• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

  • Upon it becoming public knowledge.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Upon indictment/charges filed.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Upon conviction.

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • Other. (Please elaborate)

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Total voters
    24
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

1) nothing should happen
2) Suspension should happen
3) Termination should happen
4) Other.. that would seem to be plea bargain, ie admitting some level of guilt, hence termination should happen.
 
If we're talking about a business and its image, even arrest can harm that image. A private business is not required to wait for the courts in reacting to an employee harming the business's image. In fact, people can do things that are not even crimes and a business can choose to fire them in the interest of maintaining an image.

If we want to be pissy about business freedom, I suppose a business could wait until conviction or undeniable evidence.




I like how racists are all "businesses should be allowed to conduct economic warfare against a sub-population by denying service based upon race or gender!"

And the same scumbags are all "a business should not be allowed to fire someone!"

What happened to that all-powerful right to association in the second instance?
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I picked #2 as that is sufficient to take legal state action, but one must weigh the "punishment" severity to that of the alleged offense. I assume that you meant a private employer and not the gov't itself.
 
ecofarm said:
I like how racists are all "businesses should be allowed to conduct economic warfare against a sub-population by denying service based upon race or gender!"

And the same scumbags are all "a business should not be allowed to fire someone!"

What happened to that all-powerful right to association in the second instance?
Click to expand...

Your mixing up the argument somewhat. They aren't saying they can't fire someone for being suspected of a committing a crime or being found guilty of one, but that they shouldn't. You might not be aware of this but when people says someone has a right to decide who they will commence in commerce with they are not saying they should discriminate, but that it shouldn't be outlawed. There is a difference.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

Well - things are often outlined in contract. Each company should make their own choices and STICK TO IT.

The problems come when companies include 'statements of ethics and morality' but do little to enforce it - only acting as such when they need to save face.
 
Henrin said:
Your mixing up the argument somewhat. They aren't saying they can't fire someone for being suspected of a committing a crime or being found guilty of one, but that they shouldn't. You might not be aware of this but when people says someone has a right to decide who they will commence in commerce with they are not saying they should discriminate, but that it shouldn't be outlawed. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Morons claim ones right to association means a public-access business can discriminate against customers... but not employees. How stupid is that?
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

You mean 'punish' as in not be their fan any longer?
If you mean legal punishment, why are they different from anyone else?
 
ecofarm said:
Morons claim ones right to association means a public-access business can discriminate against customers... but not employees. How stupid is that?
Click to expand...

Sigh.
 
ecofarm said:
I like how racists are all "businesses should be allowed to conduct economic warfare against a sub-population by denying service based upon race or gender!"

And the same scumbags are all "a business should not be allowed to fire someone!"

What happened to that all-powerful right to association in the second instance?
Click to expand...

Ummm........it was overwhelmed by a tsunami of hypocrisy?
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "punishing", but I think people should make their own judgements however and whenever they want to.

Personally, I like to see the evidence from both sides, but some stories don't have two sides. Take Ray Rice. Once I saw the video from the elevator, I don't care what his side is. What he did is wrong, and I don't have to wait for a trial to decide what I think of him
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I picked #2 as that is sufficient to take legal state action, but one must weigh the "punishment" severity to that of the alleged offense. I assume that you meant a private employer and not the gov't itself.
Click to expand...
Correct, private entities. Sports teams/leagues in the case of athletes. movie studios in the case of actors, and so on.


Aunt Spiker said:
Well - things are often outlined in contract. Each company should make their own choices and STICK TO IT.

The problems come when companies include 'statements of ethics and morality' but do little to enforce it - only acting as such when they need to save face.
Click to expand...
I am very much of the mind that if we claim to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as a legal standard then we should live it in our daily lives outside the legal system as well, otherwise we're just jaw jackin' and don't really believe it. Having said that, if there is a morals clause in a contract, then the should be upheld even if it is prior to, or absent of, any conviction. And I agree that it should be upheld equally.
 
sangha said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "punishing", but I think people should make their own judgements however and whenever they want to.

