I have mixed feelings about denying convicted sex offenders employment simply based on background checks. I'm not sure we should want all of these people to wind up destitute or homeless.
It depends on the nature of the crimes they have committed, and the type of employment situation they would be in and who they would be exposed to.
For the Gulf oil spill beach cleanup they needed to hire a lot of temporary workers fast to do an unskilled outdoor job in rather hot weather conditions. They were probably looking for anyone who was breathing and willing to work. Likely, they didn't think background checks were necessary because these people weren't coming into much contact with the public while doing their job, and the job did not require any particular skills. Local law enforcement really felt the checks should be done, because all these people were flooding into the area and would have contact with others when they weren't working. They could be hiring drug dealers, etc. So, it was sloppy, and foolish, that these background checks were not done.
But, had they checked the criminal background of this man, they would not have found any sexual assaults against adult women.
Quote:Robertson has a criminal history dating back to 1991, according to police records. He was put on the national sex offender registry for a 1996 conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in Louisiana. He is also on probation after being convicted in 2003 in Georgia for cruelty to children.
I'm not sure that his criminal record, including that charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, would have, or should have, stopped them from hiring him to supervise picking up pieces of oil an a beach. I wouldn't hire him as a janitor in a school, but I'm not sure that BP, or its sub-contractors, would have been wrong to hire him, even if they did a background check and knew about his sex offender status.
But BP's failure was only part of the problem, The man hadn't registered as a sex offender with local law enforcement when he came into the area. So, local police didn't know he was around either.
Suppose BP had done a background check, knew about his sex offender status, but decided to hire him anyway, considering him not to be a threat in that employment situation. Let's suppose he also registered with the local police as a sex offender, so they knew he was in the area. Would any of this have realistically prevented that rape?
You can't assume that someone isn't a rapist, or a potential rapist, just because they are a co-worker. Most women do not keep checking the registry of sex offenders as Brooke does (although it's a great idea to do that). Women are probably more concerned about checking these lists to protect their children from predators than to protect themselves. So, the woman in this situation, was a normally trusting person. She worked with the man, he drove her home when she wasn't feeling well, and he asked to use her bathroom. There was probably no way under the sun that she could have predicted that when he came out of the bathroom that he would rape her. This seems to have been a typical acquaintance rape. This man may have done this sort of thing before, but it might not have been reported, since many rapes like that do go unreported.
So, short of not hiring this man, so the woman would never have met him, I'm not sure that BP, or even the police, could have protected this woman from being raped by this man. I don't see where anyone bears any real responsibility for the rape, except the rapist.
I think background checks should be done. I'm not against that. I think convicted sex offenders should have to register with the police when they are staying in an area. But those measures really don't protect women very much. I'm not sure they protect children that much either. They may be all that we can do, but they don't really offer potential victims much protection. And there are many sex offenders and rapists who have never been caught, or had their crimes reported, so they are all out there too. And a woman is liable to be raped, in almost any situation, no matter how careful she is. All she has to do is appear vulnerable or be alone with the guy long enough to be raped.
I guess what bothered me about this case, apart from the fact that the poor woman was raped, was all the finger pointing and the obvious run-up to a lawsuit from this woman. With all the talk in that news article, about who was responsible, or negligent, the alleged rapist, who actually committed the act, seems to get lost in the shuffle.
I don't care if the woman wants to sue BP, or the sub contractors, that's up to her. But I'd rather the news stories focused a little more on how any woman can easily wind up getting raped by someone she knows, in this instance through work. This wasn't a stranger rape, it wasn't a date rape, but it was an acquaintance rape scenario which might happen to a lot of women, and perhaps they should be better alerted to its possibility. Most women aren't as diligent as Brooke in checking men out. And the woman in this case really had little or no reason to check the man out. She was only working with him, and that was in a public place. She may never have expected to ever find herself alone with him.
I guess this thread has really made me so aware of the widespread problem of rape I just want to see all women warned that it could happen just about anywhere with anyone. Rapists don't wear signs announcing their intent. And I'd like potential jurors to hear that too. Women, even careful women, can be the victims of rape.
