> In particular this would include me -- as while black out drunk I was subject to a graphic homosexual encounter for which I could not consent.
I don't know the backstory, and I don't know OP, so I want to be careful and clearly state that I am not minimizing or in any way commenting on the facts of his case.
However, the statement above is dangerously wrong from both a legal and a biological standpoint, and needs to be debunked. Any forensic toxicologist will tell you: the point of alcohol intoxication which interferes with forming long-term memories is lower than the point at which one cannot consent.
Exercising poor judgment while drunk and later having a spotty memory of it does not mean you were a victim. Consenting to something when you're black out drunk is still consent. If you exercise poor judgment about having sex and later can't remember, it does not mean you were sexually assaulted. If you exercise poor judgment about buying more shots and later can't remember, it does not mean the bartender stole from you. If you exercise poor judgment about driving and later can't remember how you got home, you and you alone are still responsible for your decision to drive drunk.
The neurobiological capacity to make decisions and the neurobiological capacity to form long-term memories are not identical. Conflate them at your own peril.
You’re being pedantic (“black out drunk doesn’t mean you can’t consent”). If you want to be specific, which based on your profile you would want to be, the exact terms are “evidence of the victim's mental incapacity or defect is admissible to prove that consent was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary.” (Florida state statute 794.022(4) specifically as an example)
The legal and moral notion of consent to sexual activity isn't and logically driven by your brains ability to form memories or actuate voluntary motion.
For someone to give consent they have to have sufficient higher function to make a reasonable judgement.
If you fuck someone drunk off their ass because they can move and respond you probably morally and legally raped them in at least half the nation.
> The courts in California have found the following conduct shows that someone was too intoxicated to consent . . .passed out at some point or had trouble walking on their own . . . agreeing that the victim needed to “sleep it off” . . . vomiting . . . vomiting and hit the wall.
Notably absent is alcohol's effect on long-term memory. Drinking to the point of impairing long-term episodic memory (BAC of 0.08-0.15) is not the same as drinking to the point you cannot consent.
Drinking to the point of impairing memory would seem at best impair judgement and ensure the person has no way to discern whether they consented or not.
I see no reason to treat that as valid consent millions of people in the states live in states that wouldn't.
Morally respecting partners rights costs you nothing.
I have a video friends took of me, that I don't remember entire HOURS of before and after. In the video you can clearly see I am happy drunk but you couldn't get me to consent to things I didn't want IMO. Im not some confused lump ready to be taken advantage of, yet I lost all memory of that 4th of July BBQ.
Plus, beyond my anecdote, the guy above posted research. Do we not believe in science anymore?
You are confusing posting a link with winning an argument. The problem is people have fundamental moral and legal disagreement about what constitutes consent with poster asserting it has to do with ability to make decisions and others including lawmakers in multiple states holding it rests in not being sufficiently impaired to severely degrade ones decision making ability.
It's impossible for the posters link to resolve this divergent understanding.
No doubt people throw their own emotional arguments into things that have been researched with 1000x rigor compared to their internal hunches.. it doesn't mean it's right.
People's entire lives are derailed when they drink and get in a car and get caught for a DUI. The fact that we prosecute people, fine them amounts greater than some people's entire savings, throw them in jail, make them loose their jobs... For deciding to get into a car after 5 drinks. But if you decide to sleep with someone after 5 drinks, you were taken advantage of and that person should be prosecuted. In one case we give no sympathy for being drunk, and in the other we treat you like a child.
I had a housemate, back when, who went out every weekend and got drunk because she considered that the only way to get sex. Whoever she bonked was invariably equally drunk. Did she rape him? Did he rape her? Did they rape one another?
Afterward, neither might be sure what actually happened, but both knew that whatever happened was what they went out for. Going to that bar and getting that drunk was something each chose to do while still sober, exactly like everybody else there.
So, was every last patron of that bar raping somebody every weekend?
Each was raping the other? Then, why were cops not there arresting everybody as they showed up? There was no secret about what they were doing, on a regular and predictable schedule.
How are you supposed to actually assess the drunkness of another when the consequence of getting it wrong (or the other person claiming you get it wrong) is that you are accused of rape?
I think for this reason sex in general is not a worthwhile risk for most people
> Well, for my date or wife (at times when I have one or the other), I can see how much they've drunk.
I meaaaaaan sort of. You can see how much they drink in front of you. You can't say whether they have pre-gamed or are sneaking shots from the bar/a flask they carry while you are in the bathroom.
Obviously if they seem so drunk they aren't in their right mind you should wait, but I'm just pointing out this isn't strictly true
That stance strikes me as untenable. People get consensually drunk while horny all the time, and act on it, usually without major regrets. Taking the hard line of requiring absolute sobriety for consent invites all sorts of other decision-making inhibitors to effectively invalidate consent. Anxiety disorder? Consent didn't count. Low blood sugar? Grieving a lost loved one? Tired from jogging? Didn't count.
I am wholly behind consent between children and adults of actually significant age gap being invalid (the standard creepiness rule from xkcd comes to mind,) but mental fitness to make the choice really is a blurry line and intents should be considered. Well-meaning people who had no intent to exploit or coerce are not rapists because of one voluntary beer, nor should the justice system treat them as such. It only encourages another kind of victimization via the courts.
Where is the line then? How are you going to argue to the judge that you were on the "anxiety disorder, single beer, diabetic" side of the line? Is that a risk that anyone will want to take?
Fortunately I don't have to write laws or adjudicate these things. I simply cannot draw a line at X number of beers, or whatever other arbitrary thing. Were they walking straight on their own and talking without slurred speech when they left or were they stumbling out? Did they go out specifically with intent to get laid by a stranger they haven't met yet? Did the would-be rapist encourage them to drink more, or order them strong drinks on purpose? Lots of factors would affect my opinion on whether it was a predatory situation or not. I think I would tend to believe victims are victims, though not if there are clues they are just playing one and using the sexual encounter as a weapon.
