The handyman is a convicted sex offender.

[Otara]

"She is a psychologist who believes she can judge whether or not he is a changed man by listening to his explanation, looking for regret, and examining his behavior when confronted with the situation."

Psychologists in general way way way overestimate their ability to do these kinds of things.

I would think I had the hang of who was fibbing and who wasnt when I worked in family violence, and regularly find out I knew squat. Even worse I would then repeat that same process every 6 months or so, thinking that _this_ time I really had figured out how to do it.

Otara

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Crime Scene

Thank you for the suggestions, Rachelle. He has already earned a tip he doesn't know about by putting up a range hood without me asking him to do it. He heard me tell my wife in passing that I'd need an electrician since the wiring in the house was so sketchy and old. He put it up and told me later; he didn't seem to be seeking praise. When he left last night he needed cash, rather than my standard check, because he needed money to get him through Sunday. I gave him $50 on a prepaid card to get him through the weekend. There will be plenty of work if I decide to stick with him, but like I said, I just don't know. The most recent conviction I listed looks like its from '07.

So what the fuck more do you need ? He's doing good work, hasn't nicked your stuff or broken your shit, hasn't fucked your wife either. So he's something of a deadbeat and probably depressed/alcoholic/both. That's more sad than frightening. Passing bad checks could have been desperation, could have been malice - what do you care ? He's not buying anything from you is he ? Nor pretending he's done the job when he hasn't ? Not planning on marrying him, are you ? Then, again, the fuck should you care what kind of a man he is ?
You're not his psychopomp, nor the guy who has to weigh his heart against a feather, nor his minister - you're his employer. Everything beyond "does he reliably do a good job, yes/no ?" is you being on a power trip.

I wouldn't leave credit card receipts lying around in plain view around his workspace to tempt his Imp of the Perverse (cheers, Neil !), nor conspicuous bottles of booze for that matter, but beyond that: his life, his shit, his concern. Furthermore, I can guarantee you you've worked and are working, you've known and are probably even friend with people who've done and are still doing worse than him.
They just never got caught at it, is all.

[Thylacine]

22 years is a very long time for anyone but the difference between 17 and 39 is even further. I was completely screwed up by my own history of child abuse at 17 and I did all sorts of really bad shit (though I didn't molest anyone). Through some miracle the cops and I didn't run into one another then and I recently passed both a Police Check and a Working With Children check so I can volunteer with troubled teens. I worked on me along the way and the two versions of me have virtually nothing in common. If this guy has been on the register that long and regularly rolled by the cops (as his list suggests) you can bet they were looking closely for any kiddy fiddling. The fact none appears is a good sign I think.

Plenty of molesters are never caught/charged/convicted, the next guy you hire may be a shit worker and a serial rapist without a record. I would give him work in your child free situation and I spent a lot of time in dark places from my own history, however, you don't have to hire anyone that worries you and this seems to worry you. The question is not really about him but about your comfort level.

[Troppus]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

I guess you TOTALLY missed where every single person advocating what you are calling "forgive and forget" (none of which involves saying what he did was OK or forgetting he did it) emphasized employing him ONLY where there where no children?

NO ONE is saying having him work in a home with a six year old running is OK. In fact, we've all said that's a circumstance where you would NOT want to hire him.

As for parole - that can extend for many, many years past prison release. There are people who are on parole for the rest of their lives.

We're not talking about "putting aside" what he did, what we're talking about is letting a man who is, apparently, behaving these days make an honest living doing work where no one is either tempted to repeat a past offensive or put into danger by someone.

Tough.Many employers choose not to hire based on a dirty background check. It's the prerogative of the employer to make sound business decisions. He has a list of offenses that occurred after the heinous offense. He evidently isn't trying very hard to redeem himself and function in society. He's a skilled construction worker, should be able to find work anywhere in the US. And if current and future employees choose not to hire him based on background checks: tough. Maybe he will stop breaking laws if he feels the repercussions of his actions.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

And those "others " include a bunch of soft -headed douches on a liberal -leaning Internet messageboard.

