"Restorative justice"

[mashman]

No, that's cool. It's only theft if it's Mashman's property - we'll bear that in mind...

Did I say it was theft? I agreed with you when you corrected me from stolen to found, hence "stolen". If someone finds my stuff and makes off with it, there's not a lot I can do about it. A phone wouldn't piss me off that much. A bike would. But there's still not a lot I can do about it.

[Smifffy]

I believe it's rapidly becoming the number 1 crime in the US... anyhoo, he didn't pinch it. He found it. Yes he lied when asked if he had found the phone and that was a stupid thing to do. They key bit there. The owner as if the liar had FOUND his phone. It was second hand, it likely wasn't worth $1000

You are right, it likely wasn't a $500 phone. The question is at what value does the line get crossed?

[mashman]

You are right, it likely wasn't a $500 phone. The question is at what value does the line get crossed?

In this case. When he lied. Value is unimportant.

[300weatherby]

Or they'll resort to killing those who they burgle and keep their knees intact... sure they'll risk doing the time, but it's easier to fight off bubba and the honda riders with 2 good knees.

It should be legal to wire internal doors to the mains and leave your windows open.
It should be legal to rig a claymore in the back of the garage and leave the door unlocked.
It should be legal to beat a home invader to death.

The legal system is not invested in protection of Joe kiwi.
The police are not invested in catching crims at Joe kiwi level.

The crims prosper at the pain and expense of Joe kiwi, would you rather do nothing but weep when it is your turn?

[300weatherby]

You're funny as all fuck, you should get a stand up comedy routine

You think I am funny........ You would change your mind if I caught you in my house........

[mashman]

It should be legal to wire internal doors to the mains and leave your windows open.
It should be legal to rig a claymore in the back of the garage and leave the door unlocked.
It should be legal to beat a home invader to death.

The legal system is not invested in protection of Joe kiwi.
The police are not invested in catching crims at Joe kiwi level.

The crims prosper at the pain and expense of Joe kiwi, would you rather do nothing but weep when it is your turn?

Apart from the beating someone to death I agree. Although I'll likely be more angry than weepy when it's my turn. You seem to be under the illusion that I'm some form of bleeding heart. Honestly, I'd happily see the return of the death penalty to deal with the recidivists. Although that's for crimes against a human being i.e. rape, murder, kiddy fiddling.

Crims ain't just at the bottom en of the scale. They do all sorts of damage near the top too. In fact more so as more people are "hurt" along the way where their dishonesty is concerned... yet the bleeding hearts let those fuckers off the hook, in fact they leave loopholes and allow for mitigating circumstances to excuse it.

[Akzle]

despite being unable to take anything you say seriously,

you're onto it...

[blah blah...]
If Employer A is looking to fill a position, they are entitled to gather whatever information they need to ascertain what risks, if any, a potential employee poses to the success, image or growth of their livelihood.

Personally, Im surprised that more employers dont ask if applicants are smokers, given that many smokers fuck off for an extra 5 minutes every hour to have a smoke while everyone else keeps working . . .

i kinda get it.
BUT
ther'zz people who can function perfectly well, even under the influence.

let alone, if their use is "recreational"/ occasional, and they're not under the influence at work.

would you discriminate against someone who tested positive for amphetamine, if they had a prescription from a psychiatrist?

It should be legal to wire internal doors to the mains and leave your windows open.
It should be legal to rig a claymore in the back of the garage and leave the door unlocked.
It should be legal to beat a home invader to death.

The legal system is not invested in protection of Joe kiwi.
The police are not invested in catching crims at Joe kiwi level.

The crims prosper at the pain and expense of Joe kiwi, would you rather do nothing but weep when it is your turn?

it isn't?
bugger.
pitty da foo' breaks in here...

(there's not much to break. the door's normally open, but a bullet in the ass, they will catch.)
(fuck, that yoda shit's contagious)

[cskadizzy]

In this case. When he lied. Value is unimportant.

In this case, when he took it. Other lines he crossed: turning the phone off. Disposing of the SIM card. Deleting the photos and videos. Not handing it in to the security office, who'd been told a phone was missing. THEN lying about it.

He's a caretaker employed with building security. Finding things and keeping them isn't what you're supposed to do when you're employed doing building security.

And it was an $800 phone. Replacement value was $800. Matters not what condition it was in - it cost $800 to replace, plus the irreplaceable stuff he deleted.

[Grubber]

1) i get that, from a business perspective, but that's where the reform comes in.
but it's also a fairly big IF. you may be scared by how many people do miles while under the influence. (and manage not to a) crash and b) fuck anything up.)
2) no. no we disagree.
(i say you're wrong)

it's unfortunate that you hold that view. and probably baseless.
but hell, you're probably going to die before me, so i have more time to enjoy what's left of the planet. have fun with that.

Firstly, our industry has been chasing druggies for some time now and the amount has clawed it's way back to very few dropkicks like you would be driving trucks.
Recently there has been 3 major crashes and 3 deaths all involved with drugs, so I'm not surprised at all that they do fuck up in the end, but they won't be doing it on my watch.
Me, die before you! would have thought that was a fairly high presumption on your part.
With your views on life i doubt that you got too much longer left to be honest.
Oh and i'm glad that i hold this view, it keeps me from liking people like you!

