10mo ago

How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?

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?

You're viewing a single thread.

312 comments

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.

312 comments