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.
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.
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.
I got drunk and threw up in my bed. I did not rape a child.
Neither did this guy.
Right, he might’ve “just” fingered her. And given her a popsicle afterward.
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.
When I was 17, my girlfriend was 16. I guess I’m lucky I didn’t go to jail.
Sorry didn’t know you knew this guy.
I suppose it possible that is illegal in some states. I just don’t know of any
-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.
I don’t. I read the thread.
Substitute a 16- and 15-year-old and it’s illegal in Florida.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
Yeah. Because everybody else who’s willing to lay linoleum for a living (instead of tax lawyerin’) is probably a moral fucking paragon.
That’s much better.
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.
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.
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.
I think it’s encouraging that he’s seeking housing in places where the nearest neighbours are a quarter of a mile away.
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? *
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.
Should people avoid raping children?
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.
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.
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.
Unless Crime Scene has reported this new hire to the Missouri Department of Social Servicesfor enforcement of child support payment in order to cut a portion of his pay directly to the state, this isn’t a legal living.
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.
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.’
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.