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.
- 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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
It’s actually 50.5% female in the US. Not that it really changes your point much.
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.
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.
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.
So we shouldn’t try to reform people - just piss away a human life at a cost of $14K-$70K per year to the taxpayers in what’s already the most incercerated population in the world, where it’s well established that the threat of prison does nothing to reduce crime, and there would be no puntitve difference between a single rape and a spree?
Got any more of those great takes you’d like to share?
It’s even more dire, because where in the developed world can you incarcerate someone for 14k? I would estimate that depending on the kind of treatment these people get, you’re looking at costs of at least 50% GDP/capita, if not more.
US GDP/capita is around 70k USD, average costs per inmate per year are around 40k USD.
Germany GDP/capita is 46k EUR, average cost per inmate are at around 43k EUR.
So essentially we either kill them or house them inhumanely like livestock forever, OR we reintegrate them and use incarceration as a last resort, there is no other way. People who advocate for life in prison for anything but murder have no clue what they’re talking about.
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.
Can’t reach everyone in this thread. Death penalty still exists in some states.
