Sexual Predators (mature topic)

[Kakashi on crack]

ok... for all the people saying "he's done his time" and complaining about how people demonize sexual predators, answer this question for me, please. do you personally know anyone who was raped or sexually assaulted as a child? hmmm?

Actually yes, one of my best friends was molested by their biological father and has lived a generally good life aside from that.

Not going to argue any points though. I have been reading all of these, never expected 6 pages, and I have to say thank you to everyone who posted their opinions on the matter and gave a civil, or at least intelligent answer to this hypothetical question. I realize there were many plot holes, but it pits knowledge vs. morals to a more extreme.

Anywyas, if people feel they would wish to continue this discussion, I'll gladly read your posts.

 

[Zechnophobe]

A conviction doesn't mean he did it.
And even if he did do it, he's served his time. As long as he doesn't do it again, I see no reason not to give a qualified person a job.

I'd doubt I'd be particularily warm towards him, though. His actions would disgust me, and I would not be interested in being his friend.
Which isn't to say I'd be rude or hostile. Just cold.

A conviction is about as close as you can get to certainty, without having been there. Seriously, are you going to recheck the entire case to figure out his guilt based on your own research? I would default to assuming someone CONVICTED of a crime did it.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

No. There are these things in life called consequences. He must live with them. Besides imagine what the people would be like "dont shop at that store, he hires pedophiles" so fuck no, no sympathy.

When the consequence is no money, no food, no home, etc., it's very hard to live in general

Andd that changes how its a consequence for his actions how ?
If he dies in th4 street after starving, thats a consequence for molesting kids.
I dint see how him dying as a result dose away with the fact its a consequence.

It doesn't, but my point is that it's unnecessary and deliberately ruining another life. Whats the gain? And also by employing him it gives him something else to focus on that isn't children. If you leave him on the street with no job or home or whatever, if he's going to die anyway he'll have nothing to lose if he offends again.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

A conviction doesn't mean he did it.
And even if he did do it, he's served his time. As long as he doesn't do it again, I see no reason not to give a qualified person a job.

I'd doubt I'd be particularily warm towards him, though. His actions would disgust me, and I would not be interested in being his friend.
Which isn't to say I'd be rude or hostile. Just cold.

A conviction is about as close as you can get to certainty, without having been there. Seriously, are you going to recheck the entire case to figure out his guilt based on your own research? I would default to assuming someone CONVICTED of a crime did it.

... You know there was, like. A whole post attached to that one sentence.
A whole post that implied I would still be pretty suspicious of him. Just not assume he goes around raping kids left right and center with a feather in his cap and a twinkle in his eye or something.

And honestly. What would you do if you were considering hiring a convicted felon?
'Cause I certainly would want to know ALL of the facts. Maybe there was some bullshit technicality. Maybe the circumstances of his crime are different to what you'd expect. Maybe along with raping a kid he was originally charged with stabbing some puppies in the throat. You don't know the full story until you check it yourself, do you?

Besides. I never default to believing what a court of law says is true. A court said my child pimping father was a nice fellow and my mum who was trying to protect us was batty. They are pretty fucking flawed.

 

[DreadfulSorry]

Yes, I would hire him. He's served his debt to society, and I have always been of the opinion that people deserve a second chance. Although, I might encourage him to speak with a psychiatrist, if he hadn't already done so, though I definitely wouldn't require it.

 

[SirDoom]

The problem with this situation is lack of information. He could be a genuine bad guy who kidnapped a young child and then... did the crime. In that case, no, I would not hire him.

But the thing is, that label of "sex offender" could mean many things. He could have picked up a willing 17 year old who lied and said she was 18, then later accused him of rape (or worse still, the father of the girl could press charges against him without the girl's permission). He could have done something with his girlfriend when they were both under the age of consent, and got marked as an offender for that.

There are many, many ways in which the title "sex offender" can be given and not deserved. If this is the case, I would hire him.

 

[Zechnophobe]

A conviction doesn't mean he did it.
And even if he did do it, he's served his time. As long as he doesn't do it again, I see no reason not to give a qualified person a job.

I'd doubt I'd be particularily warm towards him, though. His actions would disgust me, and I would not be interested in being his friend.
Which isn't to say I'd be rude or hostile. Just cold.

A conviction is about as close as you can get to certainty, without having been there. Seriously, are you going to recheck the entire case to figure out his guilt based on your own research? I would default to assuming someone CONVICTED of a crime did it.

