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?
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.
Why is this “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?
Guess I’m confused where I said anything remotely like that.
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.
Murder doesn’t get laughable sentences. Like under two years for a repeated offender.
Murderes also normally don’t have a whole bunch of people online rallying behind their right of redemption. It’s only rapists who get this and suddenly everyone turns into Jesus online and demands the victims better forgive them!