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?

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          11 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            “Nothing was done to rehabilitate them, so rehabilitation doesn’t work.”

            There’s literally no logic here…

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              11 months ago

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

              • TomAwsm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

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

                • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 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.

      • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        11 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          11 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            11 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

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

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 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.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            11 months ago

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