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?

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Important to note: in the US people are not found “innocent,” they are found “not guilty.” It may seem pedantic but it’s important to remember that a lack of a conviction is not evidence that they didn’t commit a crime, only that a jury believed there was enough doubt in the evidence to decline to find them guilty.

    This is especially relevant to rape cases, where evidence is difficult for outsiders to interpret and a trial result of “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean a rape didn’t happen or that the defendant didn’t commit it.

    • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Similarly, “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “guilty, but we couldn’t prove 100%”. So, a lack of conviction is not evidence that they did commit a crime, as you’re implying. This is especially relevant to rape cases.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not sure how you got that out of my comment which was in reply to someone talking about people being found innocent rather than not guilty.

        • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re stating that “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent.” I’m adding that “not guilty” doesn’t always mean “guilty but got away with it.” Which part confused you?

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            So, a lack of conviction is not evidence that they did commit a crime, as you’re implying. This is especially relevant to rape cases.

            Guess I’m confused where I said anything remotely like that.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If they didn’t do it they get the same ‘not guilty’ verdict, so what is the recourse for someone who was falsely charged?

      I am specifically thinking of the US where there are a lot of black men falsely convicted of violent crimes they did not commit because of racist eye witness testimony or even victims who blame a random black person to avoid social stigma and prosecutors who want higher conviction rates.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        A false accusation or conviction isn’t even necessarily because of ill intent from anyone involved (although let’s be real, cops almost always have ill intent); people can just be wrong about who raped them. Eye witness testimony is bad in a neutral setting and horrible in an emotionally charged setting, and if for some reason DNA evidence is unavailable then unfortunately victims are left with nothing but their (human, fallible) eyewitness testimony of what happened.

        Intentional false accusation is a whole other ball game, and is already a crime.