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?

  • Aurolei@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Then why do jobs do criminal background checks?

        A business won’t hire a thief to handle money for fear of stealing from the business.

        But the business will hire a rapist because a company can’t be raped, and it doesn’t care about its employees’ safety.

      • jaek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          9 months ago

          You can fully believe in people’s ability to rehabilitate and change, while also being aware that not everyone rehabilitates and changes. (…) In this case, there’s a valid argument to be made that this person represents a danger to society

          What is that valid argument? OP said that indicates an ongoing danger, and if they’re an ongoing danger, what do we do in response to that beyond not covering up their crimes (which are already reported on the sex offender registry)?

          The law is far from perfect, but it’s hard to overstate the danger of basing the rule of law on vibes - which you appear to be doing.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.