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?

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      I didn’t say don’t fix it. I said don’t let them back out when nothing was done to rehabilitate them.

      • TomAwsm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Nothing was done to rehabilitate them, so rehabilitation doesn’t work.”

        There’s literally no logic here…

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          9 months ago

          If nothing was done to rehabilitate them, then they are not rehabilitated. How does that not track?

          • TomAwsm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It doesn’t track when the argument is that they should be rehabilitated rather than just locked away.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.