I was here to tell you that non-sobriety doesn't always imply rape, which you claimed it did. Then I told you about how I am fortunate not to have to draw the actual line that determines what is rape legally, because it is hard to do. So, naturally I'm not interested in following this line of hypotheticals. I've never personally had issues identifying consent, never been accused of rape. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe I've made the right choices regarding partners. It's beside the point that I came to make. You seem to have made yours as well.
I had a friend, around that time, who some years before had some sort of disagreement with some guy. That guy's girlfriend filed a rape charge against my friend. He was convicted and served seven years, solely on her say-so.
Your housemates behavior is stupid, abhorrent, morally and mentally deficient.
Arguably while sober its possible that both parties in full possession of their faculties may have made the choice to have drunk sex with someone only actuated when they both sloppy drunk met the ultimate person they were going to get busy with. The problem is that the answer is indeterminate.
If someone absolutely intended to get busy it argues against them being the victim by virtue of having made as you've said the decision to take such action while sober however its absolutely possible for them to rape another who didn't make such a decision while drunk number one are themselves are too impaired to judge the situation and its also possible for someone else to believe they were getting over on an impaired partner. That is someone, drunk number two, can morally but not legally be guilty of rape because it was their intent to get someone drunk to impair their judgement to allow them to sleep with them.
This is something like driving a little drunk and arguing whether or not someone murdered someone by driving impaired. It can be legitimately difficult to tease out moral culpability in edge cases. For example its entirely possible for the drunk driver to be blameless in a crash caused by the incompetent actions of a sober driver, for example running a red light.
Most situations are less ambiguous and the the solution to such ambiguity is to simply not drive drunk or use alcohol to lubricate sexual conquests.
There is a degree in moral insanity in a substantial portion of the population not understanding how to deal with such a simple situation.
Whether you are blackout drunk or not should not be the dividing line, because you can be terribly impaired without having blackout, and you can have blackout without being terribly impaired. It's not in general possible to tell if someone will have blackout.
I think it's important to understand that alcohol only slows your thinking, it doesn't "change your personality" or make your thoughts or wants go places they otherwise wouldn't. All that is socially learned. The drunk you is you. If you state consent as drunk, it's because you want to.
In practice, though, blackout is a terrifying experience, and for all the blacked-out person knows they were completely unconscious during what happened. So they can't be faulted for fearing they were abused. And so, for your sake and theirs, you should NEVER have sex with anyone if there's the slightest chance they have blackout, i.e. if you can tell they are drunk at all. This is an easy rule to follow, and I have very little sympathy with people who can't.
My question would be: if someone commits a crime, then is punished for that crime according to the law... does some form of punishment have to continue once they're released from prison. That's what seems to be happening here.
I don't think it's about punishment. [Edit] they're not asking for the other person to be kicked out or anything. They just don't want to be forced to interact personally.
I don't think it would work to force people to use a certain metric. They have to be free to avoid whoever they want to avoid, or else they will self-select out of the community, as happened here.
Convicted of rape and in possession of CSAM is all that matters to me. They're going to want to re-offend for the rest of their life. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Either way we should destroy the individual.
I think the logic is always along the lines of "If they did it once, they are probably capable of doing it again. Is society obligated to give them opportunities to do so"
If you strongly believe prison is for rehabilitation, you probably want to give people plenty of chances.
If you strongly believe prison is for punishment, then likely you give people few chances and want their crimes to follow them forever.
The best approach is probably neither extreme but something more balanced with a case by case appraisal based on risk.
Effectively prison, but if you're not after the punishment aspect after a certain length of time the setting might be different. Not as cool a place as Australia, but there's a lot of federal land.
there's another option. I want prison to be for rehabilitation, to the point where someone's sentence can be extended / reduced based on how they recovered (not sure how to measure that). however, I also believe that US prisons are not like that. therefore, until the prisons get reformed, I will treat ex-cons as not rehabilitated.
Purely from the legal lens: judiciary sets an appropriate punishment for crimes but if the punishment continues in some form after the term, that is stigma.
Correctional reforms now also target the public education & conscience in the broad sense, because finding employment & societal reintegration for ex-felons is a stark issue. The Nordic model is a better example where punishment is being conditioned to be thought of as a payment/tax for misdeeds. Once it is done with, you are morally 'free person' in the public eye.
This is an important issue because a significant minority in prison pools are innocent or having disproportionate punishment. And historically we have grown to remember crimes as a stigma not as correction.
Certain kinds of crime: absolutely. Sex offender registries exist explicitly for this purpose, for society to permanently treat you differently because of what you did.
They don't exist in most societies though. Just because your society happens to have such public registries, doesn't make it some objective truth that such registries are a good idea.
> I have resigned all my positions in ISO C++ in protest of the decision to use CoC anti-discrimination rules to protect a duly convicted registered level 2 sex offender.
> it was made clear by several members of my national body that avoiding this person is discrimination of an ex-felon
It's a complicated balance to strike between reintegrating ex-felons, and the justified fear other people have that they will be victimized.
Edit: Just mean I really don't envy the people forced to deal with this. Really a no-win situtation.
It’s perfectly well within the rights of this individual to resign, without Reddit/HN getting into a spat about whether the individual’s justification meets some loose standard.
I do think this particular tweet is very concerning. See if you can follow this train of thought:
> While I empathize with any ex-felon's right reintegration, I empathize more with past or potential victim's right to do their jobs amongst people who haven't fallen short of one of the lowest moral bars in society. Choosing one side must exclude the other.
How does this make you feel? Do you agree that “Choosing one side must exclude the other”? Is this an applicable statement to make in this context?
I think so, because the person just wanted to nominate a replacement for themselves so they could be recused and avoid this other person. The job would still get done and both people would still be connected to the community while avoiding each other personally.
