Military Justice

[sexobon]

The guy walked off the job negligently endangering his coworkers. The probability of someone with such poor judgement in some way acting to the detriment of another employer and coworkers is high. Look at criminals' rap sheets. He's beyond the formative years where his thinking processes can be easily retrained. The penalties he received were not sufficient enough to cause a Significant Emotional Event that would shock his thought processes into realignment. That's why society puts long term constraints on offenders.

Such a person could negligently endanger coworkers again. Such a person can bring great discredit upon a future employer, enough to put them out of business which affects the livelihoods of other employees and their ability to provide for their spouses and children. Not hiring such a person benefits everyone except the offender.

There's a card that psychologists play when they're trying to salvage the future of someone they believe has been either wrongly convicted; or, fully rehabilitated. They employ the old adage: Past human behavior is not necessarily a reliable indicator of future human behavior. Neither condition applies to this person. In this case it would be more like saying: Gambling with all of your money is not necessarily a reliable indicator that you're going to lose it.

Yet there are those who would tell others that it's good to do that citing the possibility that they could win.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The guy walked off the job negligently endangering his coworkers.

85% percent chance this was a problem in top management tho






not really

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The guy walked off the job negligently endangering his coworkers. The probability of someone with such poor judgement in some way acting to the detriment of another employer and coworkers is high. Look at criminals' rap sheets. He's beyond the formative years where his thinking processes can be easily retrained. The penalties he received were not sufficient enough to cause a Significant Emotional Event that would shock his thought processes into realignment. That's why society puts long term constraints on offenders.

Such a person could negligently endanger coworkers again. Such a person can bring great discredit upon a future employer, enough to put them out of business which affects the livelihoods of other employees and their ability to provide for their spouses and children. Not hiring such a person benefits everyone except the offender.

There's a card that psychologists play when they're trying to salvage the future of someone they believe has been either wrongly convicted; or, fully rehabilitated. They employ the old adage: Past human behavior is not necessarily a reliable indicator of future human behavior. Neither condition applies to this person. In this case it would be more like saying: Gambling with all of your money is not necessarily a reliable indicator that you're going to lose it.

Yet there are those who would tell others that it's good to do that citing the possibility that they could win.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question either. Who benefits?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... The likelihood of Bergdahl reoffending is minuscule, but what about the other felons, having been released from custody who face the same "significant problems securing employment"? Who benefits from this civic stance?

Originally Posted by sexobon

... Not hiring such a person benefits everyone except the offender. ...

Originally Posted by BigV

Yeah, you didn't answer my question either. Who benefits?

My use of the term "such a person" refers to Bergdahl et al who share the characteristic of being a felon.