5 ms·

>If he said "oh shit... yeah, I screwed up", I'd reconsider[...] Really? I think that doesn't cut it here. "yeah, I screwed up" is an appropriate response when

by fjh 16y ago

>If he said "oh shit... yeah, I screwed up", I'd reconsider[...] Really? I think that doesn't cut it here. "yeah, I screwed up" is an appropriate response when you show up hungover for an important presentation,not when you try and force yourself on someone.

cperciva 16y ago
I don't believe that anyone is beyond salvation providing that he is willing to confront his sins and avoid repeating them. If I thought an employee was likely to sexually assault someone else, I'd cut him loose immediately; but if he was as shocked by his behaviour as any reasonable person would be, then I wouldn't necessarily think he was any more likely to reoffend than anyone else. But I come from Canada -- a country which eschews the death penalty and even gives parole to multiple murderers on occasion. We're more forgiving than Americans.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  I'm American and I agree with you. Ideally the accused, if guilty, would man up, admit wrongdoing alcohol or no, apologize, and do whatever is in his power to right his wrong, make whole, undo the damage, seek counseling, stop drinking, donate a large sum to a women's shelter, speak out against sexual assault at tech conferences, that sort of thing. Incredibly embarrassing for him yes, but the fact that she has only so far publicly shamed him and not actually pressed charges is more than charitable on her part. She's left the door open for him to respond in kind and for this to be resolved between the two of them. But he has to realize the generosity she's displaying here, and reciprocate ten-fold. To me that would be evidence that someone was not only shocked by their behavior, but sincere about being shocked, and willing to make it right. I'm not one to throw stones in such cases.
  - rue 16y ago
    That is a very interesting interpretation, and very charitable; but it could just as easily be explained by malice because justly or not, the revelation has pretty much destroyed his reputation with a very, very small potential of successful redemptory action. I think that she did it without really thinking it through because she is personally involved. People do not always make the best decisions under those circumstances, which is why we have the legal framework. I must stress that I cannot really blame her, I do not know how I would have acted in similar circumstances. I just wish she had not done it because when naming names becomes precedent, something bad will happen to someone undeserving of it.
    - SkyMarshal 16y ago
      Agree with your second and third paragraphs. I was also a bit shocked as I was reading it when she named him. It would have been even more charitable not to, since he clearly would have known who she was referring to upon reading that blog post even without his name, and would have had the same opportunity to find a way to right his wrong. But you can't expect a woman to act charitably after being sexually assaulted. That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, and I do think the road to redemption for a guy in this situation is clear, though not easy. PS - all this presumes guilt; consider it hypothetical.
      - rue 16y ago
        I do not think we should really presume anything. > That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, […] This I disagree with. A public outing can be just as, if not more damaging to the alleged assailant. It is possible that she also thought or thinks along your tracks, but I do not think it is factually true that this is somehow a "soft" option.
        SkyMarshal 16y ago
        Wouldn't pressing charges = public outing + legal ramifications? Seems clearly worse than just a public outing. And no, definitely shouldn't presume anything in these cases, which is what I meant by that last line.

by fjh 16y ago

cperciva 16y ago

I don't believe that anyone is beyond salvation providing that he is willing to confront his sins and avoid repeating them. If I thought an employee was likely to sexually assault someone else, I'd cut him loose immediately; but if he was as shocked by his behaviour as any reasonable person would be, then I wouldn't necessarily think he was any more likely to reoffend than anyone else. But I come from Canada -- a country which eschews the death penalty and even gives parole to multiple murderers on occasion. We're more forgiving than Americans.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
I'm American and I agree with you. Ideally the accused, if guilty, would man up, admit wrongdoing alcohol or no, apologize, and do whatever is in his power to right his wrong, make whole, undo the damage, seek counseling, stop drinking, donate a large sum to a women's shelter, speak out against sexual assault at tech conferences, that sort of thing. Incredibly embarrassing for him yes, but the fact that she has only so far publicly shamed him and not actually pressed charges is more than charitable on her part. She's left the door open for him to respond in kind and for this to be resolved between the two of them. But he has to realize the generosity she's displaying here, and reciprocate ten-fold. To me that would be evidence that someone was not only shocked by their behavior, but sincere about being shocked, and willing to make it right. I'm not one to throw stones in such cases.
- rue 16y ago
  That is a very interesting interpretation, and very charitable; but it could just as easily be explained by malice because justly or not, the revelation has pretty much destroyed his reputation with a very, very small potential of successful redemptory action. I think that she did it without really thinking it through because she is personally involved. People do not always make the best decisions under those circumstances, which is why we have the legal framework. I must stress that I cannot really blame her, I do not know how I would have acted in similar circumstances. I just wish she had not done it because when naming names becomes precedent, something bad will happen to someone undeserving of it.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    Agree with your second and third paragraphs. I was also a bit shocked as I was reading it when she named him. It would have been even more charitable not to, since he clearly would have known who she was referring to upon reading that blog post even without his name, and would have had the same opportunity to find a way to right his wrong. But you can't expect a woman to act charitably after being sexually assaulted. That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, and I do think the road to redemption for a guy in this situation is clear, though not easy. PS - all this presumes guilt; consider it hypothetical.
    - rue 16y ago
      I do not think we should really presume anything. > That she hasn't pressed charges is still above and beyond the call of duty on her part, […] This I disagree with. A public outing can be just as, if not more damaging to the alleged assailant. It is possible that she also thought or thinks along your tracks, but I do not think it is factually true that this is somehow a "soft" option.
      - SkyMarshal 16y ago
        Wouldn't pressing charges = public outing + legal ramifications? Seems clearly worse than just a public outing. And no, definitely shouldn't presume anything in these cases, which is what I meant by that last line.