... You know there was, like. A whole post attached to that one sentence.
A whole post that implied I would still be pretty suspicious of him. Just not assume he goes around raping kids left right and center with a feather in his cap and a twinkle in his eye or something.

And honestly. What would you do if you were considering hiring a convicted felon?
'Cause I certainly would want to know ALL of the facts. Maybe there was some bullshit technicality. Maybe the circumstances of his crime are different to what you'd expect. Maybe along with raping a kid he was originally charged with stabbing some puppies in the throat. You don't know the full story until you check it yourself, do you?

Besides. I never default to believing what a court of law says is true. A court said my child pimping father was a nice fellow and my mum who was trying to protect us was batty. They are pretty fucking flawed.

So, you just assume they are wrong? It isn't like they were just accused of something, they actually were convicted of it. Even if it isn't always right, it is likely right a lot more often than not. Your own personal anecdotes aside.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

... You know there was, like. A whole post attached to that one sentence.
A whole post that implied I would still be pretty suspicious of him. Just not assume he goes around raping kids left right and center with a feather in his cap and a twinkle in his eye or something.

And honestly. What would you do if you were considering hiring a convicted felon?
'Cause I certainly would want to know ALL of the facts. Maybe there was some bullshit technicality. Maybe the circumstances of his crime are different to what you'd expect. Maybe along with raping a kid he was originally charged with stabbing some puppies in the throat. You don't know the full story until you check it yourself, do you?

Besides. I never default to believing what a court of law says is true. A court said my child pimping father was a nice fellow and my mum who was trying to protect us was batty. They are pretty fucking flawed.

So, you just assume they are wrong? It isn't like they were just accused of something, they actually were convicted of it. Even if it isn't always right, it is likely right a lot more often than not. Your own personal anecdotes aside.

... What? When did I say that?
No. I just said I wouldn't trust it.

I wouldn't assume EVERYTHING A COURT SAYS IS WRONG, I just wouldn't assume everything they say is right. I'd take what has been decided into account, but I wouldn't let it form my entire fucking opinion.
In fact, I could say the same about anything that isn't scientific fact. It would be stupid not to take everything with a pinch of salt. Especially when it comes from something as horribly flawed as the judicial system.

 

[Zechnophobe]

It is not a particularly meaningful difference though when it comes to the topic at hand. You may take it with a grain of salt, but ultimately you have to work with what information you have. It all comes down to that. If someone holds a gun to your head and says 'say a word, and I will shoot', you might think "Nah, humans have a hard time doing harm to others, I bet you'll renege" and then talk anyway. Well, no you won't, you'll just accept that it may NOT be true, but for the moment you pretty much have to take it as fact.

Um, all of this is in the backdrop of the Original Post though right? Where we are making a decision right then and there about hiring the person? If you had more time and were deciding if, y'know, you should be friends with the guy, you have more leeway for gathering data, or determining relevance. But if someone walked into my office looking for a job, and I knew they were convicted of a crime, I'd assume for the purpose of hiring, that they were guilty.

 

[zehydra]

I'd hire him, but then again, I have no experience in hiring people, and most people would probably say no.

What I mean is, he's gonna have to live with that for the rest of his life (probably) and even though he did something terrible, I believe in giving people a second chance, especially after they've already been through formal punishment.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

It is not a particularly meaningful difference though when it comes to the topic at hand. You may take it with a grain of salt, but ultimately you have to work with what information you have. It all comes down to that. If someone holds a gun to your head and says 'say a word, and I will shoot', you might think "Nah, humans have a hard time doing harm to others, I bet you'll renege" and then talk anyway. Well, no you won't, you'll just accept that it may NOT be true, but for the moment you pretty much have to take it as fact.

You clearly have never met me. That is almost precisely the thing I would do.
Though I guess with a slightly more antagonistic thought process behind it.

Ignoring that, though, what the fuck does that situation have to do with this. A man with a gun to your head who says he is going to shoot you is probably not going to be wrong. He's announcing his own, personal intentions. That's a little more trustworthy than a group of people who don't really give a fuck deciding the fate of an alleged child molester based on arguments presented by two greaseballs in suits.

Also a guy with a wig is there.

Um, all of this is in the backdrop of the Original Post though right? Where we are making a decision right then and there about hiring the person? If you had more time and were deciding if, y'know, you should be friends with the guy, you have more leeway for gathering data, or determining relevance. But if someone walked into my office looking for a job, and I knew they were convicted of a crime, I'd assume for the purpose of hiring, that they were guilty.

