I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I guess the point is that the person who had the phone has said that they don't believe the excuses the perp gave and they don't accept his apology either. So how is that in any way restorative? Surely the onus is now on the perp to somehow show and prove that he is genuinely sorry and will change his ways, even in the face of temptation.
So it wasn't 'dealt with'
Keep on chooglin'
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Keep on chooglin'
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
This isn't restoritive justice, it's an employer trying to avoid bad publicity, paperwork and possibly litigation. You'd know if it was restoritive justice because the victim's total losses would have been restored at the cost of the perpetrator. If criminals are caught often enough that's penalty enough to prevent them reoffending.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
How would you ever know if they are a repeat offender? They could leave apology notes everywhere. Get a bulk discount at the local office supply place, or nick a business copier...
What if the first offence is a car, the second a laptop but the third 'only a cell phone'?
Fuck it - give him his second chance - we all know that post grad students will never amount to anything anyway, have more money than they know what to do with and don't have any need for technology. They're lazy fuckers too, never doing any work or going out of their way to take advantage of life's opportunities. Probably never go on to contribute anything to society like our friend the caretaker. After all universities don't exist to advance the cause of students, they are there to provide social justice for the dishonest.
Keep on chooglin'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks