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?

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What kind of society are we going to have if we do that though? Societies with forever punishments are worse places to live specifically because it ends up being used as a weapon. It gets easier and easier to get that forever punishment because this exact argument gets deployed for lower and lower offenses. Your three options are slavery, banishment, or death. And it’s usually for an ulterior motive like votes or money. Humans have tried all three in the past and they’ve all led to more heartbreak and violence than they’ve stopped.

    A sane society wants and works towards peace. You get peace with rehabilitation and treatment.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      A better one.

      See, in the real world where adults pay bills, your actions have consequences. Those actions tend to be for everyone else and are extremely damaging if you rape them, so what sane societies do is prioritize the interests of the victims and the community at large over the rapist. They imprison or preferably execute the rapist, to guarantee they cannot hurt members of the community anymore without forcing the community to bear the burden of the rapist’s presence, for their mere presence is now a problem.

      Communities do not owe anything to rapists and are under no responsibility to integrate people like that into it. The act of doing that endangers a community because now they have to live alongside a rapist.

      Communities have a large moral obligation to establish a Moral Event Horizon and accept that individuals who do horrific things like rape don’t belong in it anymore regardless of circumstance. The community has to be willing to discriminate who can participate or not based on actions. That’s what a community does to maintain itself.

      A community unwilling to do this is an unprincipled one that usually just thinks rape is morally acceptable or at least necessary to reproduce. A community unwilling to permanently remove a rapist for any reason is just, quite frankly, an evil one.

      Rapists don’t have a permanent right to participate in the community. The idea that they do has destroyed our society. You have to earn the privilege to participate through following the laws and good action, and if you refuse, you can no longer participate in the community.

      Communities have an obligation to establish rules and enforce them through threat of losing the ability to participate.

      It’s not hard when you don’t enable rapists.

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Let’s say we agree on your governance model. There are non-trivial cases of men falsely been accused of rape by women. Some have even been convicted and their innocence proved many years later. How does your governance model that proposes execution of the convicted account for this?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          9 months ago

          It literally doesn’t matter because this isn’t a discussion of the death penalty. This is an individual asking about a serious situation at work you deliberately ran off the rails to push a political agenda. Take your anti-justice garbage and shut it.

          Oh, and by the way, OP’s friend being expected to work alongside their rapist functionally is worth than death.

          • puppy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            They imprison or preferably execute the rapist, to guarantee they cannot hurt members of the community anymore

            It does matter because you brought it up, this is what you said, word for word. Do you hope your proposed legal framework to be implemented at any point in time and therefore willing to give it some serious thought or are you just venting?

              • puppy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You parrot the same thing over and over again without answering any of questions directed to you. I was asking about innocent people, not rapists. You want to execute rapists, sure fine. What about the wrongly convicted? You haven’t even spared sentence for them amongst all your ramblings. If you are serious about seeing what you’re preaching implemented, the wrongly convicted has to be addressed. If you are not going to accept that your ramblings are just that. Ramblings.