• 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
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
And take Adrian Peterson. After seeing the pictures of what he did to a 4 year old, I don't care what his side is.
 
It doesn't seem to me that law-enforcement is an employer's responsibility. As long as an employee is doing the job he is being paid to do, to an acceptable degree, and not engaging in any on-the-job misconduct; that should generally be the extent of the employer's concern.

If there are accusations that a person has committed a criminal act, then that's for the criminal justice system to address, in accordance with the standards by which this system is supposed to operate.
 
In the Hyper-competitive league called the NFL, If #2 were all they needed to get rid of a guy then any team could simply hire someone to file charges against a star player and bam, the week you have to play a specific team, they could be without their star player.

Take this as an example: X team was scheduled to play Y team 3 weeks from now, X team has a Star Quarterback that if he wasn't in the game, could seriously alter the outcome. Y team hires someone to file charges against X teams star quarterback, X team suspends their quarterback.

Don't think it happens? who knows, but I strongly believe that no suspension / termination should happen until after said person is found guilty.

In the event that the person in question decides to admit, or confess to the issue then it should be completely fine to move forward with disciplinary actions.

Also, the Ray Rice situation is completely different in the way that we actually have video tape of him assaulting his fiance.
 
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
To a certain degree, sure, but in a general sense I have long thought that we (generic 'we' as a society overall) are more hypocritical when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" then we realize. I tend to believe that when push comes to shove, we DON'T really believe in it, not even in court. It's just a noble-sounding sound bite.


It doesn't seem to me that law-enforcement is an employer's responsibility. As long as an employee is doing the job he is being paid to do, to an acceptable degree, and not engaging in any on-the-job misconduct; that should generally be the extent of the employer's concern.

If there are accusations that a person has committed a criminal act, then that's for the criminal justice system to address, in accordance with the standards by which this system is supposed to operate.
And this is a fair point. Where is the legal system in all this? Why are we depending on an employer to do the right thing when the legal system won't?

One might argue that the employer has to *because* the legal system won't, but it could also be argued that if the legal system doesn't deem it important maybe it isn't.

A little bit of Devil's Advocate here, too, but with a bit of seriousness wrapped inside.
 
Its a dilemma. How often have we a teacher being accused of abuse or a guy accused of rape, and it turns out to be a false accusation. So then we have the guys life ruined for what? Pettiness?
How about the cop who shot someone? He will be placed on administrative leave until the investigation is over.
What shall we do with a bank teller being accused of stealing? We can't keep him/her on the job, right?
Football player, hard evidence or spousal abuse? Put him on leave, give him/them a chance to do counseling, let him and the wife hash it out.
A football player whooping his kid? How many parents do that and aren't laid off from the job? Counseling may be the better choice here as well.
This is not a one size fits all scenario. Common sense should prevail. I am all for innocent until proven guilty, and if found guilty, give them another chance still, depending on the circumstance.
 
To a certain degree, sure, but in a general sense I have long thought that we (generic 'we' as a society overall) are more hypocritical when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" then we realize. I tend to believe that when push comes to shove, we DON'T really believe in it, not even in court. It's just a noble-sounding sound bite.

You do have a point there. There have always been a lot people who seem to addicted to being offended and I'm sure that some of them have a problem putting that attitude to the side when they serve on a jury but I think that most people can put it to the side and do their duty. My experience indicates that they take their duties very seriously and recognize the seriousness of what they have been chosen to do.

Life is messy and people are queer creatures. Expecting people to behave a certain way, even in very specific situations, is not realistic. What's important is the system and how effective it is at minimizing people's prejudices
 
And this is a fair point. Where is the legal system in all this? Why are we depending on an employer to do the right thing when the legal system won't?

One might argue that the employer has to *because* the legal system won't, but it could also be argued that if the legal system doesn't deem it important maybe it isn't.

A little bit of Devil's Advocate here, too, but with a bit of seriousness wrapped inside.

A better question is why, in such a case, should be assume that what an employer would do would amount to doing the right thing?

Our criminal justice system operates on certain principles and procedures, crafted to insure that one is not punished for a crime unless it is solidly enough proven that he is actually guilty of the crime. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and given what is supposed to be a fair trial. I do not see any of that happening in these recent high-profile cases of athletes being accused of domestic violence.

Beside that, the alleged crimes are not directly relevant to their jobs or their ability to perform them, so I really don't see that they are the employer's business.
 
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.

Yeah, I don't believe you actually believe that for one second.