Seriously. If even Rand Rover isn't willing to show any compassion, then... well, that's actually baseline, but the point is!

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

I have an ideological problem with sex offender registries, and with charging underage criminals as adults (which happened, or else he wouldn't still be on the registry). I mean, there are kids as young as 12 or 13 who do something stupid, and right away everyone starts talking about charging them as adults. What the everloving FUCK?

Anyway... obviously you can't unlearn what you learned, so I'm not advocating you just forget about it. But I do think he's done his time and, if he hasn't been convicted of any other sex crimes in the 22 years since his original offense, then you and your neighbors are very, very likely safe. I would recommend letting him finish the job, but don't hire him again in the future (and don't recommend him to anyone else).

I think you should consider investing in criminal background checks in the future, though, if this kind of thing worries you (or at least look people up on the registry before you hire them). It's not fair to pull the rug out once you hire the guy, because once you hired him he probably stopped looking for other work during that time period. It'd be one thing if he just got out of jail yesterday, but that isn't the case.

That is untrue. I have several juveniles on my Megan's Law list. They did horrific things as juveniles. They have to register as sex offenders. But they were not tried and convicted as adults.

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Just to add if you wish a call to his parole officer it would be welcomed by all. Most employers don't/won't call, so a PO has little info to work with.

CAPT

It may be different in each state but in mine they are all required to report where they are working. If he didn't then he is in violation. So by all means call.

[Acid Lamp]

I can make this simple.

You hired him to do work. So far he has fulfilled his obligations on time, on budget, and even exceeded expectations by helping out with another project while he was at it. You did not hire him to hang out with you, or babysit your kids. His crime was over two decades ago and we don't know the particulars. After that nearly all of his run ins with the law have been procedural or regarding being drunk. If he isn't drunk on the job then that doesn't matter.

You hired the man to work. He shows up on time, sober, and does his job well. You have nothing to worry about. Keep the info to yourself and keep an eye on him. If you have the slightest suspicion about inappropriate behaviour, then pay him and let him go.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by Troppus

He's a skilled construction worker, should be able to find work anywhere in the US.

Pardon me while I laugh.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

WHY? No matter how nasty the crime was, a convict who has done his time has as much right as anybody else to make a living. Or to live next door to you -- some people even object to that!

^^^^^ this.

If we're not going to go with "he's done his time, he's been punished, it's over (until / unless he does something again)", we might as well make sex offenses capital crimes. Not to increase punishment but to put them out of their misery so they don't have to wander the earth reviled and hated and scorned all the days of their life. Hmm, I suppose making a rapist do precisely that has a certain appeal, sure enough, but there is that practical consideration. The guy's not going to be able to find honest work. We're creating a situation where we're going to make him a desperate person who will steal or engage in illegal activities in order to survive. We reduce his interests in trying to be a good citizen. But we leave him in our midst to do as he will. Seems like a bad recipe to me.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

A pedophile may not be able to help the way he feels. He CAN control the way he ACTS. His brain never forced him to rape that girl. If you are honestly calling him the victim, because "his brain is wired that way", you're the fucking stupid one.

Agree with this also. Our legal system is based on the idea that you're responsible for your actions. If people are not capable of managing their own affairs, they need a guardianship and perhaps, if dangerous, incarceration, as fully incompetent people. The rest of us get to act, get to have our intentionalities and not our "brain wiring" or our socialization or whatever regarded as the reason we acted as we did, and we can be held responsible for our acts.

[Troppus]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Pardon me while I laugh.

I laugh at the thought that a skilled worker convicted for raping a child who continues to break laws then makes cracks about his transgressions deserves the benefit of the doubt or needs a helping hand.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just curious about how many people here didn't do something at age 17 that they wouldn't want to be held responsible for today and for the rest of their lives.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Seriously. If even Rand Rover isn't willing to show any compassion, then... well, that's actually baseline, but the point is!

