Apologies… I think I was originally replying to a post of yours on another subject, but it morphed into a reply to others.
Someone close to me has been caught drunk driving 3 times, and been banned twice - that we know of.
And yet once the last driving ban ended, it was like nothing happened.
He runs his own company so he’s not required to tell anyone about it, and as the ban ended in 2015, it is like it never was!
edit - spent convictions. You get asked this all the time when you get car insurance: Have you any motor convictions within the last three years?
If you wrote someone’s car off 8 years ago, doesn’t matter!
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 imagine they are not relying solely on the information you provide to them.
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.
It really depends on the job, and the piece that you didn’t read, confirms that. Even in a country where the culture is supposedly rehabilitation has a long and pretty broad list of positions those people don’t get to do with the safety of anonymity of their past record.
We’re also talking about, points to the topic above, an industry that is in the headlines, frequently, for decades of not only allowing abuse but enabling it. They lost a lot of trust due to that, and it’s not back yet. The benefit of the doubt will not, currently, be in this industry’s favor, and it won’t be for sometime to come.
Yes but anonymity from their prospective employers, not their co-workers.
If you trust the employers which have proven be, not trustworthy, see the above and the weekly/monthly headlines.
Is there any indication at all that this guy ever forcibly harassed or raped a woman?
We’re pretending that this somehow protects the Olivia Munns of the world. It really doesn’t. It has nothing to do with that.
It’s just additional punishment for someone who propositioned a 14 year old. Which may be fine. But let’s not pretend that it is something other than vengence and additional ostracism for someone who was already ostracized by the legal system (rightly so).
Somehow, again, I doubt she would do the same with someone who maimed some guy in an assault. See, also, Mark Wahlberg, as I mentioned earlier.
You really seem to be ignoring the questions posed to you, several of which have been very valid and reasonably stated. Instead, you just seem to be repeating the same thing, which appears to be some general #metoo response, that really seems irrelevant here.
Why does a sex crime warrant different treatment than other violent crimes? You seem to believe sexually harassing a woman requires permanent ostracism and joblessness in a way that you seem to describe no other crimes.
Do you feel the same about a drug dealer who sells drugs to kids? Murderers? Robbers? People who have violently assaulted others?
Yes? I mean, what?
It is heartening to read a few voices of reason here…I feel strongly about this subject as I do some voluntary work with prisoners and ex-prisoners…teaching them to read. While I’m sure not many are sex offenders (it is not disclosed to me, lol) I would certainly NOT refuse to work with them.
I don’t know anyone lining up to work with murderers or people with violent assaults or you know the host of other things that would literally disqualify them for working as my co-worker.
Unless they’re like 400 pounds and like men, and by like I mean straight up will rape you, it seems like maybe it’s not much of a risk for you.
I have never seen anyone ranting about it, or lesser crimes that are still more violent or arguably harmful than sexual harassment.
I instead usually see “paid debt to society, fresh start” type of discussion from the same people who want sexual harassers ostracized forever and rendered incapable of making a living. While we talk about making sure murderers and robbers are given training, re-entered into society, etc.
I’m fine with removing them all from society (and also can accept rehabilitation arguments), but I don’t get why there is the dichotomy expressed by a lot of people.
What is it about the sex part that makes us go bonkers? Again, my recollection is that Mark Wahlberg nearly beat a man to death - we certainly don’t care that he’s making millions to this day.
I guess because murder is something we (society) mostly agree is pretty awful and hard to redeem. I’ll go on the record and say I don’t want to work with a convicted murderer, unless I know the person did a long-ass stretch of time, and there is some really compelling evidence that they turned their life around. Even then, I’m probably not going to ever feel 100% cool with them.
Also, how did we get down to sexual harassment here? The discussion was about a guy that propositioned a 14-yr-old for sex and went to jail for it.
I don’t know. I’m keep seeing it being lumped in with #metoo stuff. I don’t get it either.
Again, there is so much nuance to this.
Would you feel the same way about someone who had previously served in the military and killed people in combat?
What about someone who got into a bar fight and killed someone in the heat of the moment?
Oh Jesus Christ. WTF argument is this? Yes, murder, the criminal act, is totally the same as a soldier killing in a war. It’s why we jail all ex-soldiers, right?
Are you for real here?
Yes! What is this?
I’m not trying to instigate an argument but I think it fits into the discussion. The intent and circumstances might be different but the act and end result is the same. A persons death.
Yet we (as a society) can celebrate one whilst ostracizing the other. I don’t think it’s a stretch to compare the two when the two responses to the same act (that of killing) can be so extreme.
I think the military killing goes down a false road. The bigger question relates to other crimes.