Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

furyg3 wrote: post #71

RealGeek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other side of that an accusation or suspicion isn't a reasonable basis on which to ruin someone's employability. Would you marry or co-found a company with someone who was charged with a crime like murder, rape, robbery or fraud; but was let go after serving 7 months in prison because of insufficient evidence which could not meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, rape cases are very hard…

I wouldn't want someone to either not marry me or not be my co-founder because of unproven gossip, rumor, allegations, or charges.

Post by dethstar » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 4:02 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #59

awinder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conv... Of 706 reported rape cases, 1 lead to an actual conviction. So you have an under-reported category of crime which is irregularly prosecuted. There's obvious ethical issues with denying jobs to people based on accusation rather than conviction, but in a society with a broken justice system surrounding that, there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice…

I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported), rather, there was not enough evidence to convict. I would still argue that there is a high amount of under-reporting because people are embarrassed, just want to put it behind them, etc. However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc. Specifically,…

Post by tomp » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 4:03 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #72

furyg3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't want someone to either not marry me or not be my co-founder because of unproven gossip, rumor, allegations, or charges.

I'm sure. But as the potential partner of such a person, wouldn't it be wise to give a pass to someone with a blot on their record? Especially if there is no lack of candidates for the position or partner? Clearly that would improve their odds of finding an acceptable mate.

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 4:07 PM UTC

laichzeit0 wrote: post #23

GrinningFool wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No sexual offenses From the article: "Uber, which had employed the driver even though he had been arrested on allegations of sexual assault three years ago" THe implication there is that he had not been convicted of any offense - which means no sexual offense was [in the eyes of the law...] committed. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand yeah, he was arrested for it and convicted or not, that's probably a risk U…

There really ought be no two minds about this. If he was acquitted and you don't give him a job soley because of that fact it would be unfair discrimination.

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 4:08 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #76

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure. But as the potential partner of such a person, wouldn't it be wise to give a pass to someone with a blot on their record? Especially if there is no lack of candidates for the position or partner? Clearly that would improve their odds of finding an acceptable mate.

This sounds similar to the argument that you should avoid black people because they are more likely to be criminals; clearly that would improve your odds of finding an acceptable mate. Conclusions: individuals are not odds.