In the science of morality and compassion there is a point as low as you can go. Its officially called the Rand Rover Point. The actual laws of physics say you cannot get any lower.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Just curious about how many people here didn't do something at age 17 that they wouldn't want to be held responsible for today and for the rest of their lives.

I got drunk and threw up in my bed. I did not rape a child.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Neither did this guy.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Neither did this guy.

Right, he might've "just" fingered her. And given her a popsicle afterward.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

WHY? No matter how nasty the crime was, a convict who has done his time has as much right as anybody else to make a living. Or to live next door to you -- some people even object to that!

I'm with the Glutton on this one. We jump down each other's throats around here when someone passes judgment on a high profile suspect before the trial, this is the same wine out of a different bottle. Guy did the crime, got convicted, served time, and is on parole. He's paid his debt to society, let him move on.

If criminal recidivism is a concern, that has to be addressed at the legal/legislative level, not on an individual. You gotta trust the system or change it. Nothing wrong with being wary, however, but don't penalize the guy when he's not done anything wrong.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Just curious about how many people here didn't do something at age 17 that they wouldn't want to be held responsible for today and for the rest of their lives.

When I was 17, my girlfriend was 16. I guess I'm lucky I didn't go to jail.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Neither did this guy.

Sorry didn't know you knew this guy.

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

When I was 17, my girlfriend was 16. I guess I'm lucky I didn't go to jail.

I suppose it possible that is illegal in some states. I just don't know of any

[raskolnik]

-To me this shows the weakness in the American theory of Criminal Justice. Say a man is safe enough to enter the society, but also say he is too dangerous that anybody can look him up online and find out he rapes children.
-This seems illogical to me. He thought it was a good idea to do this once, why would he not again? For example, I rob a bank. I am not MORE likely to rape my neighbors kids.
-If his crime, makes him a danger to society he SHOULD NOT BE IN IT! If it doesn't make him a danger to socety than why WARN PEOPLE and ruind the rest of his life in 'freedom?'
-Anyone else see a logical fallacy here? Help please.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Loach

Sorry didn't know you knew this guy.

I don't. I read the thread.

I suppose it possible that is illegal in some states. I just don't know of any

Substitute a 16- and 15-year-old and it's illegal in Florida.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Troppus

Tough.Many employers choose not to hire based on a dirty background check.

True. No one here is saying crime scene has to hire this guy. It's his choice. He's stated he's leaning towards keeping him employed despite his background. Some employers have a more nuanced approach than others. Felony Frank's hot dog stand in Chicago makes a point of hiring past offenders.

It's the prerogative of the employer to make sound business decisions. He has a list of offenses that occurred after the heinous offense.

Most of those offenses being typical of the very poor and seldom employed. If your income is spotty it's a lot easier to bounce a check, which quickly translates into "fraud" in the legal system.

He evidently isn't trying very hard to redeem himself and function in society.

And, judging from some responses, some parts of society clearly think he should just wander off and die of starvation. Kneejerk "I would never hire someone like this guy" leads to chronic unemployment.

He's a skilled construction worker, should be able to find work anywhere in the US.

These last four years even highly skilled construction workers with no criminal record at all have been having trouble finding work, or don't you pay attention to the news about the Great Recession? My area has tradesmen that haven't worked in over a year. So much for "anywhere in the US".

And if current and future employees choose not to hire him based on background checks: tough. Maybe he will stop breaking laws if he feels the repercussions of his actions.

His main offense was 22 years ago and people in this thread seem determined to continue to punish him for the rest of his life for it by denying him gainful employment. If you don't allow him to make a legal living what, exactly, do you think will be the result?

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

That list "gives [you] pause"? Jesus Christ. The guy is a fucking loser. Why would you want someone like that in your life?

Yeah. Because everybody else who's willing to lay linoleum for a living (instead of tax lawyerin') is probably a moral fucking paragon.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Right, he might've "just" fingered her. And given her a popsicle afterward.