> How does this make you feel? Do you agree that “Choosing one side must exclude the other”? Is this an applicable statement to make in this context?
This seems straightforward to me.
We are talking about people who have been victimized by another person, and may have a great deal of trauma from that event.
We likely wouldn't question it even slightly if they said they could not work with their abuser. Working with someone who was convicted of performing the same (or similar) abuse on a different person wouldn't be too much different from that I don't think.
I don't think it makes sense to say you support the right to reintegration and then argue that the idea of 'potential future victims' is enough to remove someone from a job. Anyone can be a potential future victim following that logic, so this person could never really be integrated at all.
I think sex offenders elicit emotional responses in these discussions and that the position isn't tenable at least for someone who purports to favor reintegration.
I'll pick a particularly thorny and controversial example but I think it's necessary. Imagine a member of a minority group with a background of severe violent crime spoke at a conference, he went to prison and served his sentence. Now someone attending says they don't feel save with him in the room and that the person should never hold an administrative job again. What would be the response to that?
The response would probably be that they can't fire him because he's a minority. But that doesn't make it right. It just means that minorities can get away with stuff that nobody should be able to get away with,
if someone was found guilty, went to prison and served their sentence, I have trouble to characterize this as 'getting away with it' given that they, in the most literal sense imaginable, did not. This doesn't just do away with rehabilitation but even with punitive justice, because the punishment served is justified on the basis that the punished has afterwards repaid their debt to society.
If not even prison is sufficient we're firmly in the realm of tribal outcasts and I don't think that's generally speaking a popular form of justice among liberally minded software developers at conferences.
I used to agree with your general statement, until I worked with some people who were victims of violent crimes. Their trauma did not go away with a set unit of time served, but follows them forever.
The idea of neatly packaged-and-served justice doesn’t mesh with the reality of trauma inflicted by the crimes. Some stigma should remain with perpetrators, regardless of time served.
Not every crime can sufficiently be paid in the scope of one lifetime and more importantly not every person can be rendered safe for the rest of society in any finite term. I don't think its incompatible with the notion of justice to suppose that someone can represent an inextinguishable risk to society despite serving their sentence.
Rather than questioning the entire concept of justice one can simply question whether the implementation of justice is in this instance sufficiently sound. To give an extreme example its probably best that the prolific serial killer Gary Ridgeway remain in prison until he's dead. If our justice system were dumb enough to release him one wouldn't be obliged to accept or reject the entire concept of justice as one piece. One could simply reject whether Gary was a safe fellow to be around.
This isn't even hypothetical there are actually serial killers who are free men post conviction.
Completing a prison term (or being found "not guilty", for that matter) does not spare you from civil litigation; why would it spare you from ostracism?
As a society we have taken the position that once you are a felon you are permanently subject to heightened scrutiny, and people who have been victims of crimes you committed can reasonably ask to not have to interact with such felons.
That is what people did in this case, and they were told that if they did recuse themselves they would be censured for breaching the CoC.
What they board has done has said that a victim choosing making use of a public registry to know to avoid certain people is someone who should be actively punished.
This is despite allowing this kind of avoidance being a significant part of the reason these registries exist in the first place.
No one has stopped this pedo from being on the C++WG - otherwise we wouldn’t be here - what happened was a victim of abuse said that they wanted to be given the reasonable accommodation of not working directly with a sex offender.
They were told that not only would they not receive such accommodation, but that they would be punished for requesting it.
I don't. We have a legal system that doles out punishments for crimes, and then you're free to go about your life.
If a person served their punishment, I generally feel they should be given a chance. This is minus things like joke sentences and repeat offenders, because some people seem beyond saving.
If you're going to treat criminals as forever outcasts, you may as well advocate for branding their face or sentencing them to death, IMO.
If you’re a registered sex offender, there is clearly a sense that society has decided your prison term ending is not enough and people need to be notified of a risk you still pose. Your debt, as it were, was not repaid.
I am perfectly fine with those convicted of sex crimes against children being permanent outcasts. (Level 2 implies that in my state, unsure whether it means the same in the local jurisdiction of the poster)
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the method.
Simply put, if we're going to treat them as permanent weirdos, just make the sentence life. Personal view: people who sexually abuse children deserve it.
What's the point in letting them out but with asterisks...
From the purely legal academic standpoint there is the concept of proportionate sentencing. If abusing and killing children gets the same sentence as abusing them, criminals will be incentivised to kill as well since there is no downside.
Because child rapists are applying game theory to decide which crimes they are going to commit? Your logic only makes sense theoretically. In the real world people barely ever consider the punishments to decide which crimes to commit, especially with emotionally driven crimes such as rape.
It’s not a complicated thought. Criminals see the news and hear from others. They’ll know if they’re going to get life anyway. It’s wrong to underestimate criminals intelligence
This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time. For example, it is well established that in states with a three strikes law police officers are killed or attempted to be killed by felons having just committed their third strike, because it makes sense from a game theoretical point of view: there is no downside to it (if you're caught, life inprisonment awaits you), but there's a chance to escape.
> This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time.
People do intuitively apply game theory, but they do so in ways that aren't strictly rational.
Rationally, deterrence is a function of the penalty adjusted by the odds of being caught and convicted. which means that doubling the penalty should have the same additional deterring effect as doubling the odds of conviction. However, increasing penalties has a relatively small deterring effect, and increasing enforcement a relatively large one.
One way to explain this is to assume that getting caught and convicted has large fixed costs that are independent of the length of sentence.
This tends to cut against the dominant tough-on-crime narrative that focuses on increasing penalties, BTW, but for some reason hiring more judges, prosecutors, public defenders, detectives, CSIs and other people to solve cases and actually go to trial isn't as popular as just mandating longer sentences (and coercing defendants to agree to a plea deal).