It's just simply unreasonable and downright idiotic.
 
And this is a fair point. Where is the legal system in all this? Why are we depending on an employer to do the right thing when the legal system won't?

One might argue that the employer has to *because* the legal system won't, but it could also be argued that if the legal system doesn't deem it important maybe it isn't.

A little bit of Devil's Advocate here, too, but with a bit of seriousness wrapped inside.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

The NFL and teams have every right to do business with who they want to do business with and require a certain standard of conduct during that business. There are plenty of terrible things players can do that aren't even necessarily against the law.
 
A better question is why, in such a case, should be assume that what an employer would do would amount to doing the right thing?

Our criminal justice system operates on certain principles and procedures, crafted to insure that one is not punished for a crime unless it is solidly enough proven that he is actually guilty of the crime. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and given what is supposed to be a fair trial. I do not see any of that happening in these recent high-profile cases of athletes being accused of domestic violence.

Beside that, the alleged crimes are not directly relevant to their jobs or their ability to perform them, so I really don't see that they are the employer's business.

Of course you don't but then again the NFL isn't trying Adrian Peterson or Ray Rice in a court of law.

I think their off-field conduct definitely becomes their employers business when it starts affecting their bottom line. Even if it doesn't though, an employer should have the right to employ who they want in a free country. It's really hard for me to view someone like Ray Rice as the victim here. We're not exactly setting the bar especially high in saying he should be expected not to knock his wife unconscious.
 
If "when should WE", means "at what point should the collective will of society act" to deal with the violence of athletes outside of the game they play, I would say that "we" need to change our attitudes in general when it comes to the double standards we employ by way of punishment. It is the zealotry of our fandom that helps create this problem in the first place since star athletes are treated as if they walk on water from the time they are teenagers, and do not face the same sorts of responses by those in positions of authority as the next kid. They escape the consequences for their actions from an early age because of this fandom, and so develop the attitude that here ARE no consequences.

Dealing with individual cases will be of little good without dealing with the nature of the entire system.
 
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

The NFL and teams have every right to do business with who they want to do business with and require a certain standard of conduct during that business. There are plenty of terrible things players can do that aren't even necessarily against the law.
Read the original question again. No one disputes they have the right. That's not the question.


If "when should WE", means "at what point should the collective will of society act" to deal with the violence of athletes outside of the game they play, I would say that "we" need to change our attitudes in general when it comes to the double standards we employ by way of punishment. It is the zealotry of our fandom that helps create this problem in the first place since star athletes are treated as if they walk on water from the time they are teenagers, and do not face the same sorts of responses by those in positions of authority as the next kid. They escape the consequences for their actions from an early age because of this fandom, and so develop the attitude that here ARE no consequences.

Dealing with individual cases will be of little good without dealing with the nature of the entire system.
Pretty much agree with this, and yes, it starts early.

Example: My son graduated high school less than a decade ago, so this isn't from another era. The football coach said at the beginning of the season that any kid doing illegal and/or unethical things would be kicked off the team. Period. No excuses. He talked about that standard often. He was very proud of his team and its reputation. Fast forward to about half way through the season, half a dozen players got caught TPing a house. Did they get kicked off the team? Nope. Other than being required to spend a Saturday morning cleaning it up, it was treated as if it didn't even happen. Five of the six were high profile starters, btw.

It's that kind of crap that teaches people early on that they're special and the rules don't apply to them.
 
Read the original question again. No one disputes they have the right. That's not the question.

I don't know. If you're not disputing their right then you're coming awfully close to it by insisting anything that doesn't incur jailtime is unimportant and shouldn't even be considered.
 
I'd be more interested in seeing politicians pay for their transgressions.

Anyway, Ray Rice shouldn't even be a free man.
 
The free market (the public) and the rights of business owners, stockholders, organizations, etc are there to be exercised as they wish within the law.

People in the US are protected in some measure from the govt...'innocent until proven guilty,' etc, but they are not protected from other consequences of their actions.

I see no need for consistency if it requires more laws.
 
I chose 3.

However it is important to note that firing someone because they have damaged your business just by being charged with/accused of something is NOT punishment for that crime, but rather for the damage caused.

In the right situation I could see standing behind someone as a good PR move by a company.

But that's up to the company in question, and they usually err on the side of "kick their ass out and maybe apologize half-assedly if they ware later found not guilty/innocent"
 
The second they spell 'famous' wrong.

;)
 
Back
Top Bottom