Excluding a physical assault which is criminal and would encompass Cosby, Weinstein and that ilk. I think in the workplace when it is persistent, or it is hit and run with many people or inappropriate against multiple people and it is known…all things that would come out in an investigation you have a problem employee. Lauer could fit that description since many people although not all were offended by his behavior. Brokaw does not. Franken does not. I think when a whole bunch of coworkers go to bat for you as they did for Brokaw and Franken that speaks volumes. The concerning issue for me is that HR associations are reporting some male bosses are asking HR people how to avoid being alone with women subordinates. That is not good. The current recommendations are find an open space, leave the door open, have a third person with you or tape the encounter. Yikes. The sooner an employer can corroborate these things and determine that the harassment is pervasive or not the better. It is stickier when it is just one person being harassed by another person but most HR departments have dealt with that because with or without a no fraternizing policy…people get interested in other people and have for all time.
Another sticking point is that one person might consider something a compliment and the receiver of the compliment might interpret it differently. One person might be the type to fling their arm over a shoulder of a coworker of either sex walking down the hallway talking and the receiver might be someone who doesn’t want to be touched. But really there are ways to manage through differences in interpersonal skills and most people can spot those for what they really are and handle it…what they are not is harassment. Harassment in the workplace is not far off most legal definitions…pervasive and repeated experiences in my opinion.
The book is not being rewritten it is being updated. Not a bad thing unless it shoves women into separate squadrons never to have a mentor of the opposite sex. Or be left out of a casual lunch or drink to celebrate. Fortunately I am old enough that it will never impact me but I do have a touch of fear for young women alittle that in the zeal to sterilize the workplace something will get lost.
Pretty sure raping women while they are drugged up, which is what Cosby (the point of this thread) did, is 1st degree assault in literally every state.
Which people would not be offended if Lauer “pulled down her pants, bent [his colleague] over a chair, and assaulted her” ? Other than Lauer and other fans of rape, I mean?
Just to clarify - I must have gotten the different allegations agains Matt Lauer confused. I seem to have forgotten about the sex toy incident etc. Cardinal Fang and BB posts do describe things that are more serious than just a consensual affair.
I wonder what will happen at the Museum of African American History and Culture in DC. About 2 years ago they were set to have an exhibit about Cosby, with no mention of his “legal troubles”. They changed their position shortly afterwards (under enormous pressure), but rejected the idea that he should have no place in the museum.
I’ve been listening to alot of “put him in jail” soundbites and rhetoric through the weekend, but the cost of managing old, infirm people is growing and I mentioned the cost very early in this thread. I dug around the net to see what I could find about old and infirm prisoners who clearly pose no thread to society because of their health. Here’s an interesting article from Pew Charitable Trusts that addresses what is happening with our aging prison populations.
Yeah, old people in prison are a problem, and the state pays for their healthcare rather than Medicare.
OTOH, we are not talking about letting someone out early after they had served many years and/or a significant part of their sentence. We are talking about a man, like the 72 year old murderer in California, who needs to be put away after getting away with terrorizing and victimizing people for decades.
There is a big difference between sending to prison an older person convicted of serious crimes (sometimes after evading arrest and trial for years) versus sending to prison for life a third striker whose third strike was a less serious crime than that committed by the older person.
I agree with most of you, age shouldn’t matter whether someone is incarcerated. if the crime warrants jail time then we owe the victims that justice and closure.
Criminals courts don’t “owe” victims anything. Criminal courts are about criminals and society. Criminal judgements do not “compensate” the victims except by providing the satisfaction of seeing someone found guilty. Civil trials are about someone compensating another. There is a statistic out there that is easy to find. Basically in 13 states where the prison population has declined since 2010, total prison costs declined by $1.6 billion. I’d still like to hear a good, logical reason why Cosby should be incarcerated in a jail instead of incarcerated in his house at his own expense. There is decades of research that shows that deterrence-based punishments like mandatory sentencing and the death penalty have failed to prove they do anything to reduce crime so “it will send a message” doesn’t really sway me that the cost is worth it to citizens.
^^ Are you suggesting that no convicted sexual predator should ever go to jail? IMO, I don’t mine paying a little extra tax dollars to make sure that these predators are not walking the streets to prey on more women.
How do you think one is supposed to be incarcerated in their own house “at their own expense”? So if someone is homeless or will lose their house/apartment because they can’t go to work, they should be jailed but someone rich and famous can luxuriate under house arrest in their tropical abode? Selective justice.
Because #113 - living in a mansion, your own home, with your family, is not punishment. The purpose of prison is punishment of the criminal, which then should serve as a deterrent to those who have not (yet) committed a crime.
A prison sentence for sexual assault offenders sends a message to victims of sexual assault. Home arrest sends a very different message to victims of sexual assault. If you are advocating for the second type of message, then don’t be confused when people think you are soft on sexual abuse as a crime.
I’m in favor of reduced prison time for property and financial crimes. Not for violent offenses (of which sexual assault is). There is no evidence anywhere that society would be improved by letting sexual offenders hang out in their homes under “house arrest”.
On the San Fran thread we have some folks wanting people with no homes arrested for peeing outside. On this thread at least one poster wants someone who was found guilty of drugging and sexually assaulting someone to serve their sentence in their plush mansion. #-o
No I want an 80 year old man who is blind and infirm and committed his crime decades ago not to cost taxpayers any money. I do not see one single benefit to society to house him in the prison system and said I wanted to hear why that was the best course of action. Birds are tweeting.