That's much better.

[ElvisL1ves]

Whatever the "sexual contact" (per the law) consisted of, we know it was something the court thought was worth two years. Reprehensible no matter what, of course, but he was not given a life sentence, nor is there a solid basis to believe he's incurably dangerous today.

To the OP, I'd have say "Go with your gut". If you feel he's safe today, then take him for what else you know he is - a really good worker.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by grude

Wait.......you think erotic response tests should be used to identify potential pedos?

Sure. It's currently done this way in reverse for certain crimes committed in California. Child rapists are subject to a battery of tests, which if they fail, are committed indefinitely to Coalinga State Hospital. Louis Theroux did a great documentary on it.

Originally Posted by runner pat

The OP said his offense was raping a 6 y.o. Sounds like a pedophile to me.

Not necessarily. He may have just been an opportunist looking for sexual release, without any sexual attraction to children. I don't consider this a mitigating factor at all.

Originally Posted by Crime Scene

Obviously I will not be attempting to find him housing anywhere near me, but it was odd to be asked.

I think it's encouraging that he's seeking housing in places where the nearest neighbours are a quarter of a mile away.

Originally Posted by The Man in Black

Condemning a person just because of the way his brain is wired?

Note, I said separated from the rest of society. Not condemned. I think homosexuality *is* useful as a comparison to paedophilia. When homosexuals say they do not choose to be reviled or bullied, I believe them. I also believe that's the case for paedophiles. I think it's ridiculous as a society to acknowledge that people have inherent sexual desires and then to expect them not to act on them. No matter how draconian the laws against either sexual predisposition, one always finds examples of those sexual acts being performed. Do you think these guys should have been executed? *

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Gotta love the SDMB. Someone starts an OP about how to treat a sex offender and all-around loser they hired and several people suggest to pay him more.

Gotta love objectivism. Base an entire theory around how wealth tracks merit, then break down like a blithering loon when a dedicated worker turns out to be a scumbag.

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

It's a meaningless thing to talk about.

Should people avoid raping children?

Originally Posted by Crime Scene

She is a psychologist who believes she can judge whether or not he is a changed man by listening to his explanation, looking for regret, and examining his behavior when confronted with the situation.

She'd be able to identify certain cognitive biases which'd indicate he'd be at risk of recidivism. One of them would be a response indicating a belief in a just world or the fundamental attribution error: something along the lines of "she was asking for it" or "she was wearing a short skirt, I couldn't help myself". However, if he is an opportunistic psychopath, the only way to determine that would be with brain scans.

Originally Posted by bengangmo

here is somebody suggesting that he should be blamed for an attraction

Not even. I think we should be responsible and mature in our response to what is probably an inherent feature of a person's sexuality. If we hold that child rape is absolutely unacceptable, as the Man in Black clearly does, we must tolerate certain restrictions on liberty in order to reduce the incidence of child rape in society. Our collective approach to homosexuality for the past few centuries has demonstrated how utterly ineffective instructing people to remain chaste rather than indulge in what they desire has been (along with therapy to "cure" specific sexual desires). I think sexually segregated "halfway house" villages or perhaps mental health hospitals like the Californian one would be appropriate. Yes, I have seen that Brass Eye episode.

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

And those "others " include a bunch of soft -headed douches on a liberal -leaning Internet messageboard.

Would you include Rachellelogram in your depiction of the SDMB as soft-headed douches, given she just revealed she'd been a victim of molestation?

I figured I'd look into data to see if I could establish the same link that's present for other crime statistics. Namely, that states and countries with capital punishment actually have higher incidences of crime than others (not to mention more recidivism). Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find reliable data on rape, since countries have different definitions and reporting protocol for rape. For instance, I think Saudi Arabia and Yemen preserve the death penalty for rape, but their age of consent is under 12. In Bangladesh, four witnesses are required to demonstrate that one was raped rather than merely committing adultery. I think that may be the case in the previous two countries as well actually.

