How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?
How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?
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're viewing part of a thread.
"The system doesn't work. Instead of fixing it, let's just ruin people's lives forever. Nevermind the fact that people can change."
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.
No u
Oh, well would you look at that. Blatant sexism and bias in favor of rape apologia on Lemmy, a platform that claims to be better than Reddit? Say it isn't so!
You should take this as personally as possible: you are a deeply unserious person who is not worth engaging with
Trust me, the feeling is mutual
You should take this as personally as possible: you are involuntarily celibate for a reason.
Yeah, I figure you wouldn't have a response to that, you greasy rape apologist
Lmao
I didn't say don't fix it. I said don't let them back out when nothing was done to rehabilitate them.
"Nothing was done to rehabilitate them, so rehabilitation doesn't work."
There's literally no logic here...
If nothing was done to rehabilitate them, then they are not rehabilitated. How does that not track?
It doesn't track when the argument is that they should be rehabilitated rather than just locked away.
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.