Generally speaking people who want to exclude the rapist aren't in a position to change his sentence after the fact. So the logical solution is unavailable and thus we are left to deal with messy reality as it is. In context it is perfectly reasonable to deal with this by excluding the rapist.
So we lived three houses from a registered sex offender when we were raising our kids. We didn't burn his house down. We didn't try to get him fired. We did limit which direction our daughters were permitted to ride their bikes in.
It's not all or nothing. He can be out of prison, he can have a house, he can get a job. Other parents on the street can make informed decisions about the risks to their children in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.
Is life imprisonment a valid punishment? Is it a valid rehabilitation method? Is it, as some others have pointed out, a valid form of protection for society from the ill-behaviors of certain people?
I believe that life imprisonment is a valid punishment, but more commonly a valid "Protection for the rest of society". I also believe that other "For life" restrictions can be valid as "Protection for society", too. Felons of certain financial often have their sentences include restrictions on their ability to hold certain kinds of jobs, including serving on boards of public companies or to act as treasurer/accountant/executive. This is not unreasonable.
We have a system of rights, and some are absolute. Some are tied to the social contract, and their revocation upon felony is not only valid, but required for society to function.
Life imprisonment is just plain cruelty! There is no rehabilitation in the scope… just plain revenge. If someone is broken beyond repair (or sick) then it would be unjust and cruel to throw them in jail for the rest of their life! Sure they must be kept away from the rest of society but rotting in a small cell with daily abuse and basically no rights in my opinion makes society as guilty as the criminals it tries to punish!
Justly the loss of freedom is the punishment and we should not try to subject the offender to abusive treatment but this is ridiculous hyperbole. An example of someone who deserves life imprisonment is Gary Ridgeway aka the Green River Killer who was convicted of murdering 49 but probably killed 90+ innocent girls.
Rotting in a small cell is better than he deserves and keeping him there is the only way society and indeed he can be safe. He is segregated even in prison not because of extreme risk he presents although he would certainly be a high risk if ever released, but rather because the risk that someone perhaps a relation of one of the many people he murdered would in turn murder him.
Keeping society safe by giving Gary a crummy but safe life doesn't make us as guilty as someone who lured and strangled innocent girls.
Actually the serial killer example is perfect! He is sick… he doesn’t deserve to suffer because it’s not his fault if he is broken! Ofc he must be kept away from society but that’s it… no extra harshness should be imposed!
> makes society as guilty as the criminals it tries to punish!
I think no, because even if we equate the level of savagery (declare that locking up someone for life in a tiny cell is exactly as savage as whatever they had done), those involved in the locking up retain a moral upper hand, because they do not make random, innocent people the targets of their savagery.
Very often people committing hideous crimes are just sick! Their mind doesn’t work anymore as it was supposed to (or never did). It is immoral to punish the. Particularly harshly! Sure… we must keep them away from others but that should be it!
yup, As a society we have to decide if the "justice system" is about retribution, or protection. A society that leans heavily on retribution, as most do, is always going to be unhealthy. If a person is dangerous, they belong in some sort of restrained living condition. If a person has done bad things, giving them excessive punishment because "they really deserved it" is silly.
A society that has individuals whose behavior (in a retribution-based society) calls for retribution will also always be unhealthy. Avoiding retribution won't heal it.
Tbh, this "contradiction" in the moral side of the progressive movement was bound to happen at some point. My own feelings about it are it's hard to judge either party from the outside. There is an argument that people should have a right to not associate with whom they'd rather not, but on the other hand, denying someone the ability to rehabilitate themselves by (yes) denying them your company seems also wrong. For example, saying "you'd rather not hire black people" and saying that's just your right to associate with is generally considered immoral today, so it's difficult honestly for me to pass judgement on either side.
> For example, saying "you'd rather not hire black people" and saying that's just your right to associate with is generally considered immoral...
Martin Luther King put this rather clearly -- one is judging on the content of a person's character, the other is judging on the color of a person's skin.
It's a tough position to be in. I think the CoC is fair in that you shouldn't discriminate the ex-felon. You can't refuse to work with someone because of something they have done in the past and paid for (with jail, presumably).
You are a part of something and have a job to do. That job entails working with people (even if you don't like them due to something they have done, their race, gender, sexuality, or whatever). Do your job, or quit. He quit.
It is reasonable for a victim of a crime to request that they not be forced to work with someone who committed that crime.
Discrimination is a problem when it is not proportional to what is being subject to scrutiny, and when it is outside the realms of something that can be controlled by the person.
In this case the discrimination is minor - not working with the person - and it was the specific actions of that person that lead to the situation.
What you’re effectively doing is trawling the tolerance paradox. It’s often used by people who are extremely intolerant to prevent anyone from shutting them down, and it is important to be aware of when you are allowing one party to say that any response to them other than wholesale acceptance is discrimination.
The thing here is "paid for (with jail, presumably)".
In this case, society has effectively said the crime will not ever be "paid for" because the person is on a Public List for Life. Few crimes in society have this result.
"Society" is malleable. These registries are recent, and may be discarded. And "society" is different from place to place. Homosexual behavior, and consuming cannabis, were likewise barred from society too. The scarlet letter was for adultery but society has downgraded the penalty for that.
The subject matter here involves the sharpest reactions most people are prone to, I think, so most people involved here may agree with "society" on this one.
True that laws/customs/view of society may change but people live in the now.
I am not sure I agree with the premise of simply blocking people out of your life. It isn't a sustainable way for society to function. Adults have to interact with other adults, even ones you hate.
But I don't know how else to resolve it except for one or the other quitting.
you may consider an ex-felon to have paid their debt to society, but I don't. I don't think that someone being forced to sit in a cell for a few years, and receiving abuse from guards and inmates. Maybe even abusing other inmates. Makes him deserving of forgiveness from society. Sure, that is not ideal. In an idea world someone leaving prison would be deserving of forgiveness, but that is not the case in the US.