[mashman]

In this case, when he took it. Other lines he crossed: turning the phone off. Disposing of the SIM card. Deleting the photos and videos. Not handing it in to the security office, who'd been told a phone was missing. THEN lying about it.

He's a caretaker employed with building security. Finding things and keeping them isn't what you're supposed to do when you're employed doing building security.

And it was an $800 phone. Replacement value was $800. Matters not what condition it was in - it cost $800 to replace, plus the irreplaceable stuff he deleted.

I get it. His mistake was not handing it in to the Security Office. For some reason his employer has decided to give him a second chance. I will assume that that is because they consider his actions to have been out of character. Yes he should have something against his record, perhaps LIAR, and I would assume that should there be another incident where he has "stolen" something, that he will lose his job. I understand the principle that you are communicating, but as mentioned, this seems to have been a one off. Shame you never got the resolution that YOU wanted.

[Smifffy]

I get it. His mistake was not handing it in to the Security Office. For some reason his employer has decided to give him a second chance. I will assume that that is because they consider his actions to have been out of character. Yes he should have something against his record, perhaps LIAR, and I would assume that should there be another incident where he has "stolen" something, that he will lose his job. I understand the principle that you are communicating, but as mentioned, this seems to have been a one off. Shame you never got the resolution that YOU wanted.

I don't think the guy should have necessarily lost his job over it. Despite having once worked with a guy who was sacked for taking 3 cable ties from where an electrician was working. I don't know whether the PHD dude wanted that or not either. For it to be restorative justice there needs to be some kind of agreement between perp & vic (hate that word) that the consequences are congruent with the offence. Surely there are a raft of options available between sacking somebody and having them write a letter in which they say they are sorry that they got caught because it made them feel bad.

Surely at the beginning the University and the aggrieved person could set their bounds for the process. E.g. it will require more than a simple paragraph or two and sacking is off the agenda.

Then the perp is asked to explain why he shouldn't be sacked. The perp is then told that if he is not to be sacked, then he needs to come up with a suitable means of restitution that he thinks the aggrieved party would accept. Maybe he could wash his car or mow his lawns or do some work for the guy's favourite charity or something, maybe simply do something extra around the university to benefit everybody. I'm not suggesting indentured servitude or breaking rocks or anything, let the guy suggest something.

[mashman]

I don't think the guy should have necessarily lost his job over it. Despite having once worked with a guy who was sacked for taking 3 cable ties from where an electrician was working. I don't know whether the PHD dude wanted that or not either. For it to be restorative justice there needs to be some kind of agreement between perp & vic (hate that word) that the consequences are congruent with the offence. Surely there are a raft of options available between sacking somebody and having them write a letter in which they say they are sorry that they got caught because it made them feel bad.

Surely at the beginning the University and the aggrieved person could set their bounds for the process. E.g. it will require more than a simple paragraph or two and sacking is off the agenda.

Then the perp is asked to explain why he shouldn't be sacked. The perp is then told that if he is not to be sacked, then he needs to come up with a suitable means of restitution that he thinks the aggrieved party would accept. Maybe he could wash his car or mow his lawns or do some work for the guy's favourite charity or something, maybe simply do something extra around the university to benefit everybody. I'm not suggesting indentured servitude or breaking rocks or anything, let the guy suggest something.

I totally agree... he should be thankful that the guy drives a toyota and not a honda.

The only "issue" I have with restorative justice is when it becomes vindictive... or at least there is that perception. I guess that's where things get a bit foggy and the "perp" is going to be seen as having reaped what they sowed. Like anything, there are levels of what an individual (the vic) will regard as a fair outcome. So who gets to judge where other party's believe that the "punishment" outweighs the "crime"?

[Smifffy]

I totally agree... he should be thankful that the guy drives a toyota and not a honda.

The only "issue" I have with restorative justice is when it becomes vindictive... or at least there is that perception. I guess that's where things get a bit foggy and the "perp" is going to be seen as having reaped what they sowed. Like anything, there are levels of what an individual (the vic) will regard as a fair outcome. So who gets to judge where other party's believe that the "punishment" outweighs the "crime"?

The adjudicator of the process, someone with recognised authority or mana. In this case I would expect it to be someone from the university hierarchy with responsibility for hiring/firing/managing the caretaker, or perhaps an independent mediator. *shrug*

[Banditbandit]

It should be legal to wire internal doors to the mains and leave your windows open.
It should be legal to rig a claymore in the back of the garage and leave the door unlocked.
It should be legal to beat a home invader to death.

The legal system is not invested in protection of Joe kiwi.
The police are not invested in catching crims at Joe kiwi level.

The crims prosper at the pain and expense of Joe kiwi, would you rather do nothing but weep when it is your turn?

Your rant is not about protecting Joe Kiwi - this is about protecting things ... items ... objects ... stuff ... it's not about protecting human beings at all ...

Typical capitalist response ... My "stuff" is more important than the life of a human being ...

[Banditbandit]

You think I am funny........ You would change your mind if I caught you in my house........

Fuck me ... I'll make sure I have my 12 guage handy when I meet you ...