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
- 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
HR hates this one weird trick!
Civil rights attorneys love this one weird trick!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
deleted by creator
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.
You know where you messed up? I don’t have tell you, right?
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.
Can’t reach everyone in this thread. Death penalty still exists in some states.
If someone is executed for murder, then you definitely shouldn’t hire them. But if they served their punishment, letting them out of jail and then not letting them earn the money the need to survive is a recipe for disaster.
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.
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.
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)
-
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…
deleted by creator
I think this attitude where some traumatic event ruins people for life is toxic. Trauma is part of life. People can move on and have fulfilling lives.
Removed by mod
Murder, for the victim, by definition, is not a traumatic event.
I can’t send a corpse to therapy for any amount of time that’s long enough for them to recover from being dead, I can say differently about being traumatized…
And honestly as someone who’s used therapy to recover from trauma, I find the idea that “It would unquestionably be better if you were murdered instead” to be so absurdly offensive and dismissive, as if anything of value to me and my continued existence is suddenly moot because I’ve become “Damaged Goods”
Seeing Murder as preferable to Rape is a highly misogynistic way of thinking that draws too much from patriarchal standards about a woman’s worth.
Death is always an option, revival generally isn’t.
Removed by mod
Okay. Let’s just keep all the prisoners locked up forever. Well wait, that’s kind of expensive. Let’s force them to work. You know they’re going to have kids, and both parents are no good evil people so the kids must be too. Let’s never let the kids out either.
Congratulations, you’ve re-invented chattel slavery. With the exact same argument of banishing felons from society that was used in the 1600’s and eventually evolved into chattel slavery.
Can we do the civil war now too or do we have to wait?
You got shit backwards. War is now. Deny or don’t still happening.
This isn’t a civil war. I’ve seen a civil war. And this is nowhere close.
That’s not what I said.
Me - … Civil War…
You - … war is now…
Me - … Civil War…
You - Not what I was talking about!
Are you just being purposely obtuse then?
Removed by mod
Any reason or just being a blatant idiot?
Removed by mod
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought for sure this was about Trump.
Isn’t everything?
In his mind, yeah.
deleted by creator
Trump raped E. Jean Carol.
deleted by creator
No they didn’t.
deleted by creator
It did not say it’s not rape. Rape is a criminal term to be used in criminal court. Sexual Assault is the civil court term for rape. He was not punished, he was sued.
What college did you go to kiddo? You seem real dim.
deleted by creator
Right, how do you think he sexually assaulted her 30 years ago? They didn’t have the evidence to support full blown penetrative rape because any fluids or internal damage to her body would have long been healed over or ejected. The SA liability came with an $83.3M price tag. Do you get slapped with a punishment like that for grabbing a boob?
deleted by creator
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:
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.
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 a right to work stste
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.
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.
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?