[Troppus]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

His main offense was 22 years ago and people in this thread seem determined to continue to punish him for the rest of his life for it by denying him gainful employment. If you don't allow him to make a legal living what, exactly, do you think will be the result?

Unless Crime Scene has reported this new hire to the Missouri Department of Social Services for enforcement of child support payment in order to cut a portion of his pay directly to the state, this isn't a legal living.

[needscoffee]

As I posted earlier, the OP can just contact the guy's parole officer and find out exactly what the incident with the 6-year-old entailed.

[CandidGamera]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

I'm not basing my actions on the effects on this one guy of a hypothetical universe where everyone does what I do.

That's sort of the problem with objectivism in a nutshell, innit?

"Holy shit, if everyone did what I do.. !!" And then their heads explode, showering their dog-eared - and slightly sticky - copy of the Fountainhead with grey matter.


I'm going to go with the consensus of 'Let the man work, but keep your eyes open.'

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Troppus

Unless Crime Scene has reported this new hire to the Missouri Department of Social Services for enforcement of child support payment in order to cut a portion of his pay directly to the state, this isn't a legal living.

I thought it was the girlfriend who wasn't paying child support and not Mr. Ex-Con-Linoleum-Layer....? Unless crime scene hired her, too, that's not an issue.

ETA: Also, while not an authority on employment law, there's a difference between being assessed child support and having one's wages garnished. I don't think we know enough about the situation to know if any of the potential non-support parties here are required to pay on their own, or if the courts have required garnishment. Garnishment is not automatic in all cases, it does require a court procedure.

[needscoffee]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

I thought it was the girlfriend who wasn't paying child support and not Mr. Ex-Con-Linoleum-Layer....? Unless crime scene hired her, too, that's not an issue.

ETA: Also, while not an authority on employment law, there's a difference between being assessed child support and having one's wages garnished. I don't think we know enough about the situation to know if any of the potential non-support parties here are required to pay on their own, or if the courts have required garnishment. Garnishment is not automatic in all cases, it does require a court procedure.

See post #114.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

Nope he didn't -

He equated pedophilia to the structure of the brain, as in, it being something that the sufferer can't help (although they can choose not to act on it) to homosexuality also being the structure of the brain and not a lifestyle choice.

If I understood correctly, it was not a value judgement, but rather a statement of fact that nobody "chooses" to be have pedophillic attractions, anymore than somebody chooses to be gay. It's just the way that the individual brain is wired.

Someone understands.



Beastly Rotter, learn to read. It helps.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Troppus

Unless Crime Scene has reported this new hire to the Missouri Department of Social Services for enforcement of child support payment in order to cut a portion of his pay directly to the state, this isn't a legal living.

Please stick to topics you know the something about. Alternatively, please list the factors which distinguish an employee from an independent contractor under Missouri law.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

A pedophile may not be able to help the way he feels. He CAN control the way he ACTS. His brain never forced him to rape that girl. If you are honestly calling him the victim, because "his brain is wired that way", you're the fucking stupid one.

Are you an idiot? The guy said he wants to round up all pedos, even the ones who never did anything wrong, and put them in prison for life.

No sir. You are the fucking stupid one.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Whatever the "sexual contact" (per the law) consisted of, we know it was something the court thought was worth two years. Reprehensible no matter what, of course, but he was not given a life sentence, nor is there a solid basis to believe he's incurably dangerous today.

To the OP, I'd have say "Go with your gut". If you feel he's safe today, then take him for what else you know he is - a really good worker.

It sounds to me that he was charged as a juvenile to only get 2 years. That statute could either be a class B felony 5-10 years or a class A felony 10-30 years. Can't tell from that website.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Loach

It sounds to me that he was charged as a juvenile to only get 2 years. That statute could either be a class B felony 5-10 years or a class A felony 10-30 years. Can't tell from that website.

