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.
Sexual Predators (mature topic)
- Thread starter Kakashi on crack
- Start date
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.
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.
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. said:
... What? When did I say that?Zechnophobe said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You clearly have never met me. That is almost precisely the thing I would do.Zechnophobe said:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.this isnt my name said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I were honest,the answer is no. I wouldn't hire him.
If it's MY business, I need all the customers I can get. You just know when ONE person in the neighborhood finds out; EVERYONE WILL KNOW. I would lose a lot of business, and be seen as a harborer of criminals (even though he's paid his debt to society).People don't care about that. They don't care about the severity of your crimes, or that you have paid for your crimes, all they'll ever care about is that you did SOMETHING bad, and you are now a monster.
But there is also something else going on now-a-days, which makes me question my own answer of, 'No'. Like a man at my husbands work, he is 21-22 years old, and he had a girlfriend that was a couple months shy of her eighteenth birthday. Her parents loved him, and they didn't have a problem with him dating their daughter. The two were caught messing around in a car together, and even though the parents didn't press charges, the state did. In California, our legal age of consent is eighteen. He was found guilty, and is classified as a sex offender.
Mothers of sexting teenage girls, whose girls are stupid enough to send naked pictures out, are also pushing for High School boys caught with any kind of photos of girls under the legal age of consent in any state of undress/nudity (breasts, bum, etc) to be labeled sex offenders as well. Even if the image(s) were sent to them by someone else, and was going to be immediately deleted. Because they want to blame the boys, the schools, and the phones; not their children or their lack-luster parenting skills. So instead of realizing that this may be their child's fault, or theirs, they'll destroy teens lives and careers, before they even really start.
It's hard to make a decision with ZERO information to go by about this person.
So with all that said
(really guilty or not, I have to go by what the law says unless it's expunged from his record):
1.) If he refuses to tell me the severity of his crime - then, the answer is, no.
2.) If he was caught with children-children, (i.e. toddler-15), the answer is, no.
3.) Forceful rape of an non-consenting woman,man, or child. - the answer is, no.
4.) If it is the same situation as the young man at my hubbies work - then, yes.
5.) If it's a young guy that was caught with a pic of a 17 year old sexter - then, yes.
Argh, so many factors play into this, it's maddening.
If it's MY business, I need all the customers I can get. You just know when ONE person in the neighborhood finds out; EVERYONE WILL KNOW. I would lose a lot of business, and be seen as a harborer of criminals (even though he's paid his debt to society).People don't care about that. They don't care about the severity of your crimes, or that you have paid for your crimes, all they'll ever care about is that you did SOMETHING bad, and you are now a monster.
But there is also something else going on now-a-days, which makes me question my own answer of, 'No'. Like a man at my husbands work, he is 21-22 years old, and he had a girlfriend that was a couple months shy of her eighteenth birthday. Her parents loved him, and they didn't have a problem with him dating their daughter. The two were caught messing around in a car together, and even though the parents didn't press charges, the state did. In California, our legal age of consent is eighteen. He was found guilty, and is classified as a sex offender.
Mothers of sexting teenage girls, whose girls are stupid enough to send naked pictures out, are also pushing for High School boys caught with any kind of photos of girls under the legal age of consent in any state of undress/nudity (breasts, bum, etc) to be labeled sex offenders as well. Even if the image(s) were sent to them by someone else, and was going to be immediately deleted. Because they want to blame the boys, the schools, and the phones; not their children or their lack-luster parenting skills. So instead of realizing that this may be their child's fault, or theirs, they'll destroy teens lives and careers, before they even really start.
It's hard to make a decision with ZERO information to go by about this person.
So with all that said
(really guilty or not, I have to go by what the law says unless it's expunged from his record):
1.) If he refuses to tell me the severity of his crime - then, the answer is, no.
2.) If he was caught with children-children, (i.e. toddler-15), the answer is, no.
3.) Forceful rape of an non-consenting woman,man, or child. - the answer is, no.
4.) If it is the same situation as the young man at my hubbies work - then, yes.
5.) If it's a young guy that was caught with a pic of a 17 year old sexter - then, yes.
Argh, so many factors play into this, it's maddening.