CMV: The Jacob Geller response shows that no one really believes in restorative justice.

[u/Raspint]

TlDr: Restorative justice advocates only believe in restorative justice until it relates to an issue they feel an emotional connection with. Then they are as bloodthirsty as any retributionist.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I do not believe in or support restorative justice. I'm pro-retribution and I have been for a long time. But I am going to try and take the perspective of a restorative justice [I'll call it rest-just for the rest of this post.] And the response that I've seen from people who are normally pro rest-justice has been things like:

From what I've seen majority of people who are typically pro rest justice has been that Geller should be outcast and isolated, and that he be forever marked with 'I'm a rapist.'

But like, that's not rest-justice. What's the whole point of rest-justice? Anytime you talk with their advocates the core of their philosophy is, ultimately "how can we make sure this never happens again?"

Well, it never happened again.

Unless I'm mistaken, what we know is this:

Geller raped someone.

Geller owned up to this and acknowledged it as rape.

Geller faced consequences most of us (me included) consider too light.

Geller never raped anyone again.

Like, despite what you or I think of being suspended as a punishment for rape, whatever else occurred (and we don't know the details of what the victim said or wanted) this worked. You may not like it, but unless I'm mistaken about this, the slap on the wrist (and whatever else may have happened) made it so Geller understood his transgression, and never did it again. Not only that, but he's supported anti-sexual violence organizations and charities, right?

This honestly sounds like a success case for rest-justice. And I feel in my heart of hearts that if Geller had of committed an act of non-sexual violence, then this is how it would be talked about. Most of the people who want him completely deplatformed would be saying "we need to allow for rehabilitation. Offenders are not subhuman monsters, we should not dehumanize them. We can be better than that."

Yet it's not because apparently rest-justice doesn't matter for crimes that we consider 'bad.' Therefore it's useless idea that most people only pretend to support.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Raspint (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem}) ^{| [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards})

[u/nicksey144]

"From what I've seen majority of people who are typically pro rest justice has been that Geller should be outcast and isolated, and that he be forever marked with 'I'm a rapist.'"

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but I don't know how you're determining how these people are initially pro restorative justice. Are these peers or channels that you watch over time?

The reason I ask is because essentially your view is that pro rest justice advocates are only pretending to hold this view, and the only way to address that is to compare their stated views to their actions. Were these accounts who have been consistent on pro rest justice views before the Geller case? Or are you inferring their views on pro rest justice, and if so how?

I also want to stress that this sounds like projection. You see people express a view you disagree with, so your conclusion is that they secretly hold your same view? I find that pretty unlikely without evidence, and it's very hard to determine what's in people's hearts from a cursory view. There's a reason speculation of other people's opinions doesn't hold up as evidence in court. If your point hinges on "everyone secretly agrees with me" I would take it with an enormous grain of salt.

Not saying they're all sincere, but you haven't established enough evidence for that, and the way you've structured your view is borderline unfalsifiable. Maybe this won't change your mind, but hopefully you'll calibrate your stance a little to include people with different worldviews that you. People can sincerely believe things you disagree with.

[u/nam24 → u/nicksey144]

I think most pro restorative justice need to admit they clearly have a limit, which is fine, you don't have to be married to an ideology, the same way most people pro punishment wouldn't argue you need to keep someone in nail for 10 year for shoplifting

[u/Raspint → u/nicksey144]

but I don't know how you're determining how these people are initially pro restorative justice.

Because they claim to be.

I also want to stress that this sounds like projection. You see people express a view you disagree with, so your conclusion is that they secretly hold your same view?

I guess it is actually, yes.

? I find that pretty unlikely

I don't think it is. I have a pathological hatred of criminals because of my experiences with them. I think that many of the rest-just types (feminists, progressives) tend to have experience with sexual violence. Ergo they have the same hatred that I do, only they haven't accepted it the way I have.

and the way you've structured your view is borderline unfalsifiable.

∆

Shit you might be right. I also think I'm correct about this, but this might be a claim that is too difficult for a person to counter. Though I do think if someone could show why and how Geller's case is not an example of rest-just in a way that is consistent with other examples of supposeded 'success' stories of rest-just that could convince me.