From the looks of it, this individual offended in 2011 and did his time (120 days in prison). Hasn't offended since (nearly 11 years). It seems to me like he made a mistake, did his time and did something useful with his life since. If he can't "re-enter" society, then who can?
For the record, I never said society needs to forgive this guy. You don't even need to like him. But if you work in the same company or committee, you need to do your job and let him do his (or quit).
Everyone is so quick to cancel people these days. Everyone needs to grow up.
His debt will be paid in full when the victim has been "made whole". The nature of the crime means the victim will likely never be whole again.
Also, forgiveness is not absolution.
I'm not sure what the alternative should be. Unfortunately I am much better at recognising a bad system than providing the framework for a good system. Maybe this specific offender is now fit for society. However, my point is that by virtue of having served a sentence does not make him fir for society.
The ironic thing is that James Damore was fired from Google for publishing a milquetoast memo on gender distribution in tech, yet the convicted felon (and registered level 2 sex offender) is being protected from "discrimination".
I'm not saying that the ex-felon should be rejected, but it's absurd that people and institutions had so much vitriol against Damore for his memo, yet are just ignoring the ex-felon.
Damore's memo was an example of an employee actively discriminating against other employees. It showed that he couldn't be trusted in a position of power, and in general, at companies like google, every engineering position has some amount of power (via 360 reviews, interviewing, etc). He hasn't apologized for his actions, or withdrawn his viewpoints. He still can't be trusted.
The ex-felon paid their debt to society by serving the punishment they were given and deserve another chance. You could argue that maybe their sentence wasn't long enough, or that there should be some period after release that they should be held for certain activities, but it's reasonable to have a policy to not discriminate against their status, so they have the opportunity to prove they've changed.
You are judging Damore not by his words, but by how his memo got misrepresented. At no point in his memo, Damore indicated that he would discriminate or called for discrimination against other employees. He did advocate to end affirmative action (“Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races”), but that is not the same as advocating for discrimination. It is the opposite, in fact.
In his reply to public response and misrepresentation, Damore did write:
“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”
I read the memo, and you're very, very generously cherry-picking from it. The funny thing is, even with your generous cherry-picking, you're pointing out something that is directly a white supremacist talking point. He seems to be very concerned around population representation, but doesn't seem to take into consideration the differences in the population based on location, which heavily skews things.
Defending him, and his racist, sexist memo, sends a clear signal: you're like him.
Which part of the memo or AdhemarVandamme's interpretation of it makes you think it's proportional to accuse both of them of racism, to the point of invoking white supremacists? (You aren't directly accusing AdhemarVandamme of supporting white supremacists, of course, but you are kind of implying towards that, as I'm sure you're aware.)
Of course white supremacists will oppose affirmative action -- they'll probably support just plain old discrimination instead, as they wouldn't really be supremacists otherwise.
Does that mean it's justified to imply a parallel with white supremacists just because someone doesn't support affirmative action or thinks other approaches would be better? Or maybe just thinks you should be able to express that kind of a view without being being literally accused of racism and discrimination?
You can disagree with the Damore memo and oppose its views. You can interpret its views of (statistical, not individual) gender differences as sexist, although that could probably be debated. Nobody should be discriminated against due to their skin colour. I can understand and support special efforts to support disadvantaged groups.
But I am also of the opinion that you really shouldn't be able to make accusations of racism, let alone of aligning with white supremacists, without actual good reason.
Just defending someone else or their interpretation shouldn't really be grounds for that. Neither should supporting or not supporting a particular interpretation of someone else's writing.
People can defend others whether they fully agree with the other person or not. People should be able to defend others if the judgement they get seems disproportionate or interpretations unfair. That should be entirely possible to do without being vilified.
I mean, sure, if someone clearly defends neo-nazis, maybe there's no need to pull any punches, but I trust we aren't going to be strawmanning here.
Vilifying someone for defending someone else regardless of proportionality is uncharitable at best.
It's honestly bizarre that there is such a thing as a "sex offender" register. It seems it comes much more from a desire to further punish people than to actually protect the population.
I would be much more afraid of an ex-felon convicted of murder than of an ex-felon convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. Yet it's the latter that gets put into a register.
There have been men that were added to the register for urinating in public, and now their lives are ruined because of some stupid laws and politicians praying on people's paranoia against "sexual predators".
Murderers don't tend to be uh, murder aficionados, as it were. They usually want to kill a specific person for a specific reason and once that is done they are done. It may indicate a certain lack of self-control that could be dangerous to be around, but there is a lot of study of this. People convicted of murder and later released have relatively low recidivism rates (eg committing any crime), and very very rarely ever commit another murder.
People who commit sex crimes, more than most other categories of transgression, tend to do it multiple or many times, and they follow certain patterns of escalation. Someone who has committed a sex crime is fairly likely to do it again, or do similar or worse things.
I'm not arguing in favor of life-long registries or retributive justice at all. But the practical experience with different categories of crimes don't always match our intuition about what sorts of people are dangerous, and that may warrant treating different crimes differently after the fact as well.
And then mostly unrelatedly, the "sex offender registry for urinating" thing is largely a myth you hear on the internet. The registry is public so you can and should go check it for your area just to get an idea. You may need to look up some unfamiliar legal terms, for example in my state there is no charge of "rape" only "aggravated sexual battery." Around me and in most places I've lived, the vast majority are for unambiguous violent sexual crimes, or crimes against minors under age 13. Simple exposure and "it was a month before her 18th birthday" are what you hear about on the internet but are actually quite rare.
I actually did a tour of a now closed gaol and our tour guide talked about how back when it was running the inmates working in the kitchen that were given the knives tended to all be murderers because typically murderers aren't especially violent in a general sense. Compared with people who are locked up for assaulting strangers they were way less of a risk
This is a difficult situation, but in terms of technology I think it is rare to get talented people into the development pool. I would hate to exclude people based on something unrelated to their talent alone. However, safeguards should be put into place to ensure that people are not being excluded based on their fear of those individuals either. I wonder if there is a way to ensure all interaction is public so that there is not any accusations that would not be of public record.
