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?
Idgaf what the “justice” system says. I’m giving my opinion of how it should be. I know of child molesters in my home town who were out in 6 years and continued to be pieces of shit. The kids they raped sure as fuck weren’t over the damage they did in that time. A guy raped a member of my family and didn’t get any time at all. Rehabilitation does not work on rapists. The fact that there is a maximum sentence just goes to show that they don’t get out when they’re rehabilitated. They get out when their time is up.
The current system doesn’t even attempt to rehabilitate people. That’s the big problem. The current system just doesn’t work.
Correct. So it’s better to throw away the key than let monsters back on the streets.
“The system doesn’t work. Instead of fixing it, let’s just ruin people’s lives forever. Nevermind the fact that people can change.”
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.
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
Removed by mod
You should take this as personally as possible: you are a deeply unserious person who is not worth engaging with
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lmao
And the shocking percentage of innocent people who are forced into bad plea deals or railroaded by the system? Do we throw away the key for them too?
Those people are why I didn’t say we should execute them. They can still prove their innocence and get out.
The system doesn’t work, we should just throw away the key, and somehow the innocent will prove they are so from behind the gates we locked forever?
That’s not logical.
Neither is letting out convicted rapists and murderers on the off chance some of them are innocent. The fix to that problem is not to release people early, it’s to reform the investigation and trial process so that wrongful convictions don’t happen in the first place.
Who said anything about letting people out early? You just decided I was talking about early release, but I never said that.
The answer is, as always, spending some money on actual rehabilitation and letting them go at the end of that, or their sentence.
If they have a defined sentence instead of “until you are rehabilitated” then you are letting them out early.
One the system gets ahold of you, it’s almost impossible to escape it regardless of your innocence.
There’s a maximum sentence for drug dealers too. Is it impossible to realize the harm that brought to the community?
No? That’s why they’re in prison. I don’t think maximum sentences work. You should be in prison until you’re fixed and ready to not be a criminal when to you get out. I’d hardly compare a drug dealer to a rapist though. A drug dealer can be driven into it by a poor financial situation and the people using drugs are doing so by choice. Rapists don’t have any external factors that drive them to it.
I’m sorry but your logic clearly doesn’t track here. If maximum sentences are proof that there is no rehabilitation then why wouldn’t that be true of drug dealers too?
I never said it was. You’re the one who brought up drug dealers anyway. I said maximum sentences aren’t a good way to do sentencing. The sentence should be “until you are rehabilitated”, regardless of your crime.
Okay that’s a bit more clear. The drug dealers thing was a comparison. Now we need to deal with the idea of the indefinite sentence. There’s a real danger that a regulatory agency could just keep increasing that bar until it’s a defacto life sentence. That’s why we have maximums.
I’d love to live in a country I trusted with that kind of power but I don’t. We constantly advise our justice system and the people trapped in it. So I have no confidence an indefinite sentence would result in a release or good faith treatment while incarcerated to work towards a release.
The current justice system already has issues with corruption. It’s just one more problem that needs to be solved in the overall revamp the system needs with how things are done. Just arbitrarily releasing people after a set amount of time is not how you fix that issue.
It absolutely is. Because that way the corruption can’t just turn everything into a life sentence in a sweat shop.