[u/baes__theorem → u/Raspint]

like the above commenter mentioned, it seems like your argument rests on some false premises, and I’ll add these that I haven’t seen mentioned:

in every situation like this, I’ve noticed that those claiming that the steps of restorative justice have been fulfilled very frequently have an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of a) the transgressions done, b) the restorative steps taken, and/or c) the actual definition, requirements, & parameters of restorative justice

assuming these ppl are actually pro-restorative justice, there are several reasons for them to not believe that the necessary steps have been taken toward actual reform / restoration / reparation, e.g.:

1. all of this rests solely on his accounting of the situation, which obviously could be inaccurate or mischaracterized.

2. he only publicly took accountability after he was caught. this not only causes ppl to be more skeptical of his story altogether, but also undermines several requirements of restorative justice.

   a. when you cause harm (esp for rape, which is potentially the single crime that has no context making it justifiable [not including if a person would somehow be forced to rape another person, since they would also be a victim]), taking accountability involves the wider community, not just the victim. esp as a person putting himself in a position of power & influence over others (which obv could enable further abuse), he has a serious obligation to be transparent & forthcoming abt the rape he committed. this involves publicly identifying all of the wrongdoing committed & not whitewashing or minimizing any of his transgressions.
   b. in this, he effectively lied by omission to all of his business partners & audience. not only is the perpetrator of an injustice not the person who can decide what is sufficient disclosure or reparations, but also he’s now caused more harm, especially to anyone who works for him / has their livelihood now in danger.

3. part of one’s responsibility in restorative justice is preventing the kind of harm you caused. this story was the first time I ever heard of Geller, but from what I gather, he has not done substantial advocacy for victims of rape & other forms of sa.

4. even if he had done all the necessary steps, no one is obligated to accept that person’s reform. restorative justice requires that the perpetrator genuinely attempt to restore & repair where possible, as well as prevent similar things from happening in the future. it’s not transactional, & since rape isn’t done on accident / in self defense / etc, ppl may struggle to believe it’s not just a performative / superficial attempt at reform

I’m sure there’s more, but this should demonstrate that even if ppl do genuinely believe in restorative justice, there is plenty of reason to believe that he has not taken the steps to achieve that.

[u/Raspint → u/baes__theorem]

all of this rests solely on his accounting of the situation, which obviously could be inaccurate or mischaracterized.

True. It's difficult to talk about this given the lack of info, but I think there is a point to not trying to dig into this due to the privacy of the victim. All that matters for us is he admits he did the SA, got a light punishment, and never did so again.

he only publicly took accountability after he was caught.

No, he took accountability after it happened. He says he spoke with the victim, and plead guilty to the school's charge against him. Even though this wasn't a legal court, pleading guilty is taking accountability.

Maybe he should have turned himself into the police and - regardless if the victim wanted it - demand to be deemed a sex offender? I'm not being facetious here btw, maybe that is the actual rest-just position?

But as for the broader public? No. He doesn't owe them an explanation or description of something he did ten years ago if he "paid his debt" so to speak.

when you cause harm (esp for rape, which is potentially the single crime that has no context making it justifiable

This is going to have to be another cmv, but I reject this. Specifically how we talk about sexual violence as if it is always worse than any kind of nonsexual violence. If Geller had of viciously pistol whipped a gas station clerk he was robbing, it's possible that that victim could, 10 years later, be worse off than some rape victims.

Note: I'm not saying rape is unserious and doesn't leave scars. I'm rejecting this implicit "whatever" attitude we (and rest-just people especially) take to nonsexual violence compared to sexual violence.

esp as a person putting himself in a position of power & influence over others

But he's not in a position of power. What if he were a Walmart shelf stacker who got promtoted to manager? He'd have even more direct power in that case, is he supposed to tell his boss he's a rapist when they offer him the job?

in this, he effectively lied by omission to all of his business partners & audience

I reject this. He doesn't owe that to his audience, just like if he had done that above mentioned robbery he wouldn't owe it to his audience.

part of one’s responsibility in restorative justice is preventing the kind of harm you caused

I think he's done charity streams for abuse victims. Does this "work" only count if he does so preformative as a self-identified rapist? How would that even look? I'm assuming if you are committed to minimizing violence against women, and if you go to a shelter saying "Hello, I am a rapist and I would like to assist you in helping women who have faced sexual violence, what can I do?" He'd be told to leave right?

no one is obligated to accept that person’s reform.