It was a Class B felony, which is worth 5-15 years today. However, the sentencing statute has been amended twice since 1990 so there's no telling what it was back then. Missouri statute annotations don't include deleted text.

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Crime Scene

...
The one thing that does make me raise my eyebrows is the fact that he is dating a girl that is much younger than himself, so I imagine the attraction to younger people is still there.....

There could be quite a lot going on with that relationship. You mentioned (I think) that this girl has a child that she does not have custody of.

Pedophiles have been known to groom a parent, even establish a relationship with one - even MARRY one - to gain access to the child. I have personal knowledge of such a situation (a friend.... her now-ex-husband will be in jail for a very long time).

Other than that: let the guy finish his job. The tricky thing will be if he wants to use you as a reference: how do you handle a phone call from another prospective client: "Yeah - did great work on the flooring but, um, if you got any kids don't hire him".

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

When I was 17, my girlfriend was 16. I guess I'm lucky I didn't go to jail.

You are, actually.

Depending on the laws in your jurisdiction, if you and the lady did some fun stuff together, and her parents were displeased, they could have ruined your life. We've heard of things like this including one recent local situation, mentioned by a professional who was involved with the family (no confidentiality violated, no names or other identifying info, just "mad mother, ruined boyfriend"). IIRC in that situation, the girl was 17 and the boy was 18.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

You are, actually.

Depending on the laws in your jurisdiction, if you and the lady did some fun stuff together, and her parents were displeased, they could have ruined your life. We've heard of things like this including one recent local situation, mentioned by a professional who was involved with the family (no confidentiality violated, no names or other identifying info, just "mad mother, ruined boyfriend"). IIRC in that situation, the girl was 17 and the boy was 18.

What state?

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Loach

What state?

Virginia, I believe, and Wikipedia bears this out:

The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close in age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18. An adult 18 or older having sex with a minor below 18 is a misdemeanor, while an adult having sex with a minor below 15 is a felony.

Reading more of that article, there are certain acts which are perfectly legal among consenting adults, but not among consenting minors (e.g. if a couple of 16 year olds give each other blowjobs).

In South Carolina, the 17 year old could get in trouble with his 16 year old girlfriend. Ditto South Dakota. I haven't looked at any other states.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

Reading more of that article, there are certain acts which are perfectly legal among consenting adults, but not among consenting minors (e.g. if a couple of 16 year olds give each other blowjobs).

So, under certain circumstances underaged kids could have PIV sex but blowjobs are straight out? What a well thought out law.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned

I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea. He might be relieved to have it out in the open. And whatever he did, I am sure it wasn't good but it might no be as bad as what you can imagine. He might want an opportunity to explain himself.

I remember reading on these boards several years ago about a guy who grabbed the arm of a 14 year old girl after she ran in front of his car and for that had to register as a sex offender. That always makes me wonder what the full story is when I hear someone is a registered sex offender.

There had to have been more to it than that. I find that one VERY hard to believe.

Don't have a heart attack, Rand Rover, but for once I'm incomplete agreement with you. I MIGHT see letting him finish the job at the very least, if it were a small, one-day only thing, but that's it. I'd probably give some bullshit about finding a relative who could do something cheaper or something.

(And you know what a "liberal douche" I am!)

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It was a Class B felony, which is worth 5-15 years today. However, the sentencing statute has been amended twice since 1990 so there's no telling what it was back then. Missouri statute annotations don't include deleted text.

Did it state specifically that this case was a class B? Because reading the statute it states it could be either A or B depending on circumstances.

[perfectparanoia]

I am sitting here with two kids of my own who currently has a contractor working on her home. He shows up on time, is good at his job and does it for a reasonable rate.

He's also a one-man show and seems to be pretty available.

So, I put myself in the OP's shoes by thinking what I would do if I found out he had committed this heinous crime 22 years ago.

My knee-jerk reaction was to just say, 'who gives a fuck?' I thought that was a bit too fast a reaction so I thought about it some more.

