4 ms·

There is a big difference between "This person should be imprisoned and completely seperated from society" and "I should have the right to not work with violent

There is a big difference between "This person should be imprisoned and completely seperated from society" and "I should have the right to not work with violent people". I have no problem with a convicted murderer being released from prison, but I'm not going to invite them over for dinner.

tnorthcutt 6y ago
Then... don't.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I agree. A lot of people in this comment section are arguing that "Then don't" shouldn't be an option.
  - sterkekoffie 6y ago
    People are acting like you shouldn't be allowed to quit your job because you don't like your coworkers?
filoleg 6y ago
> "I should have the right to not work with violent people" You do have that right, because you can switch jobs at will (unlike that person), in case you don't want to work with someone purely due to their past and not something they are doing at your workplace. I don't think we should be blocking people (who have already paid their dues for the crimes they have committed in the past) from getting a job solely for their past, just because you might be uncomfortable with that. It isn't like you are trapped, you always have an option to leave. The person who paid their dues to the prison system doesn't have any options if they become unhireable solely due to people's prejudices about their past. And at that point, what other option do they have other than turn their head towards crime again? Rent and bills aren't gonna pay themselves. Not the best solution, but I don't think that denying someone a job based on your discomfort about their distant past is reasonable at all. Of course, as long as they weren't in-and-out of jail multiple times for the same crimes, because that's an indication that they are likely to re-commit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- langitbiru 6y ago
  The other alternative is UBI. So the ex-convicts can be spared from hunger and poverty.

tnorthcutt 6y ago

Then... don't.

dahfizz 6y ago
I agree. A lot of people in this comment section are arguing that "Then don't" shouldn't be an option.
- sterkekoffie 6y ago
  People are acting like you shouldn't be allowed to quit your job because you don't like your coworkers?

filoleg 6y ago

> "I should have the right to not work with violent people" You do have that right, because you can switch jobs at will (unlike that person), in case you don't want to work with someone purely due to their past and not something they are doing at your workplace. I don't think we should be blocking people (who have already paid their dues for the crimes they have committed in the past) from getting a job solely for their past, just because you might be uncomfortable with that. It isn't like you are trapped, you always have an option to leave. The person who paid their dues to the prison system doesn't have any options if they become unhireable solely due to people's prejudices about their past. And at that point, what other option do they have other than turn their head towards crime again? Rent and bills aren't gonna pay themselves. Not the best solution, but I don't think that denying someone a job based on your discomfort about their distant past is reasonable at all. Of course, as long as they weren't in-and-out of jail multiple times for the same crimes, because that's an indication that they are likely to re-commit.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
langitbiru 6y ago
The other alternative is UBI. So the ex-convicts can be spared from hunger and poverty.