If we go route to exclude people what level of standard we apply? Anyone who ever received fine for anything is potentially dangerous and harmful to society individual and no one should be forced to work with such monsters?
109 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadI don't know the backstory, and I don't know OP, so I want to be careful and clearly state that I am not minimizing or in any way commenting on the facts of his case.
However, the statement above is dangerously wrong from both a legal and a biological standpoint, and needs to be debunked. Any forensic toxicologist will tell you: the point of alcohol intoxication which interferes with forming long-term memories is lower than the point at which one cannot consent.
Exercising poor judgment while drunk and later having a spotty memory of it does not mean you were a victim. Consenting to something when you're black out drunk is still consent. If you exercise poor judgment about having sex and later can't remember, it does not mean you were sexually assaulted. If you exercise poor judgment about buying more shots and later can't remember, it does not mean the bartender stole from you. If you exercise poor judgment about driving and later can't remember how you got home, you and you alone are still responsible for your decision to drive drunk.
The neurobiological capacity to make decisions and the neurobiological capacity to form long-term memories are not identical. Conflate them at your own peril.
This is not at all true. You don’t have the capacity to consent if you’re black out drunk.
For someone to give consent they have to have sufficient higher function to make a reasonable judgement.
If you fuck someone drunk off their ass because they can move and respond you probably morally and legally raped them in at least half the nation.
For example in California
https://properdefenselaw.com/drunk-sex-rape-in-california-ca...
New Jersey
https://www.brickdonlaw.com/blog/2021/january/how-drunk-is-t...
The fact that some states will let you get someone drunk enough to be stupid in order to get into their pants isn't a good reason to do so.
Notably absent is alcohol's effect on long-term memory. Drinking to the point of impairing long-term episodic memory (BAC of 0.08-0.15) is not the same as drinking to the point you cannot consent.
I see no reason to treat that as valid consent millions of people in the states live in states that wouldn't.
Morally respecting partners rights costs you nothing.
Plus, beyond my anecdote, the guy above posted research. Do we not believe in science anymore?
You are confusing posting a link with winning an argument. The problem is people have fundamental moral and legal disagreement about what constitutes consent with poster asserting it has to do with ability to make decisions and others including lawmakers in multiple states holding it rests in not being sufficiently impaired to severely degrade ones decision making ability.
It's impossible for the posters link to resolve this divergent understanding.
People's entire lives are derailed when they drink and get in a car and get caught for a DUI. The fact that we prosecute people, fine them amounts greater than some people's entire savings, throw them in jail, make them loose their jobs... For deciding to get into a car after 5 drinks. But if you decide to sleep with someone after 5 drinks, you were taken advantage of and that person should be prosecuted. In one case we give no sympathy for being drunk, and in the other we treat you like a child.
Afterward, neither might be sure what actually happened, but both knew that whatever happened was what they went out for. Going to that bar and getting that drunk was something each chose to do while still sober, exactly like everybody else there.
So, was every last patron of that bar raping somebody every weekend?
Such bars certainly still exist.
I think for this reason sex in general is not a worthwhile risk for most people
And no means no, and her not being enthusiastic is a good sign you should go home. Those go a long way to not being accused.
Agreed that being wrongfully accused of rape is a crapshoot.
I meaaaaaan sort of. You can see how much they drink in front of you. You can't say whether they have pre-gamed or are sneaking shots from the bar/a flask they carry while you are in the bathroom.
Obviously if they seem so drunk they aren't in their right mind you should wait, but I'm just pointing out this isn't strictly true
I am wholly behind consent between children and adults of actually significant age gap being invalid (the standard creepiness rule from xkcd comes to mind,) but mental fitness to make the choice really is a blurry line and intents should be considered. Well-meaning people who had no intent to exploit or coerce are not rapists because of one voluntary beer, nor should the justice system treat them as such. It only encourages another kind of victimization via the courts.
> Did the would-be rapist encourage them to drink more, or order them strong drinks on purpose?
That isn't the criteria, the criteria is whether or not the victim is too drunk to consent. How can you know this?
> I think I would tend to believe victims are victims
I don't think you would if you were the rapist who had misjudged the drunkenness of the other person
Arguably while sober its possible that both parties in full possession of their faculties may have made the choice to have drunk sex with someone only actuated when they both sloppy drunk met the ultimate person they were going to get busy with. The problem is that the answer is indeterminate.
If someone absolutely intended to get busy it argues against them being the victim by virtue of having made as you've said the decision to take such action while sober however its absolutely possible for them to rape another who didn't make such a decision while drunk number one are themselves are too impaired to judge the situation and its also possible for someone else to believe they were getting over on an impaired partner. That is someone, drunk number two, can morally but not legally be guilty of rape because it was their intent to get someone drunk to impair their judgement to allow them to sleep with them.
This is something like driving a little drunk and arguing whether or not someone murdered someone by driving impaired. It can be legitimately difficult to tease out moral culpability in edge cases. For example its entirely possible for the drunk driver to be blameless in a crash caused by the incompetent actions of a sober driver, for example running a red light.
Most situations are less ambiguous and the the solution to such ambiguity is to simply not drive drunk or use alcohol to lubricate sexual conquests.
There is a degree in moral insanity in a substantial portion of the population not understanding how to deal with such a simple situation.
... and wholly irrelevant to the legal question.
I think it's important to understand that alcohol only slows your thinking, it doesn't "change your personality" or make your thoughts or wants go places they otherwise wouldn't. All that is socially learned. The drunk you is you. If you state consent as drunk, it's because you want to.