They are if they are

1: Pro rest-just

2: If they want to be intellectually consistent. You can't say "I believe in rest-just and allowing people to change and grow and better themselves except when I have an emotional reaction to the crime committed."

[u/DeltaBot → u/Raspint]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nicksey144 (1∆).

^{[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem}) ^{| [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards})

[u/Kaleb_Bunt]

People disliking you is tbh just the natural consequence of your actions and is completely disconnected from justice as a legal structure.

Like I remember once reading a story from a social worker about this old homeless guy with cancer who died on the streets because he committed a sex crime in his past and couldn’t find housing or afford medical care.

I think you can both be against shit like that while also personally thinking rape and rapists are bad.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Kaleb_Bunt]

They deserve access to the same society as the rest of us.

That homeless man could also just be someone who just couldn't get a job, had mental illness, had a destructive family life... All sorts of things. This could happen to anyone for any reason.

That's why there has to be a bottom on society. It's not great, but you don't fall any further.

[u/Raspint → u/Kaleb_Bunt]

People disliking you is tbh just the natural consequence of your actions and is completely disconnected from justice as a legal structure.

I don't think it is though. If the whole point of rest-just is for the reintegration of the offender in to the community, you cannot say you're in favour of that but also that these people should be "disliked" in perpetuity. Because being disliked by the entire community forever is just social isolation.

that while also personally thinking rape and rapists are bad

I mean obviously rest-just advocates think rape is bad. Even they aren't that silly.

[u/Kaleb_Bunt → u/Raspint]

The thing is, a reputation is something that is earned, not something one is entitled to.

Ex-criminals certainly should be entitled to the same things as everyone else: food, housing, and some opportunities to have a livelihood.

A good reputation can only be acquired by one’s actions.

[u/Raspint → u/Kaleb_Bunt]

and some opportunities to have a livelihood.

Geller has been kicked off of nebula, with these rest-just advocates often calling for his youtube account to be deleted.

That is his livelihood. That is denying him something essential to being integrated into society.

I noticed this years ago with Brock turner too, but I didn't have the knowledge to articulate the contradiction. I'd ask, or see someone else ask "Well, what if no one wants to hire him? How will he pay rent?"

And the response was "Well, then he shouldn't have FUCKING RAPED SOMEONE!"

Which is a non-answer based on the same kind of bloodlust and hatred that these people claim to be against (which I'm honest about).

A good reputation can only be acquired by one’s actions.

Listen people aren't ready for this take but here goes: Taking ownership of your actions and trying to better yourself is actually an action that speaks volumes of a person's character.

[u/ZealousEar775 → u/Raspint]

Largely you are showing you don't really understand the concept of restorative justice that well.

Like... What was the restorative actions have he taken to return back to society?

Have his victims been made whole?

Did he tell everyone, apologize and own up to it? Or did he hide it and only admit to it after it came out?

Has he worked with young men like himself and told them his mistakes to make sure they don't follow them?

Etc.

[u/Raspint → u/ZealousEar775]

Like... What was the restorative actions have he taken to return back to society?

He's not raped anyone else, and I think he's done charity streams for shelters and such. He's anti-sexual violence now. What else would rest-just require of him?

Have his victims been made whole?

What does that even mean? Has he unraped her? Obviously not. Has he returned her to the point she was before the rape? Who can tell?

Did he tell everyone, apologize and own up to it?

I think that in his statement he described how this affected his friend group and social circles, and how he had to speak to/repair things with them, and lose out on relationships because of this.

None of which really involves any of the people who have found out about this ten years later.

Has he worked with young men like himself

I think he's very anti-toxic masculinity. What else do you mean by "worked with?" Like talking to young men in a circle like he's some kind of elder? Hosting a consent class (would that even be desirable?)

[u/SkippyTheKid → u/Raspint]

Your third point is filling in some blanks we don’t know with assumptions fwiw

His statement only said concretely that people close to him, including his wife, knew. It didn’t go into detail about who did know or not and if it cost him any friendships.

We know now that it cost him the friendship of his MinnMax crew because they dropped him as a cohort, but that is because he did hide his history from them, and that was a selfish destructive thing to do. Understandable, sure, but it proved very harmful because that network does try to be an inclusive and safe platform and finding out that one of its main hosts has assaulted someone will naturally leave some community members feeling betrayed.