Yeah, and I wouldn't. I'd assume they were CONVICTED.
Which is actually almost the same thing. You still have to be wary of them, and all the legal and PR baggage is kind of a nightmare. You'd still have to have them at the back of the shop and you'd have to keep an eye on them whenever kids are in the store.

The difference is that you don't know for sure. So you give them a chance. The alternative is to let them become homeless and penniless.

And again. Let me bring this up. He has served his time. Guilty or not, there is no need to prolong his punishment.
Unless he does it again. In which case he can rot.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I'd hire him, because I am naive enough to believe in redemption and rehabillitation, but I would keep a really tight watch on him, because I'm not that naive

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Oh shit...

I'd probably say screw his past and hire him, except that it is well known in the community and that might screw my business over. I suppose if I did hire him, I'd have keep him on a short leash. Any sign that he might reoffend (with any crime) and I'd have to cut him lose.

 

[loremazd]

I wouldn't hire him on your terms, no. If I cant get any details on the nature of his conviction or get a read on how repentant he is, then no.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

No. There are these things in life called consequences. He must live with them. Besides imagine what the people would be like "dont shop at that store, he hires pedophiles" so fuck no, no sympathy.

When the consequence is no money, no food, no home, etc., it's very hard to live in general

Andd that changes how its a consequence for his actions how ?
If he dies in th4 street after starving, thats a consequence for molesting kids.
I dint see how him dying as a result dose away with the fact its a consequence.

It doesn't, but my point is that it's unnecessary and deliberately ruining another life. Whats the gain? And also by employing him it gives him something else to focus on that isn't children. If you leave him on the street with no job or home or whatever, if he's going to die anyway he'll have nothing to lose if he offends again.

He ruined a life, only fair his is ruined in return. Why should he be able to ruin lives yet have his salvaged ? No fuck that guy, he deserves to die in the street.

You're talking "an eye for an eye" morality. Yeah, so it's fair. That doesn't make it right. What is done is done, to hold a grudge against him does no one any good. You're trying to take an arbitrary moral high ground above this guy, and 'vengeance' (so to speak) doesn't fix what he did, just makes his situation worse. I agree that he did a terrible thing, but there comes a point where it's no longer necessary to fuck him up any more, and doing so does no good to anyone.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Yes, but only if I can keep him away from customer service. I don't want to scare anybody away, I have business to run.

 

[lee1287]

Did he abuse a young child?

Or sleep with an underage girl?

If second, id hire him.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

personally, I would hire him but not give him a nametag or keep him in the employees only section. I wouldn't want word getting out that I hired a rapist.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I'd hire him. The job doesn't involve being around children all the time after all, and for all I know he could be sorry for what he did. And like you said, being a predator doesn't affect his electronics know how in any way.
I should probably be made of sterner stuff regarding this matter, due to having it happen very close to me, but I just can't bring myself to distrust somebody just because of what they've done a single time in the past.

To compromise, I could maybe keep him on notice for a month or so and forget hiring him on the spot. If nobody else came along that had equal or better qualifications, I could give hiring him a shot. But that'd just be me.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

for all we know he got blown by a 17 year old girl who said she was 19, and that gets him on the register, or he took a photo of his 17 year old gf's tits on his cellphone, that makes him 'a producer of child pornography.'

Personally, I haven't checked the past 7 pages, but if I had my way I'd make 'Brass Eye', especially the paedo-geddon special episode, required viewing in the final year of schools, as I think it'd be highly educational in terms of how the media can twist a minor offence into OMG PAEDOS!

Of course, I'm not supporting child rapists, but sadly it feels like you have to say that whenever you're saying that society and the media are too harsh on this topic.

Everyone seems to want to tagging of sex offenders, public knowledge of them when they move, etc. But, as was brought up in a previous, rather volatile thread, it's quite possible to be a paedophile, someone with sexual urges towards children, without being a child rapist, someone who acts upon those urges. Hell, I like blowjobs, but I manage to go weeks at a time without just leaping onto a woman in the street and fucking her face right there, because my mind is stronger than my baser urges and I understand right and wrong.

In the end, if he feels he's past re-offending, then he deserves the second chance, and if not, he needs to go get some help, not more hate.

I might however keep an eye on his internet history at work, heh.