In practice, though, blackout is a terrifying experience, and for all the blacked-out person knows they were completely unconscious during what happened. So they can't be faulted for fearing they were abused. And so, for your sake and theirs, you should NEVER have sex with anyone if there's the slightest chance they have blackout, i.e. if you can tell they are drunk at all. This is an easy rule to follow, and I have very little sympathy with people who can't.
The obvious example is children can say yes, but they cannot consent. This isn't new or surprising.
https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__trans...
Purportedly a "moderate" risk to reoffend
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/t9klju/this_is_troubli...
My question would be: if someone commits a crime, then is punished for that crime according to the law... does some form of punishment have to continue once they're released from prison. That's what seems to be happening here.
https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__trans...
If you strongly believe prison is for rehabilitation, you probably want to give people plenty of chances.
If you strongly believe prison is for punishment, then likely you give people few chances and want their crimes to follow them forever.
The best approach is probably neither extreme but something more balanced with a case by case appraisal based on risk.
Correctional reforms now also target the public education & conscience in the broad sense, because finding employment & societal reintegration for ex-felons is a stark issue. The Nordic model is a better example where punishment is being conditioned to be thought of as a payment/tax for misdeeds. Once it is done with, you are morally 'free person' in the public eye.
This is an important issue because a significant minority in prison pools are innocent or having disproportionate punishment. And historically we have grown to remember crimes as a stigma not as correction.
> it was made clear by several members of my national body that avoiding this person is discrimination of an ex-felon
It's a complicated balance to strike between reintegrating ex-felons, and the justified fear other people have that they will be victimized.
Edit: Just mean I really don't envy the people forced to deal with this. Really a no-win situtation.
I do think this particular tweet is very concerning. See if you can follow this train of thought:
> While I empathize with any ex-felon's right reintegration, I empathize more with past or potential victim's right to do their jobs amongst people who haven't fallen short of one of the lowest moral bars in society. Choosing one side must exclude the other.
How does this make you feel? Do you agree that “Choosing one side must exclude the other”? Is this an applicable statement to make in this context?
This seems straightforward to me.
We are talking about people who have been victimized by another person, and may have a great deal of trauma from that event.
We likely wouldn't question it even slightly if they said they could not work with their abuser. Working with someone who was convicted of performing the same (or similar) abuse on a different person wouldn't be too much different from that I don't think.
I think sex offenders elicit emotional responses in these discussions and that the position isn't tenable at least for someone who purports to favor reintegration.
I'll pick a particularly thorny and controversial example but I think it's necessary. Imagine a member of a minority group with a background of severe violent crime spoke at a conference, he went to prison and served his sentence. Now someone attending says they don't feel save with him in the room and that the person should never hold an administrative job again. What would be the response to that?
If not even prison is sufficient we're firmly in the realm of tribal outcasts and I don't think that's generally speaking a popular form of justice among liberally minded software developers at conferences.
The idea of neatly packaged-and-served justice doesn’t mesh with the reality of trauma inflicted by the crimes. Some stigma should remain with perpetrators, regardless of time served.
Rather than questioning the entire concept of justice one can simply question whether the implementation of justice is in this instance sufficiently sound. To give an extreme example its probably best that the prolific serial killer Gary Ridgeway remain in prison until he's dead. If our justice system were dumb enough to release him one wouldn't be obliged to accept or reject the entire concept of justice as one piece. One could simply reject whether Gary was a safe fellow to be around.
This isn't even hypothetical there are actually serial killers who are free men post conviction.
https://www.ibtimes.com/brazils-most-notorious-serial-killer...
That is what people did in this case, and they were told that if they did recuse themselves they would be censured for breaching the CoC.
What they board has done has said that a victim choosing making use of a public registry to know to avoid certain people is someone who should be actively punished.
This is despite allowing this kind of avoidance being a significant part of the reason these registries exist in the first place.
No one has stopped this pedo from being on the C++WG - otherwise we wouldn’t be here - what happened was a victim of abuse said that they wanted to be given the reasonable accommodation of not working directly with a sex offender. They were told that not only would they not receive such accommodation, but that they would be punished for requesting it.
If a person served their punishment, I generally feel they should be given a chance. This is minus things like joke sentences and repeat offenders, because some people seem beyond saving.
If you're going to treat criminals as forever outcasts, you may as well advocate for branding their face or sentencing them to death, IMO.
I am perfectly fine with those convicted of sex crimes against children being permanent outcasts. (Level 2 implies that in my state, unsure whether it means the same in the local jurisdiction of the poster)
Simply put, if we're going to treat them as permanent weirdos, just make the sentence life. Personal view: people who sexually abuse children deserve it.
What's the point in letting them out but with asterisks...
People do intuitively apply game theory, but they do so in ways that aren't strictly rational.
Rationally, deterrence is a function of the penalty adjusted by the odds of being caught and convicted. which means that doubling the penalty should have the same additional deterring effect as doubling the odds of conviction. However, increasing penalties has a relatively small deterring effect, and increasing enforcement a relatively large one.
One way to explain this is to assume that getting caught and convicted has large fixed costs that are independent of the length of sentence.
This tends to cut against the dominant tough-on-crime narrative that focuses on increasing penalties, BTW, but for some reason hiring more judges, prosecutors, public defenders, detectives, CSIs and other people to solve cases and actually go to trial isn't as popular as just mandating longer sentences (and coercing defendants to agree to a plea deal).
It's not all or nothing. He can be out of prison, he can have a house, he can get a job. Other parents on the street can make informed decisions about the risks to their children in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.
I believe that life imprisonment is a valid punishment, but more commonly a valid "Protection for the rest of society". I also believe that other "For life" restrictions can be valid as "Protection for society", too. Felons of certain financial often have their sentences include restrictions on their ability to hold certain kinds of jobs, including serving on boards of public companies or to act as treasurer/accountant/executive. This is not unreasonable.
We have a system of rights, and some are absolute. Some are tied to the social contract, and their revocation upon felony is not only valid, but required for society to function.