[u/Raspint → u/SkippyTheKid]

but it proved very harmful because that network does try to be an inclusive and safe platform and finding out that one of its main hosts has assaulted someone will naturally leave some community members feeling betrayed.

Okay. But they wouldn't have done this if Geller had of instead killed someone in a bar fight ten years ago.

[u/SkippyTheKid → u/Raspint]

That’s not a point that can be argued, that’s an assumption.

An important contextual detail though for that analogy to work would be that he would have had to have killed someone, not faced any consequences other than some kind of mild administrative punishment, and then hidden it from MM and other business partners. I think in that hypothetical case, it wouldn’t surprise me if MM and other partners would cut ties.

[u/Raspint → u/SkippyTheKid]

True, I can't prove it.

I think in that hypothetical case, it wouldn’t surprise me if MM and other partners would cut ties.

No I don't buy this. If he through in some stuff about how he struggled with abuse and toxic masculinity and how he's used his experience to become an an advocate for the rights of the condemned or something these people would likely accept him, and feel proud of being able to "look beyond" his past.

[u/Leather_Tart_7782 → u/Raspint]

If it makes you feel better, Jacob will still be making over 6000 dollars from Patreon alone this month, and has actually gained patrons since being outed for raping someone.

[u/_would_you_rather_ → u/Raspint]

He can get a job as cashier in supermarket. That's making a living. Only privileges were taken from him.

[u/Raspint → u/_would_you_rather_]

sigh

Oh boy, this is going to take a lot of work to unpack.

1st: Why is working as a cashier okay? That's also a public facing job. Maybe a rape survivor doesn't want to deal with a rapist checking out her groceries. This is the exact same line of argument against why he ought not to be allowed to have his stuff on youtube, because a suvirvor might see it and not want to be watching/listening to a rapist's video essay without realizing it. The difference is a youtuber might get thousands of views a day where a cashier get only a hundred or so.

2: >Only privileges were taken from him.

No it's not. It's also a right. Broadcasting your ideas and thoughts online is a modern equivalent of going the forum in the market place in ancient Greece and discussing what was on your mind. Geller just happened to be so good at it that people wanted to subscribe to him/pay him for it.

Denying rapists the right to post video essays (and not even explicitly political ones) is denying them the ability to speak their mind. Just like if you were to say that a rapist has no right to advocate for causes they care about, or go to that market forum and speak their mind.

You are actually engaging in more dehumanization of offenders than I am. I'm open about wanting to extract a pound of bloody flesh from them, but once that's done they are allowed to be people again.

You're saying he should be able to live a life so long as it is very quiet and he never speaks to, talks with, or interacts with society in a very limited way. You might as well say he's allowed to live as long as he hides under the covers (okay the last sentence there is hyperbolie, but I'm trying to tease out the undercurrents of what you are saying).

[u/RevolutionaryHole69 → u/Raspint]

A cashier isn't giving monologues to the people that see them. I feel like you are grasping at straws here. You have a point, albeit a small one. But when you draw false equivalencies like this, it's all falls apart.

People getting deplatformed not as punishment, but for the safety of others. The potential harm as a cashier is minimal.

[u/Raspint → u/RevolutionaryHole69]

People getting deplatformed not as punishment, but for the safety of others

That's true of people who are pushing a dangerous political message, like Alex Jones or Andrew Take. Geller is not pro-rape and has never pushed pro rape or misogynist content.

The idea he's being platformed for 'safety' is flat out wrong. No one is made less safe by Geller being on Nebula.

[u/RevolutionaryHole69 → u/Raspint]

Turning yourself into a famous person means that victims might see him, and it could re-traumatize them. Their right to not be re-traumatized is above his right to turn himself into a famous person.

Some rights are above other rights. Just the way it is.

[u/Raspint → u/RevolutionaryHole69]

Then you don't really believe in rest-just then.

and it could re-traumatize them

I say this as a victim of SA myself: That's their problem. The internet is a big place, if seeing Geller's face is traumatizing for the victim they can not watch it.

What you're saying is basically "Yes, I believe in rest justice and that offenders can return to society. So long as they are isolated, live quiet lives, and hide under the covers to prevent the chance that their victim might see their face/hear their voice."

