I have resigned all my positions in ISO C++ in protest
twitter.com
twitter.com
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.
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.
https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__trans...
Purportedly a "moderate" risk to reoffend
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 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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.