Rotting in a small cell is better than he deserves and keeping him there is the only way society and indeed he can be safe. He is segregated even in prison not because of extreme risk he presents although he would certainly be a high risk if ever released, but rather because the risk that someone perhaps a relation of one of the many people he murdered would in turn murder him.
Keeping society safe by giving Gary a crummy but safe life doesn't make us as guilty as someone who lured and strangled innocent girls.
I think no, because even if we equate the level of savagery (declare that locking up someone for life in a tiny cell is exactly as savage as whatever they had done), those involved in the locking up retain a moral upper hand, because they do not make random, innocent people the targets of their savagery.
A lot of the doofuses make a hobby of this, making the job of the police a tad easier.
Martin Luther King put this rather clearly -- one is judging on the content of a person's character, the other is judging on the color of a person's skin.
No it isn't; screw them? And can't they rehabilitate themselves without me?
> you'd rather not hire black people
Black is not a choice, like assaulting someone, and not some stain on your character.
We've come to the conclusion that this kind of characteristic of a person falls into a protected class, and discriminating on its basis is illegal.
From that it doesn't follow that any attribute of a person whatsoever is the marker of a protected class.
> it's difficult honestly for me to pass judgement on either side.
Yet, that's exactly what some judge did, in the case of the one side.
Although admittedly I have zero tolerance for pedophile. I hope we can all agree on that.
You are a part of something and have a job to do. That job entails working with people (even if you don't like them due to something they have done, their race, gender, sexuality, or whatever). Do your job, or quit. He quit.
Discrimination is a problem when it is not proportional to what is being subject to scrutiny, and when it is outside the realms of something that can be controlled by the person.
In this case the discrimination is minor - not working with the person - and it was the specific actions of that person that lead to the situation.
What you’re effectively doing is trawling the tolerance paradox. It’s often used by people who are extremely intolerant to prevent anyone from shutting them down, and it is important to be aware of when you are allowing one party to say that any response to them other than wholesale acceptance is discrimination.
In this case, society has effectively said the crime will not ever be "paid for" because the person is on a Public List for Life. Few crimes in society have this result.
The subject matter here involves the sharpest reactions most people are prone to, I think, so most people involved here may agree with "society" on this one.
I am not sure I agree with the premise of simply blocking people out of your life. It isn't a sustainable way for society to function. Adults have to interact with other adults, even ones you hate.
But I don't know how else to resolve it except for one or the other quitting.
From the looks of it, this individual offended in 2011 and did his time (120 days in prison). Hasn't offended since (nearly 11 years). It seems to me like he made a mistake, did his time and did something useful with his life since. If he can't "re-enter" society, then who can?
For the record, I never said society needs to forgive this guy. You don't even need to like him. But if you work in the same company or committee, you need to do your job and let him do his (or quit).
Everyone is so quick to cancel people these days. Everyone needs to grow up.
I'm not saying that the ex-felon should be rejected, but it's absurd that people and institutions had so much vitriol against Damore for his memo, yet are just ignoring the ex-felon.
The ex-felon paid their debt to society by serving the punishment they were given and deserve another chance. You could argue that maybe their sentence wasn't long enough, or that there should be some period after release that they should be held for certain activities, but it's reasonable to have a policy to not discriminate against their status, so they have the opportunity to prove they've changed.
In his reply to public response and misrepresentation, Damore did write:
“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”
Defending him, and his racist, sexist memo, sends a clear signal: you're like him.
Of course white supremacists will oppose affirmative action -- they'll probably support just plain old discrimination instead, as they wouldn't really be supremacists otherwise.
Does that mean it's justified to imply a parallel with white supremacists just because someone doesn't support affirmative action or thinks other approaches would be better? Or maybe just thinks you should be able to express that kind of a view without being being literally accused of racism and discrimination?
You can disagree with the Damore memo and oppose its views. You can interpret its views of (statistical, not individual) gender differences as sexist, although that could probably be debated. Nobody should be discriminated against due to their skin colour. I can understand and support special efforts to support disadvantaged groups.
But I am also of the opinion that you really shouldn't be able to make accusations of racism, let alone of aligning with white supremacists, without actual good reason.
Just defending someone else or their interpretation shouldn't really be grounds for that. Neither should supporting or not supporting a particular interpretation of someone else's writing.
People can defend others whether they fully agree with the other person or not. People should be able to defend others if the judgement they get seems disproportionate or interpretations unfair. That should be entirely possible to do without being vilified.
I mean, sure, if someone clearly defends neo-nazis, maybe there's no need to pull any punches, but I trust we aren't going to be strawmanning here.
Vilifying someone for defending someone else regardless of proportionality is uncharitable at best.
I would be much more afraid of an ex-felon convicted of murder than of an ex-felon convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. Yet it's the latter that gets put into a register.
There have been men that were added to the register for urinating in public, and now their lives are ruined because of some stupid laws and politicians praying on people's paranoia against "sexual predators".
People who commit sex crimes, more than most other categories of transgression, tend to do it multiple or many times, and they follow certain patterns of escalation. Someone who has committed a sex crime is fairly likely to do it again, or do similar or worse things.
I'm not arguing in favor of life-long registries or retributive justice at all. But the practical experience with different categories of crimes don't always match our intuition about what sorts of people are dangerous, and that may warrant treating different crimes differently after the fact as well.
And then mostly unrelatedly, the "sex offender registry for urinating" thing is largely a myth you hear on the internet. The registry is public so you can and should go check it for your area just to get an idea. You may need to look up some unfamiliar legal terms, for example in my state there is no charge of "rape" only "aggravated sexual battery." Around me and in most places I've lived, the vast majority are for unambiguous violent sexual crimes, or crimes against minors under age 13. Simple exposure and "it was a month before her 18th birthday" are what you hear about on the internet but are actually quite rare.