This can’t be a not in my backyard situation. You said you understood it, but I assume understanding something and willing to put what you believe forward can co-exist.
What you’re missing is that it’s not black and white.
It’s entirely analogous to the Louie CK thing.
The question is not whether that person should be allowed to work or not. The question is in how much you care about the other peoples’ safety and comfort first?
By all means let him work in the industry. But make sure that everyone else knows what they’re signing up for first. Just like Louie making a surprise appearance that angered other comedians who were performing that day, and many people in the audience who would have never wanted to see him first.
I’m Ok with that. They removed a lot more for that child.
Let us also not forget that the perp in this case is 40. Today he’s 47.
I’m all for reformation, especially for minors or people in their 20s who are still learning to become adults.
But for a fucking 40-year-old? You really think he’s “fully reformed” in the last 7 years?
What I’m saying is that this is a difficult situation, I certainly don’t have a magic answer. But if we’re going to assess a penalty to a crime, we need a way for those people to rebuild a life if they have been rehabilitated. And if there is a crime too heinous or too gross that the person should never be allowed around the public again, we should be keeping those people locked up. Not letting them roam among the populace while simultaneously not allowing them to move forward with their life.
So here’s my issue with this approach. You can understand why people are hesitant, but you also believe in rehabilitation but… you can’t actually commit to taking that risk, the risk you expect others to take. How is that a reasonable position?
To keep things clear, we’re talking about just the one guy who tried to have sex with a 14 year old but was caught before he raped her.
We’re not, though. We’re talking about all people who have been convicted of a similar crime.
And let me say it again: I don’t have the answer. I totally get where everyone is coming from! But I also see the inherent problem in it.
I am narrowing the conversation and asking you about this one person. Can you commit to hiring this one guy. Just this one guy, We know his scenario.
Or, it could be that we think keeping them locked up forever against the chance they’ll do it again is cruel, and that we think some kinds of people are likely to re-offend once they’re released and we ought to have some way for people to be wary of them. I say that for a very short list of offenses, e.g. sexual assault of adults and minors, repeated violent crimes, etc. I don’t really need to be aware that my neighbor once stole a car, but it would be helpful to know how many times he’s raped someone. It’s a conundrum, but I imagine even the ex-con would prefer freedom with a bad rep to permanent incarceration.
It’s an impossible conversation, isn’t it? ‘Sexual Predator’ covers everything from serial child rapists to high school seniors dating sophomores (depending on the state). It’s too broad a label for useful debates, as everyone is thinking about different points on that spectrum.
I wouldn’t hire this one guy for my company, because I personally don’t want anything to do with creeps like that.
But this is distinct from the notion that he should be barred from all, or most jobs. If ex-cons can’t work, something bad will ensue. They won’t reintegrate into a society that completely rejects them. So somebody should hire them. But not me. NIMBY.
No one guilty of a heinous offense should ever again in their life be allowed anywhere near a position of authority in any business. They had their chance and they blew it. So no, Weinstein shouldn’t ever be permitted back in the film industry in any producing or executive role. Too bad for him. But sure, if he wants to clerk at Trader Joe’s, I have no objection. Except of course I won’t queue in his line.
You can also get on the registry if you are a minor and take sexy selfies of YOURSELF, or for public urination. And once you are on it, it’s for life, with no review unless your original crime is expunged.
Why would I need to commit to something like that?! I’ve reiterated multiple times I’m not attempting to go to bat for this particular person and I haven’t been attacking Olivia Munn in this thread, either. So I honestly don’t know why you want me to pick Team Sex Offender or Team Olivia.
But in an attempt to answer your question, I don’t know this person. I didn’t know him in the past, I didn’t know him in prison, and I don’t know him now. If he were a lifelong friend that I had some context (was he sexually abused as a child or have other reasons for the behavior?) for and I truly felt that he had been doing his best for years to reform through medication, therapy, or some combination of the above tocontrol his impulses? I think would be willing to try to help that person get back on his feet. I wouldn’t be comfortable doing so if the job involved children in any way, obviously, and I think that’s covered under sex offender laws anyway, isn’t it (I honestly am not sure, but that’s my understanding)?
I don’t really know, though, because I’ve never been in that situation. That’s my attempt to answer your question truthfully, though, despite not understanding why I personally would need to make that determination given that I’m not criticizing the studio or Olivia Munn.
It can be true both that a registry of some kind is needed, and that the one we have is badly designed.
I will admit I have a very hard time processing the I believe in rehabilitation for these guys but I won’t be part of the process approach. I just feels like that’s what I am hearing. I want this to happen but someone else has to take the risk, someone else has to do the work.
My position is many of these individuals are predators. It’s not punishment for their crime so much as proving the behavioral problem is addressed, if it can even be addressed. That’s why i treat sexual crimes differently.
.
This is why i tried to narrow the conversation a bit.
I would absolutely hire some of the kids that were caught up in the laws aren’t keeping up with the current tech scenarios, and some of these other ones, but I would have to know and if they really want to rehabilitate, I would hope they would be transparent and be willing to discuss it.
That’s not what I’m saying at all, I’ll quote myself in a previous reply.
I just think that if there is a determination by society that someone is too dangerous or that rehabilitation is likely not possible, that should be reflected in the law. We shouldn’t say that you do x years, added to the registry, then go free… but not really, because you can’t go anywhere near society. That just seems… unworkable, to me.
I know this is such a terrible topic to have this sort of conversation in because the nature of the crime is so violently repulsive. It’s just that I have a general problem with how our justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative. But again, please don’t take what I’m saying as I’m Professor Kevin with all the answers to the nation’s woes. I just know what we do right now isn’t working well. This whole discussion is just me trying to work out some of these problems in my own head by talking through them and debating them with others.
For a rebuilt registry, as a start I’d be ok with a permanent tattoo on the forehead of anyone that rapes or tries to rape a kid. As a baseline, let’s say if you’re 30 or over, and your victim is 14 or under, you get the tattoo. Removal results in prison for life, no chance of parole. The legislators can lower that 30yo age, or up the 14yo age a bit as needed, but I figure that’s a good start.
That would prevent a dad from taking his daughters to a birthday party for one of their classmates and spending a few hours in the company of someone that jerked off multiple times in front of a webcam, said horrific shit, and then arranged a sex meetup with what they thought was a 13yo girl. That’d give the dad a chance to nope the fuck out of there upon seeing said tattoo upon the offender’s forehead.
Also would prevent the offender from showing up at a pre-school unsupervised multiple times to pick up his son, without the school’s knowledge of his past.
How about couples whose age difference between them is 16+ years?
Should we tattoo them too?
I can think of dozens of things that someone has to do, but which I am unwilling to do myself. I wouldn’t work the kill line in a chicken plant, clean bedpans in a senior center, work as a cop in a high-crime area, volunteer for a combat deployment in Afghanistan or become a fireman. All those jobs need to be done, but I am not the man for any of them.
And I wouldn’t hire someone I’d likely hate, as there are plenty of good candidates who wouldn’t creep me out.