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?

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • MonkRome@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

            • MonkRome@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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 in Norway lose their,crime rates in the world.

              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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • puppy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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?

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • puppy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              They imprison or preferably execute the rapist, to guarantee they cannot hurt members of the community anymore

              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?

                • puppy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

    • xe3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.