this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
318 points (81.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35806 readers
1813 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 263 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh then yeah I’ve got no fucking clue, firing the last person who brought it up absolutely should be illegal.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 46 points 9 months ago

Depends on the details of why they were fired. We're obviously only getting one side of the story here

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 39 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 235 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 187 points 9 months ago (21 children)

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?

[–] db2@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

Because puritans.

That said though I wouldn't be comfortable working with a known rapist either.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 157 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 130 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (10 children)

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?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 122 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 93 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (53 children)

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.

load more comments (53 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 89 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (78 children)

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.

load more comments (78 replies)
[–] Aurolei@lemmy.world 67 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 39 points 9 months ago (21 children)

Agreeing with OP is the same as saying you don't believe people can change or get better.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world 67 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] badlotus@lemm.ee 66 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 9 months ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 40 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 31 points 9 months ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 36 points 9 months ago (27 children)

I thought for sure this was about Trump.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Posting this seperately: OP, you have a right to feel unsafe. Talk with your other coworkers, then go to managment with a safety plan. You probably can't get this guy fired, but it's completely reasonable to ask for some sort of safeguards, given he's a multiple offender. If you need inspiration, look at the sort of practices medical facilities have: multiple people required to be in the room, clear boundaries being set, agreed-upon followup if rules are broken, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›