Well the one thing to keep in mind before we permanent punish everyone on the list is some people on that list are… innocent. We have a very imperfect judicial system. There are also different levels of ick. My understanding, based on very simplistic reporting is this is a well-aged man who was only stopped from sleeping with, what we would call rape, a 14 year old girl is he was caught. The Cosby’s and Weinsteins of the world are repeat offenders, and right now only Cosby seems to be set for an actual criminal record. Weinstein is not even facing criminal charges… right? So none of this even applies to him.
You might not be a professor, but your POV is still valid.
I didn’t mean that Olivia Munn did not raise the issue with the studio. I meant, was it the fact that she has industry clout that made the studio delete the scene, or was it more due to the potential PR problem if the news got out that they knew about it and did nothing? In other words, did she do a Harvey Weinstein and blacklist someone on the basis of her power, or did the studio just cover their ass? I lean towards the latter, and in my mind it also makes a world of difference.
I don’t think Munn has that kind of star power clout. She’s not a Tom Cruise or a Melissa McCarthy that actually puts butts in seats. That said, she’s got a pretty hopping social media presence and her popping out with the story would’ve been a really bad time for the studio.
A lot of the stuff here seems like vigilante justice, where citizens decide to second guess the law and pass judgement on individuals. Thats not a democracy. If you have a problem with how criminals are sentenced and or rehabilitated, speak to your state representative!
Or VOTE TRUMP, where the rule of law is meaningless already…
I think vigilante justice against Weinstein is perfectly fine. Most of his disgusting approach in life is not going to hold up in criminal court, and we are well past the statue of limitations on a lot of them that do.
For these individuals with criminal records, men and women, it’s a hard one. We have an imperfect penal system with a lot of people being pushed through it at a very young age. And some of the repeat criminals repeat because they have no other choice.
If someone wants to help their friend, that’s one thing, but this was very public for a scenario that just doesn’t seem like it fits in any grey area in an industry that is being heavily watched and criticized right now for not only hiding predators but enabling them. It doesn’t take a lot of consideration to understand how this would play out. He could have kept him off the screen, at the very least.
While I’m not sure I agree with the first part here (I’m very conflicted, for the same reasons KevinC has raised), I’m 100% on board with the second part. The system we currently have has very clearly broken outcomes. I think there’s a version of sex offender registry reform that we would all get on board with.
Yeah the current sex offender registry is a nightmare.
Kids sexting each other get put on it, basically forever.
Then there is shit like this:
So what if it’s called the “Sex Offender Registry,” which would be bad enough if a person was a sex offender. Or even a kid who peed against a wall, or had sex with another kid her own age. Drugs? What the hell would someone convicted of a drug offense be doing on a sex offender registry?
To be clear, I do think that certain vulnerable populations absolutely need some kind of additional protections (esp. for children, the elderly, and others who are incapable of consent). I’m just not sure what form that would take.
This strikes me as the same wrong conflation of criticism with censorship. I can’t prevent anyone from hiring anyone, no matter how loudly I shout about it. I can’t silence anyone, no matter how stridently I criticize what they say. Disapproval doesn’t have the force of law or the legal power of the state behind it.
Just as a point of information - and because most people have the opposite impression based on popular media and also one particular Oprah guest’s statement - the rate of recidivism for sex offenders is actually fairly low compared to most other crimes and criminals.
Some history here. A man who worked with sex offenders through therapy in the 1980s (Robert Longo) said in a 1980s documentary and a couple times as a guest on Oprah that “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses — indeed, as many as 80 percent do.”
This statement was hugely influential. It was used by the SCOTUS when they found sex offense registries constitutional.
The problem was that his statement was just an estimate based on his own program… which focused on repeat offenders to start with. It wasn’t an inaccurate statement to apply to the general populace, but everyone took it wildly out-of-context. It also wasn’t particularly unique to sex offenders - about 80% of all imprisoned criminals at the time were convicted of another crime within ten years.
The reality - based on National Institute of Justice stats as well as some private studies - is that the recidivism rate for sex offenders in the five years after release is about 36%. That sounds terribly high, but for comparison, the national recidivism rate for five years post-release is a whopping 76%.
But note that the above figures are people being convicted of ANY crime within five years of their release. If you narrow it down to sex offenders being convicted of a sex offense within five years (not even the same one, but any sex offense), you drop down to a 14% rate of recidivism. Over 15 years, the rate climbs to almost 25%, but that’s still a fraction of the repeat-offense rate for most other crimes (about 86% of people put in prison for a property-related crime like burglary commit another property crime within ten years of release).
It’s also worth noting that therapy does apparently help. A Canadian study found that 17% of untreated sex-offenders committed sex crimes again, while only 10% of treated individuals re-offended.
California has very strict laws regarding what you’re allowed to know about folks’ criminal histories. It wasn’t just that Shane Black didn’t want to tell them; he very likely was not allowed to.
Further reading: Other newspapers previously have pointed out that measured recidivism rates appear to contradict conventional wisdom. Some states are attempting to fine-tune their post-release plans for sex offenders based on differing rates of recividism; here’s an article about the plan in Texas. Illustrating the difficulty of measuring the effect of interventions on recidivism rates, a Canadian study found that sex offenders who completed treatment were far less likely to re-offend – but that may not mean the treatment itself was successful. Instead, it might just demonstrate that a willingness to complete treatment is an indicator of other factors that diminish the likelihood of repeating a sexual crime.
I’ve basically suggested this before, this treatment part, this behavior. I don’t think that is a requirement because a lot of people don’t get life and aren’t just held until treatment is required. There should be some indication that the person won’t repeat. I don’t know exactly what that looks like but it seems like Canada has some studies on it.
I didn’t really believe it was as high as 80%. I just believe there are predators in this group, and those predators need to be addressed. The kids sexting pictures of themselves or to other kids, aren’t likely part of the predator group to begin with.
That’s the scariest part of any DUI story. The number of times they were actually caught. Or rather, the implied number of times they got lucky, aka weren’t arrested, aka didn’t kill anyone.
I haven’t read it, but if it’s similar to my country, and I suspect it is, it means disclosure is required to the body that is doing the hiring only…not to any employees of that body.
And crucially, it doesn’t necessarily bar them from employment…it’s just talking about disclosure. In reality many will be unable to obtain employment, but that’s not down to the Act.
We have companies who work with our Corrections Department to employ ex-cons…they don’t do an announcement to staff saying “hey guys we’re employing 3 drunk drivers, a guy who beat up his wife and a pedo this week. And here’s their names.” That would be outrageous.
