I worked in public-facing jobs in a small Canadian city. I frankly had nothing but okay experiences. No customers from hell. It was just very dull and that's something that the media has always depicted really well.
What I gather from this story is that the offender feels no remorse. Oh the employee was much ruder! Oh she's not really that hurt! Woe is me! I wonder if she has learned anything, because people usually express their guilt when they feel it.
On the other hand, jail time for this? Isn't that a lot? Wouldn't paying damages or doing community service be more sensible here?
It's also sad to see how little the employer cared about any of it. It's no surprise that "no one wants to work anymore" when employers are this callous to their frontline employees.
> On the other hand, jail time for this? Isn't that a lot?
No I think that if you physically assault someone that jail is very appropriate. Obviously there is a lot of context that should be taken into consideration: first time or repeat offender? Severity of the assault, including whether there were injuries. Aggravating factors such as whether it was hate-crime motivated etc. All of this stuff matters when deciding upon the appropriate remedy.
But I think that the role of government is to protect the rights of all people within its jurisdiction. It does that by removing the element of force from civil existence. I think there is a very healthy and important debate that should be ever ongoing about how to achieve this when people infringe upon the rights of others. But as a matter of principle, I'm completely fine removing people who would assault others from society. Whether it's for a "time out" in mild cases or indefinitely in extreme ones (with everything in between to cover case by case).
The question to ask is "what are you trying to achieve", and my opinionated answer is "rehabilitation" and definitely not revenge. In this case, jail will cost society a lot and achieve little.
Perhaps a very public and embarrassing apology combined with damages would serve the same purpose at a lower cost. This woman missed a few days of work, and I'm sure she'd enjoy a nice vacation for her troubles.
Yeah my personal view on the "rehabilitation" vs "revenge" (or "punishment") debate is "neither."
I don't know if it's possible to change or mold other people, but even if it is I don't see that as being the proper role of a government.
But revenge or "punishment"? I think that presenting the issue as if those are the only two options (rehabilitation vs punishment) is incorrect and doesn't address the role of the penal system or of governance.
I think that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction. Consequently that means that the role of the penal system is the exact same. How the penal system achieves that, with respects to dealing with those who have infringed upon the rights of others, is a wide open discussion and one that should often be revisited. I'm opposed to the death penalty, for example, because the risk of human error and the consequences thereof are way too high. And I think that as long the system employs prisons, how we treat prisoners and how we determine sentences is of the utmost importance.
But I don't think the purpose should be to either seek vengeance or to try and "rehabilitate" criminals (assuming that's even possible). I think the main focus ought to be on achieving the purpose of governance: to create an environment of peace and liberty where the rights of individuals are recognized and protected. If you demonstrate that you are a threat to the rights of others, as proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt through the judicial system, then the purpose of the penal system in my opinion is to prevent you from continuing to be able to infringe upon the rights of others. Again, how it does that should be a never ending discussion and, depending on the severity of the crime, the ability to turn one's life around should be available. I certainly don't want to lock petty thieves up for life with no ability to put aside their criminal ways and become productive members of society should they so choose. I just think that the onus for making things right needs to be on the offender. That that's not what the system ought to be there for nor should it be the responsibility of the victims ("society", tax payers, as well as the direct victims etc.) to try and "impose" those very personal choices and actions on the offender.
Yea, it doesn’t take a very uncharitable reading to see this woman may think she did something heroic. The fact she went back to the restaurant the very next week is mind boggling, as was the fact she seemed to inform her fast food coworkers that she was the fast food karen from the meme.
I guess some people will always see themselves as the hero even if it’s an extremely shameful incident.
What I gather from this story is that the offender feels no remorse. Oh the employee was much ruder! Oh she's not really that hurt! Woe is me! I wonder if she has learned anything, because people usually express their guilt when they feel it.
On the other hand, jail time for this? Isn't that a lot? Wouldn't paying damages or doing community service be more sensible here?
It's also sad to see how little the employer cared about any of it. It's no surprise that "no one wants to work anymore" when employers are this callous to their frontline employees.
It's just a sad story all around.