"Can we be made to work with a convicted rapist/murderer?"

[rosefox]

From Ask a Manager:

I used to work for a typical dysfunctional family-owned company. The owner was nice, but employed (in all the highest positions, like president) all of his kids… except one. His oldest son has been in prison since 1980 for a murder of his schoolmate during an attempted rape when he was 17. He was on parole at the time for another rape the year before. (I’ve attached a link so you know it is a heinous premeditated crime, and not just a date gone wrong-type thing, and that the first rape was unbelievable for a 16-year-old, but would rather not have you print it because it would be identifying.)

When I worked there, he came up for parole, and the family got all the employees together, saying they expected him to be released and of course he would have a job there, which we would all take a pay cut to fund. Understandably, everyone was quite upset. After the first rape victim wrote the parole board, he was denied parole.

Now I still have friends who work there, and he is up for parole again. Again, they were told that of course he will have a job there “when” he is released. My question is, can they be forced to work with a convicted sex offender/rapist and murderer if he is let out? Is there any recourse they can take? It seems that “hostile work environment” is an understatement in this instance? It is a very small company — like 50 people at most?

There’s no law that would make it illegal for the company to employ a paroled felon, even one convicted of horrible crimes like this. Your former coworkers could try banding together and protesting this as a group, making it clear that they’re not willing to work with him and that the company will be left with no non-familiy employees if they bring him on … but ultimately the company is allowed to go forward with their plans, even if it means losing everyone else.

Hopefully this will end up being a moot issue since the heinous nature of the crime may mean he’s denied parole again … but really, knowing that the company is going to put them through this worry every time he’s up for parole, your former coworkers may be better off starting a job search now so they’re not scrambling if he does get out.

Comments

[rosefox]

I wish any mention at all had been made of helping someone who's been in prison for 37 years get a fresh start. I'm really uncomfortable with the attitude of "oh well of COURSE no one would want to work with him"—I'd rather we try to make it easier for former inmates to enter society.

That said, docking everyone else's pay in order to afford a new hire is not going to make anyone inclined to support that new hire!

[minoanmiss]

dunno. There are different probabilities of rehabilitation with different crimes. He's a convicted rapist and murderer. He murdered someone while trying to rape them. I... If I ran the US justice system one of the many reasons I would reduce/eliminate most drug and other 'victimless' crime penalties would be so there was space for rapists and first degree murderers to be removed from a vulnerable society.

If I were the employees I would bail before one of them ended up being his next victim.

[rosefox]

I totally support the employees in taking whatever steps they feel they need to for their own safety.

But 37 years is a long, long time. He was 16 and 17 when he harmed people. He's 54 now. I don't know anyone who's anything like the same person at 54 as they were at 17. And at least in theory, parole would mean that a number of people have collectively decided that he's been rehabilitated and it's safe for him to be released. I just would have liked to see some acknowledgement of that.

[cereta]

Unfortunately, with prison overcrowding (see above re: drug offenses), the theory and the reality don't always match. It is definitely possible that he has changed, and yes, the columnist might have mentioned that, but I think asking people, particularly any young women working at the company, to assume the best in this situation is asking a lot of them.

[jadelennox]

It's so complicated and messy. I'd be scared, too, and I get that. But I also know one of the reasons recidivicsm is so high is that it's almost impossible for an ex-con (and especially an ex-sex offender) to get a job, or even a legal place to live, in the US. If it weren't for the pay cut I'd be on the side of the employees and the family. (I'd want the family to make sure the relative is in intense therapy, but we don't have that context.)

The pay cut, and the method of announcing it, is a different issue, and implies the family are too thick to be doing this sensibly. For one thing, the family members can take a pay cut to fund their ex-con brother; nobody else should. And this is a mode of announcing things which is guaranteed to make the ex-con fail in the office, because everyone will be full of justifiable anger as well as whatever fear they have.

[minoanmiss]

I thought about this a lot today, and... if this were a crime where rehabilitation were likely (such as a series of thefts) or where I didn't even think it should be a crime (such as nonviolent drug offenses) I would totally agree with you that ex-cons should get chances and help to re-enter society.

But he's a rapist and a murderer. Those are crimes I'm not certain about the ability to be rehabilitated from, especially rape. However long he's been in jail, his first victim got life and the second got the death penalty. And nothing I've seen in this letter makes me think that his family would restrain him from any sort of malfeasance. So I still can't agree that in this case this is the ethically sound thing to do or that people should have to participate in it.

[cereta]

Yeah, that's...I wish I had more faith in the rehabilitation and release process, but I would be polishing my resume right about now.

[lunabee34]

Me too.