaining how this impulse led to slavery back in the day. As a result, locking people up forever as a matter of course turns out to be a really bad idea.
However this is exactly the level of discourse I've come to expect in regards to protecting society from conservative excess.
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.
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.
I don’t see why rehabilitation wouldn’t work. It either works or doesn’t. And OP says nothing about being a multiple rapist. Sure, maybe some crimes like murder you forfeit the right to be rehabilitated, but that isn’t what has been charged here.
And, sorry, violent crime can be every bit as intentional and sadistic as rape.
And where is your evidence he was just tossed on the street? He no doubt is being monitored by a parole officer and may very be receiving behavioral modification therapy.
And you are not merely making life “harder” you are making life impossible and pushing him to reoffend.
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.
Fuck off, asshole. I am not defending rape.
It’s our problem when you want to take the ability for them to care for themselves.
And it’s not that I want them to be. It’s that society has determined they have served their time. You seem to want to force them into recidivism, which supports rape more than anything I said.
Mate he's an idiot at best and a troll at worst. He thinks I'm sexist because I find the idea of lifetime imprisonment a "disgusting sentiment". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes the fuck you are, you vile, disgusting rape apologist. You and your ilk have:
These are positions your little cult have argued, hiding behind flowery language and Motte-and-bailey arguments, and you will NOT escape responsibility for your words.
You are a rape apologist. Period.
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?
That would probably fall under harassment and get OP fired.
I'd hardly consider making people aware of who they're interacting with on a daily basis harassment.
Rooting for op to do this so they can get sued as fuck
Illegal? No. Actually creating a hostile work environment and grounds for immediate termination? Yes.
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!