Hollywood: Sexual assault whack-a-mole

[Salodin]

Child molesters ruin a child/young person's ENTIRE life.

Why shouldn't theirs be ruined completely also?

In light of the hundreds of priests in PA alone that have abused children for generations, I'm am coming into this camp. It's certainly tough shit, but it's also a heinous crime that I think we often undersell.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zetanio]

In light of the hundreds of priests in PA alone that have abused children for generations, I'm am coming into this camp. It's certainly tough shit, but it's also a heinous crime that I think we often undersell.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I can't agree enough.

[Zetanio]

when they feel helpless and hopeless.

Just like their victims.

[zoobernut]

Just like their victims.

Well yeah you aren't getting any argument from me on that point.

[Tokitoki]

He's not arguing against punishing child molesters, he's asking why not just give them life in prison or the death penalty. I think we all agree they're terrible people.

[dasva]

He's not arguing against punishing child molesters, he's asking why not just give them life in prison or the death penalty. I think we all agree they're terrible people.

Realistically regardless of the crime we aren't going to be adding any more crimes to things people might get the death penalty for if anything non Texas states are cutting back and even with what they have it's more of a LWOP in a higher security more isolated part of the prison. And frankly as it stands is kind of a huge waste of money. Trials cost way more, incarceration costs a lot more, ton more appeals etc and it's still rarely carried out even when the prisoner denies appeals and requests it. Also can be hard on the victims since they often have to still be a part of these appeals and such for decades later

Either way condemning someone to live the rest of their lives in prison is the harshest of penalties and in modern era where we like consider reformation and such generally reserved for situations where reformation isn't realistic or worth the risk. Usually for a single crime that's as far as I know reserved for 1st degree murder then after that it's generally persistent serious criminal activities particularly of a violent nature or sometimes it's things like homicide committed while in the commission of other felonies.

As a society we have a strong distaste to crimes involving kids and a gut reaction that is often greater than murder. But when comes to actually decided laws and peoples lives tend to it's really bad but not as bad as the above and worth trying reformation and in fact recidivism rates tend to be lower than a lot of other crimes. But at the same time it's in a yeah want them to have another chance just so long as I don't personally have to be the one giving it. And also this way we can screw with them for life while still having a tax payer instead of a tax burden

[Lokus]

Just make them live in Groggle's agrarian lifestyle fantasy upon release from prison and give them a role that suits them so that they feel fulfilled and are contributing to society while being segregated from womyn and the kids.

[Demosthenes]

I'm all for advocating tougher punishment for certain crimes, but man, if someone already did the time, punishing them after the fact too fucking much. Ex-cons need work. If they are competent for the job, then let them.

[Salodin]

Even Priests who sexually assaulted children for generations?

[Zetanio]

Oh they still get to be priests. They got a job waiting on the outside.

[Demosthenes]

Even Priests who sexually assaulted children for generations?

I didn't fucking stutter. If they've been convicted and they've served their time, there's no fucking reason to treat them like fucking pariahs and deny them work unless said work is directly related to the crime. The discussion of the punishment needing to be tougher is important sure, but if they have paid dues within the bounds of the law then let them fucking be.

[Day]

Nah Demo see around these parts when you argue the principal you are also defending the convict/person in question and their actions. Cute game they like to play.

[Salodin]

That's fine and dandy, but imagine if you're the business owner of a small office company and the women you employ came up to you and said they just found out the new hire is a sex offender and they feel insecure and unsafe working around him. What do you do? Tell them to kick rocks cause he served his time, or let him go because these women believe sexual crimes are particularly offensive and harmful in ways other crimes are not?

Cause honestly that's how most situations go for sex offenders once released. Some person in the neighborhood or work place find out their secret and ostracize them until they leave. Other crimes, most crimes, dont carry the stigma of sex crimes and I think you're hand waving that pretty hard. Especially acknowledging that there could be a discussion if current punishments properly fit the crime, realizing that that hasn't really happened, and expecting people to be ok with what we have now and just dealing with it. They are dealing with it; they're ostracizing someone from their community because the crime was so egregious.

I dont pretend to know the answer, but I understand why people would not want that type of criminal past around them. There is no making you whole after a crime like that, which puts it in a whole different category than other crimes. Steal a TV, slash some tires, the victim can be made whole again, but sexual crimes?

Idk, I'm starting to have less and less tolerance for sex crimes from adults. Kids sometimes do stupid shit like exchange nudes and what not, but that's creeping into nuance territory and I think things like that qualify as a gray area.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Demosthenes]

Because you clearly didn't fucking read what I said I'll quote a relevant section again.

there's no fucking reason to treat them like fucking pariahs and deny them work unless said work is directly related to the crime.

Did they steal money? Cool, don't let them work the register. Did they rape a woman? Yeah, don't let them work with women. Did they molest children? Don't let them work with children.

[Demosthenes]

It's doubly silly that this guy has served the time for his crime, he did the work and they retroactively erased him from it. That's fucked! I'd have kept him locked up for significantly longer, but after he gets out, don't treat him like shit.

[Zealot]

100% with Demo on this one.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

However, I'd bet that Olivia Munn would rather not have been in a scene with a convicted sex criminal, so she threw around her weight to keep that from happening.

He still got paid, but he's not getting the exposure (and "tainting" her [in the eyes of some] in the process).

It seems likely Shane Black knew the guy's past but tried to slip it past the rest of the cast. It probably seems silly but actors have an image to protect and if you want them to do something that could harm their image it's a good idea to get their consent first.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

It's funny cause if he sought consent in the first place none of this would be happening

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Also, dont let him work near women? Idk if that's a great remedy or expectation lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Demosthenes]

Then they need to have a modicum of professionalism. It's not like he's going to turn around and groom her. It's not like she's a teenager. Exposure is actors get made. He got paid and that's nice, but she had actively moved to hobble his ability to continue to work.
Make no mistake I personally don't want anything to do with the dude, but if I had to work with him, I'd do my fucking job and let him live his life.

"I don't like this person. I don't support what they did. I had a job and I did my job." Gee that's really hard.