413

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 8 points 9 months ago

Idgaf what the "justice" system says. I'm giving my opinion of how it should be. I know of child molesters in my home town who were out in 6 years and continued to be pieces of shit. The kids they raped sure as fuck weren't over the damage they did in that time. A guy raped a member of my family and didn't get any time at all. Rehabilitation does not work on rapists. The fact that there is a maximum sentence just goes to show that they don't get out when they're rehabilitated. They get out when their time is up.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 33 points 9 months ago

The current system doesn't even attempt to rehabilitate people. That's the big problem. The current system just doesn't work.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago

Correct. So it's better to throw away the key than let monsters back on the streets.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 33 points 9 months ago

"The system doesn't work. Instead of fixing it, let's just ruin people's lives forever. Nevermind the fact that people can change."

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago

I didn't say don't fix it. I said don't let them back out when nothing was done to rehabilitate them.

[-] TomAwsm@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

"Nothing was done to rehabilitate them, so rehabilitation doesn't work."

There's literally no logic here...

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago

If nothing was done to rehabilitate them, then they are not rehabilitated. How does that not track?

[-] TomAwsm@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

It doesn't track when the argument is that they should be rehabilitated rather than just locked away.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

I never said they shouldn't be, assuming they can be. What I said was if they are not, don't let them out. Currently there is very little rehabilitation going on and those who are released are still a danger. This is not a good thing. If you don't fix the rehabilitation problem first all you get are repeat offenders. Releasing un-rehabilitated criminals < locking them up forever < rehabilitation.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 2 points 9 months ago

It doesn't matter if people can change, it's not up to a victim to suffer the presence of their abuser to satisfy an abuser's interests. Ever.

Your garbage ass rhetoric is the exact same chief enablers use to justify choosing their abusers over the rest of their families, and they destroy their households as a result.

This is why we clearly need to cut people like you out of society as well. You don't belong here either.

[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 9 months ago
[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 25 points 9 months ago

And the shocking percentage of innocent people who are forced into bad plea deals or railroaded by the system? Do we throw away the key for them too?

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

Those people are why I didn't say we should execute them. They can still prove their innocence and get out.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

The system doesn't work, we should just throw away the key, and somehow the innocent will prove they are so from behind the gates we locked forever?

That's not logical.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Neither is letting out convicted rapists and murderers on the off chance some of them are innocent. The fix to that problem is not to release people early, it's to reform the investigation and trial process so that wrongful convictions don't happen in the first place.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Who said anything about letting people out early? You just decided I was talking about early release, but I never said that.

The answer is, as always, spending some money on actual rehabilitation and letting them go at the end of that, or their sentence.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

If they have a defined sentence instead of "until you are rehabilitated" then you are letting them out early.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In some kinds of Justice "until rehabilitated" is the sentence. And other systems part of rehabilitation is accepting the rest of your sentence with equanimity. You are so dead set on the idea of releasing some slavering barbarian early that you're missing the entire point of the conversation.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

In some kinds of Justice “until rehabilitated” is the sentence

If that was true in ALL kinds I would be fine with it. It's not. I've personally known people released from prison who were no better than when they went in.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I agree that's a failure of the system. But that doesn't mean we create an oppressed class. It means we fix the system.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

One the system gets ahold of you, it's almost impossible to escape it regardless of your innocence.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There's a maximum sentence for drug dealers too. Is it impossible to realize the harm that brought to the community?

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

No? That's why they're in prison. I don't think maximum sentences work. You should be in prison until you're fixed and ready to not be a criminal when to you get out. I'd hardly compare a drug dealer to a rapist though. A drug dealer can be driven into it by a poor financial situation and the people using drugs are doing so by choice. Rapists don't have any external factors that drive them to it.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I'm sorry but your logic clearly doesn't track here. If maximum sentences are proof that there is no rehabilitation then why wouldn't that be true of drug dealers too?

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

I never said it was. You're the one who brought up drug dealers anyway. I said maximum sentences aren't a good way to do sentencing. The sentence should be "until you are rehabilitated", regardless of your crime.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Okay that's a bit more clear. The drug dealers thing was a comparison. Now we need to deal with the idea of the indefinite sentence. There's a real danger that a regulatory agency could just keep increasing that bar until it's a defacto life sentence. That's why we have maximums.

I'd love to live in a country I trusted with that kind of power but I don't. We constantly advise our justice system and the people trapped in it. So I have no confidence an indefinite sentence would result in a release or good faith treatment while incarcerated to work towards a release.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

The current justice system already has issues with corruption. It's just one more problem that needs to be solved in the overall revamp the system needs with how things are done. Just arbitrarily releasing people after a set amount of time is not how you fix that issue.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

It absolutely is. Because that way the corruption can't just turn everything into a life sentence in a sweat shop.

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
413 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35866 readers
1616 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