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
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
functioning reform system
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.
- 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
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.
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.
It doesn’t change the reality of whether or not the individual committed a crime.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
Because puritans.
That said though I wouldn’t be comfortable working with a known rapist either.
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.
The “justice” system completely failing to address sexual and gendered violence doesn’t mean that violence didn’t happen
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
That kinda mentality is why america has the most people in prison per capita. Its the only way to rationalize the way the prisoners are essentially being enslaved. So by being commercially productive, people with money (read: with power) will always work to increase the number of prisoners.
I am fine with rehabilitating drug dealers or other non violent crimes and even some violent ones. Rapists should never see the light of day again. There’s no excuse for rape. There’s no “Oh, I didn’t know raping someone was a bad thing” to rehabilitate someone out of. To rape someone you have to be a selfish, shitty person, end of story. We don’t need people like that in society. The resources spent trying to fix them would be better focused on people who need help and have never raped anyone.
Just out of curiosity, what other violent crimes do get a pass for “not knowing it was wrong?”
Like do you believe that people can assault other people with weapons without knowing it was wrong? Can they beat their wives and not know it was wrong?
You seem to have a weird hangup on rape in particular in comparison to other violent crimes when it comes to “knowing it was wrong.”
I’m pretty sure the MS13 guys that butcher people know it’s wrong they just don’t give a shit. I’m sure people who use physical violence to get what they want know it’s wrong but they just don’t care.
Stupid standard, people can rationalize any crime rape ain’t special.
How about instead of dodging their points, you really think about what they’re saying?
I said some violent crimes.
Like do you believe that people can assault other people with weapons without knowing it was wrong?
If someone assaults somebody in retaliation for something they did to them or a family member where it’s unlikely they would harm anyone else many would argue that can be justified.
Can they beat their wives and not know it was wrong?
No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.
I’m pretty sure the MS13 guys that butcher people know it’s wrong they just don’t give a shit. I’m sure people who use physical violence to get what they want know it’s wrong but they just don’t care.
And they should be locked up forever with the rapists.
If someone assaults somebody in retaliation (…) many would argue that can be justified.
Then when someone assaults the assaulter in retaliation for the retaliation? Fuck the rule of law - return to lynch mobs, amirite? Do you say people argue this because you’re one of them and are too much of a coward to say so, or is this an irrelevancy you don’t believe? People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.
No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.
No exceptions, no discussion entered into - guess we’re locking up the military and police. Of course there are exceptions, and of course people are going to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify their actions to themselves. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make your standard a transparently terrible one.
People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.
They do, and that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, what it does mean is you can look at their reasons when determining whether or not they are likely to re-offend. The person who only kills people who rape their kid is not likely to do it again vs. the person who’s threshold for rape is that they don’t respect other people’s body autonomy when they’re horny.
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.
Idgaf what the “justice” system says. I’m giving my opinion of how it should be. I know of child molesters in my home town who were out in 6 years and continued to be pieces of shit. The kids they raped sure as fuck weren’t over the damage they did in that time. A guy raped a member of my family and didn’t get any time at all. Rehabilitation does not work on rapists. The fact that there is a maximum sentence just goes to show that they don’t get out when they’re rehabilitated. They get out when their time is up.
The current system doesn’t even attempt to rehabilitate people. That’s the big problem. The current system just doesn’t work.
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.
I didn’t say don’t fix it. I said don’t let them back out when nothing was done to rehabilitate them.
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.
There’s a maximum sentence for drug dealers too. Is it impossible to realize the harm that brought to the community?
No? That’s why they’re in prison. I don’t think maximum sentences work. You should be in prison until you’re fixed and ready to not be a criminal when to you get out. I’d hardly compare a drug dealer to a rapist though. A drug dealer can be driven into it by a poor financial situation and the people using drugs are doing so by choice. Rapists don’t have any external factors that drive them to it.
I’m sorry but your logic clearly doesn’t track here. If maximum sentences are proof that there is no rehabilitation then why wouldn’t that be true of drug dealers too?
I never said it was. You’re the one who brought up drug dealers anyway. I said maximum sentences aren’t a good way to do sentencing. The sentence should be “until you are rehabilitated”, regardless of your crime.
You do know one of the points of prison, besides retribution is rehabilitation, just prisoning someone does not constitute a healthy society.
I see you have no idea what you’re talking about
K
Disgusting sentiment.
Lol leave it to a Lemmy troglodyte to balk at the notion that they should be imprisoned for doing horrific shit to other people.
I bet if the rape victim fought back or shot him, you’d tell her off while you’re throwing her in prison though.
Your sexism is showing and it is gross, warty and about 2.5 inches
I’m the troglodyte, sure. The one who DOESN’T want people imprisoned forever. You making a lot of assumptions based on the two words I said. Troll harder.
Yes, you ARE the troglodyte BECAUSE you don’t want to protect other people by imprisoning rapists for life, serious and extreme criminals who need to be kept away from society permanently.
You are a backwards-ass sexist who belongs in the 20th century. You’d get along well with Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Cosby and all of their ilk.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah I guess the employer could choose not to employ them but I don’t think they have to not employ them.
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.
So what is this guy supposed to do to support himself?
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.
deleted by creator
The same reason a lot of jobs drug test- insurance requirements
Now ask yourself why those insurance requirements exist
Because companies don’t want to take on the liability of hiring someone that they don’t think they can trust.
I don’t really get your narrative about someone hiring a thief over a rapist- both felony convictions will limit your opportunities.
You’re not listening. Companies shouldn’t hire either. And we’re talking specifically about rapists, not thieves. Don’t waste my time trying to strawman.
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?
When I read the title question, my immediate answer was “If the rapist is a gay man, or a straight woman.”