Personally, I like to see the evidence from both sides, but some stories don't have two sides. Take Ray Rice. Once I saw the video from the elevator, I don't care what his side is. What he did is wrong, and I don't have to wait for a trial to decide what I think of him
Click to expand...
In the case of Rice, a suspension/banishment. For example.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...
Upon conviction, of course, just like anyone else. Until they have been convicted, they're presumed innocent.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a rule. I think it will always vary by what took place and who are the main sponsors or followers of the entertainer.

They are entertainers and have a different set of rules applied to them. If they mess up it can ruin the image of any organization associated with them from their employer to any sponsors.

It's the "downside" of making millions for acting or throwing a football. You yourself have become a brand and a unique commodity. Your actions have much more repercussions than the normal worker that is usually just a cog in his large organization.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

Probably a poorly worded question. How do you mean "we"? "We" as private individuals who can withhold our fandom? Then whenever we want, for whatever reason we want. "We" as the government, then not without a conviction and by the same standards as anyone else. If you actually meant the business that employs them, that is not we, and the answer would be found within the contract the employer and employee.

So there is no actual answer to your poll.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the situation. Nobody, including Ray Rice denies that its him in that video. Nobody, including Adrian Peterson denies that he left those marks on his son. The NFL has enough to decide whether or not to suspend them in those cases.

For example, Peterson's case in court is going to rest on whether or not his punishment for his son is actually a crime or not. If the NFL believes that the marks he left on his son are worthy of suspension then they should suspend him now, regardless of whether or not it turns out to actually be a crime.

In cases where its less clear that the action actually occurred, then the punishments should probably wait.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider "punish".

A celebrity should do the same jail time as a non-celebrity when they're convicted. I don't think there is anything wrong with the NFL or another company firing (banning, etc) when someone does something so negative that it damages their public brand, even without a conviction, though. I don't think a company necessarily needs to fire someone who does something negative but I understand why potential consumers react negatively when it happens.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

So are you only asking about famous people who commit transgressions?

For athletes - that isn't my call. It should be at the discretion of the employer.
For politicians - depends on what it is. People are innocent until proven guilty, and let's face it - false accusations wouldn't be unheard of.
For actors, singers, whatever - see "for athletes" answer.

Consistency is important if we're talking about the same entity (Minnesota Vikings, MGM Grand Hotel, etc.). I don't think you can make a one size fits all outside of those lines.
 
radcen said:
I am very much of the mind that if we claim to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as a legal standard then we should live it in our daily lives outside the legal system as well, otherwise we're just jaw jackin' and don't really believe it. Having said that, if there is a morals clause in a contract, then the should be upheld even if it is prior to, or absent of, any conviction. And I agree that it should be upheld equally.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's easy to make that sort of claim when you're not employing one guy who is all over the news for beating his wife and another for abusing his child. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the fairest way to conduct a trial, in my opinion, but I see no reason why that should be the standard for employment.
 
shavingcollywob said:
I suspect it's easy to make that sort of claim when you're not employing one guy who is all over the news for beating his wife and another for abusing his child. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the fairest way to conduct a trial, in my opinion, but I see no reason why that should be the standard for employment.
Click to expand...
But if we aren't willing to consider "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court law, then I seriously question our ability to live by that standard in a court of law... when it is critically important. It's a deeper mindset that isn't switched on and off at will.
 
radcen said:
But if we aren't willing to consider "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court law, then I seriously question our ability to live by that standard in a court of law... when it is critically important. It's a deeper mindset that isn't switched on and off at will.
Click to expand...

I think people are capable of applying different standards in different situations and I doubt that anyone applies the standards of the courtroom in their daily life, including the lawyers and the judge.

I suspect you're just playing Devils' Advocate
 
I picked other because I was answering the title of the OP.

We, as the public, should not be punishing anybody.

The punishment comes in the form of legal charges. Whatever happens from there is up to the courts.
 
radcen said:
Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
3) Upon conviction.
4) Other

Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
Click to expand...

I picked other. The default should be upon a guilty conviction,however if there is a video of the incident in question of the individual confessed to doing the deed then there is no need to wait for a guilty conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom