The linked article is already taken down, but from the perspective of a woman, I will add a few thoughts. I attended a rural university that also shared a town with a state penitentiary. Periodically over my years there, the university would put notes in student mailboxes informing us "The state prison was releasing on parole convict X on [insert date]. X was tried and found guilty of 3 counts rape. X stalks women and was armed during each of the events for which he was convicted. Psychologist have stated that X has near 100% likelihood of reoffending. If you are female do not walk alone. At night, do not walk without campus security or in small groups." The times we got a note like this, some weeks or a few months would pass, X would reoffend, raping some woman who normally did not have the benefit of campus security escorts, and we would get another note in the mailbox telling us that the security recommendation was no longer in effect. The town police were hard men.
Last year in college, a neighbor came to my door freaked out because somebody was peeping on her. Called the local police.
Police officers came to our door told us that peeping toms and flashers had statistical likelihood of escalating their behavior to more and more extreme acts including rape. They already knew the guy based on the neighbor's description. Also said not to fuck around if we saw him again. Any indication of a fixation was a really bad sign.
So should submitter be subject to legal scrutiny, monitoring, and restraint on behavior after that single event? Absolutely. Bad behavior for some, begets worse behavior later. Should submitter be subject to scrutiny, monitoring, and restraint decades after a single offense? Probably not.
We have sexual predator laws for a damn good reason: some people are guaranteed to violently reoffend unless prevented from doing so. Use of those same laws to ensnare teenagers who sext, Romeo & Juliet lovers, and the legitimate one-time offenders, is outside the original law's intent. The issue for the last category of offender is having a legal path to redemption. This piece seems to be missing. Arguable that for a lot of ex-convicts, a path to redemption and unrestrained participation in society is missing.
Yep. I wasn't very cooperative with treatment after the first incident. I was very defensive. I felt that I needed to protect myself from the unfair world. That mindset prevented me from healing as a person and receiving proper treatment.
It's interesting to look at both of my HN accounts. I can actually see my gradual mental deterioration and then gradual recovery.
Okay, well if there were two incidents I think you were exactly the type of person that needed judicial restraint.
A couple of additional thoughts... 1) I do wish for your career and employment success going forward - society is better if you and your wife are successful in life, and 2) there is something "hinky" about your writing style and the way you describe your sexual & criminal indiscretions and employment difficulties. If you went around flashing 30 year old women, your behavior was still wrong and the type of behavior that indicates possible escalation to even more criminal and violent behavior. Not sure from your post whether or not you realize the age of woman does not matter.
I have to wonder if that sense of strangeness is also apparent in your face to face demeanor. The type of strangeness that, in conjunction with a negative criminal background check, would eliminate a candidate for me. I've been threatened with physical violence and followed from time to time. I do not want to associate with people that cause me to seriously consider concealed carry.
> Not sure from your post whether or not you realize the age of woman does not matter.
It does matter. It makes it worse that they were still in formative years.
> I have to wonder if that sense of strangeness is also apparent in your face to face demeanor.
I think what's coming off as "strangeness" in my writing to a lot of people here, is that it seems like I'm treating what I did very casually, like it was just something that happened. But it's just that I'm so panicked over how we literally don't have money for next month's bills, and not sure where that's going to come from, that I really can't spend any energy on anything else. The guilt of what I did has weighed me down a lot and slowed me down, and I can't afford that, so I have to shut out everything else around me and just focus on solving this one gigantic problem right in front of me, of how to avoid my family becoming homeless and starved this summer because of my past actions. That's all I can think of.
>> Not sure from your post whether or not you realize the age of woman does not matter.
>It does matter. It makes it worse that they were still in formative years.
You are not wrong about the comparative "worse". But going around flashing people for your gratification is deviant behavior. Flashing over-18 women is wrong. Flashing underaged young women is even more wrong. This is exactly what I mean about "hinky". Your tone is defensive even as you are entirely correct.
I have a challenge for you. Take that entire blog post, rewriting and summarize it in 100 words or less. Then spend the rest of the blog post on what you can actually do for an employer and why your past won't affect a future employer. Sell yourself. The blog post as is crap if the intent is to sell yourself.
He already said he is a criminal, that he knows those criminal acts are 'bad things', and that he will not do them again, and has help to ensure he won't do them again.
I don't know what more you want. He's already prostrated himself as much as we can require.
Disclaimer:
I would not hire him either. Unfortunately, sexual crimes are the sort that incline you to also other lesser pursuits like sexual harassment, and I can't bring that into my workplace. Additionally, no one in society would ever forgive me for hiring him if he does reoffend.
2012 was only 6 years ago. If it was 15 years ago, it would be a different story.
I think rabboRubble was just offering good practical advice: the "prostration" OP offers has at least a hint of insincerity about it, and isn't serving anyone. OP should follow the advice and concentrate on his positive contributions he can make.
Excessive prostration can become a way of saying this is why I failed, and look, you people in the cruel world didn't support me. It's manipulative.
I think taking full responsibility means accepting that you may never work again, and that society may withdraw it's support from you completely. You may even die due to lack of resources (banishment). If you can hold that space without any anger, then you can be readmitted, because the kernel of resentment that started the whole thing has been fully burned up.
Without this step, the life pattern that creates wells of resentment is still active in you, and will recur, possibly disguised but still "hinky" (I like that word :p).
I took it down because I just applied for another job, probably the last one I'll try. And I linked to my portfolio/blog site, but didn't want that to be the way they found out. Either way, I realize it's probably better for me to either remove this HN post, or to put the blog post back up, to avoid having discussion with too little context. So I pushed it and it should be back up now.
Last year in college, a neighbor came to my door freaked out because somebody was peeping on her. Called the local police.
Police officers came to our door told us that peeping toms and flashers had statistical likelihood of escalating their behavior to more and more extreme acts including rape. They already knew the guy based on the neighbor's description. Also said not to fuck around if we saw him again. Any indication of a fixation was a really bad sign.
So should submitter be subject to legal scrutiny, monitoring, and restraint on behavior after that single event? Absolutely. Bad behavior for some, begets worse behavior later. Should submitter be subject to scrutiny, monitoring, and restraint decades after a single offense? Probably not.
We have sexual predator laws for a damn good reason: some people are guaranteed to violently reoffend unless prevented from doing so. Use of those same laws to ensnare teenagers who sext, Romeo & Juliet lovers, and the legitimate one-time offenders, is outside the original law's intent. The issue for the last category of offender is having a legal path to redemption. This piece seems to be missing. Arguable that for a lot of ex-convicts, a path to redemption and unrestrained participation in society is missing.