I am pretty sure that:

1. I would ask him about the particulars especially if he was on parole so I could talk to his parole officer.
2. I would certainly let him complete the two jobs in my home he was working on.
3. I would hire him for future projects.

22 years is a long time. 17 is a young age.

Aside: the whole thread has me wondering if 6 was really a typo for 16 on the report.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

Other than that: let the guy finish his job. The tricky thing will be if he wants to use you as a reference: how do you handle a phone call from another prospective client: "Yeah - did great work on the flooring but, um, if you got any kids don't hire him".

That's about what you do: "Yes, he's been a reliable worker and he does good work, but he does have a criminal record. Don't put him on a jobsite near kids, and don't put him in a situation where he might be tempted to do something he shouldn't. I haven't had a problem with him, that's why I still hire him, but I do keep an eye on him when he's doing work for me." Then let the other person make their own decision.

I used to work in construction. Ex-cons are not uncommon. Some of them were still very bad boys. Some of them really did seem to have mended their ways. The general contractor I worked for had a couple guys he'd hire for really unpleasant and/or hazardous work that he simply would not put on the same crew he had women on, or in situations where they might be alone with women or children. Other guys weren't a problem, their problems were in the past and they could be relied on to behave.

(He also had a client where, despite the guy having no criminal history at all, he wouldn't send either one of his woman workers or a young man under 21 to the guy's home to do work unless there was at least one other person along, usually himself. As someone else noted, not all the bad guys have been caught or have an official record.)

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by billfish678

So, under certain circumstances underaged kids could have PIV sex but blowjobs are straight out? What a well thought out law.

There are other examples of laws with rather bizarre outcomes.

For example, this case, where a guy from Indianapolis was convicted of child exploitation and child pornography for taking nude pictures of a seventeen-year-old girl.

Indiana's age of consent is 16, so the guy could legally have had sex with the girl, but taking photos of her naked landed him a felony conviction.

In another case, which we discussed on this board, a 16-year-old girl was charged with child porn for taking pictures of two other girls, one of whom was 16 and the other 19.

As i said in the thread, the age of consent in Rhode Island is also 16, so it would have been legal for these girls to indulge in a three-way carpet-munching dildo-fest, but it was illegal for them to take nude pictures of one another.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by perfectparanoia

I am sitting here with two kids of my own who currently has a contractor working on her home. He shows up on time, is good at his job and does it for a reasonable rate.

He's also a one-man show and seems to be pretty available.

So, I put myself in the OP's shoes by thinking what I would do if I found out he had committed this heinous crime 22 years ago.

My knee-jerk reaction was to just say, 'who gives a fuck?' I thought that was a bit too fast a reaction so I thought about it some more.

I am pretty sure that:

1. I would ask him about the particulars especially if he was on parole so I could talk to his parole officer.
2. I would certainly let him complete the two jobs in my home he was working on.
3. I would hire him for future projects.

22 years is a long time. 17 is a young age.

Aside: the whole thread has me wondering if 6 was really a typo for 16 on the report.

6 would be more consistent with the statute.

I would find another handyman. It's my job to track kid touchers not to employ them.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mhendo

There are other examples of laws with rather bizarre outcomes.

Yep, those are pretty bad too.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Loach

Did it state specifically that this case was a class B? Because reading the statute it states it could be either A or B depending on circumstances.

No, it's Class B or Class C - and automatically B if the victim is 14 or younger.

566.100. 1. A person commits the crime of sexual abuse if he subjects another person to sexual contact by the use of forcible compulsion. 2. Sexual abuse is a class C felony unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury or displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner or subjects the victim to sexual contact with more than one person or the victim is less than fourteen years of age, in which case the crime is a class B felony.

[jerryp8472]

Where would you have him work? Are sex offenders not entitled to make a living? Would you rather support them with the taxpayer dollar so they can sit at home instead of contributing to society?