Youtube is the modern version of a public form in the market place. Geller has a right to go to that form to speak his mind and sell his art (his essays) like everyone. If people like his stuff and want to buy it (subscribe) that's their decision.

Some rights are above other rights. Just the way it is.

You believe in retribution like me. The difference is I have no problem saying that people like Geller are barely human animals and should be treated as such.

[u/johnwcowan → u/Raspint]

YouTube is in no sense a public forum. The right to determine who can and cannot post there belongs to Google alone. See Prager University v. Google.

[u/Raspint → u/johnwcowan]

The right to determine who can and cannot post there belongs to Google alone.

Yeah we've privatized the public form. That's not good and anti-democratic.

[u/poozemusings → u/Raspint]

This is a contradiction that has been pointed out in restorative justice circles, you are not some genius noticing it for the first time. You can find opinion pieces actually talking about how the Brock Turner response was hyperbolic and that the judge shouldn’t have been recalled from restorative justice advocates. A book you may be interested is called “The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women’s Liberation in Mass Incarceration.” There’s a phenomenon that advocates refer to as “carceral feminism” that refers to this bloodthirsty attitude that is reserved only for gender based crimes.

[u/LostaraYil21 → u/poozemusings]

OP never claimed to be a genius who's the first person ever to notice this, just that they think this is a point they've noticed that they think a lot of people aren't giving adequate weight to.

You could equally have framed this "you aren't some genius" comment as "this is an important point that a lot of academics think is worth taking very seriously."

If you think they're wrong, you're free to argue why, but it strikes me as unfair to criticize someone who never claimed to be the unique originator of an idea on the basis that there are other people who also think it's an important idea.

[u/Raspint → u/LostaraYil21]

>OP never claimed to be a genius who's the first person ever to notice this

Thank you!

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing or suggesting that others may be arguing in bad faith, lying, or unwilling to change their view. Assume good faith and ask clarifying questions (see: Socratic method). If you believe OP may be engaging in bad faith, report their post for violating Rule B instead. Keep in mind that reports take time to review. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/couldbemage → u/Raspint]

He should be able to get a normal job. In fact, he can.

He's not entitled to a job that amounts to getting money based on how much people like you.

How much money do you get from YouTube? I know I didn't get any.

Why is he entitled to YouTube money, when you and I aren't?

[u/VertigoOne → u/Raspint]

He can have a different livelihood. It is not essential he have a livelihood based on people listening to what he has to say and liking him.

[u/Raspint → u/VertigoOne]

And the moment people at that job discover this about him the same argument will be made.

It is not essential he have a livelihood based on people listening to what he has to say and liking him.

It's essential to have work that is meaningful to you. And making arguments is what he's good at. By suggesting that he only legit form of employment Geller can get is something like the dehumanizing job in an amazon factory, you're actually doing the dehumanization of criminals that rest-just is so against.

Hell even I'm against that. I think rapists need to have a pound of flesh taken from them, but once that's done it's over. Rape victims don't have the right to never ever see a rapist in a public facing job forever.

They have a right to not listen of course. But the idea that a rapist can never participate in the public form in the market place ever again is just wrong.

[u/VertigoOne → u/Raspint]

It's essential to have work that is meaningful to you.

Yeah... no.

There are vast numbers of people in much less meaningful professions who would need help long before we help this guy out of this situation.

It's nice to have meaningful work, but no one has a right to it.

And making arguments is what he's good at. By suggesting that he only legit form of employment Geller can get is something like the dehumanizing job in an amazon factory

That wasn't what I suggested.

Making arguments in a video as a profession requires you to be someone the audience likes and aspires to and accepts as authoritative. You cannot demand people do that.

But the idea that a rapist can never participate in the public form in the market place ever again is just wrong.

Yes, it is wrong.

But it's also not right.

You're running into the much widerspread problem with online discourse in general. Specifically, that online discourse is not ever happening anywhere but a leased space. Nebula is a private company. So is Youtube. So is Reddit. So is Facebook etc. None of these people have to platform anyone they don't want to for any reason.

You cannot cry "free speech" when these places shut someone down, because free speech is in the gift of a government. Not a company. You cannot legally compel a company to give you a platform.

[u/Raspint → u/VertigoOne]

who would need help long before we help this guy out of this situation.

You're looking at this in a zero sum way. Which normally I'd be in favour of, but it doesn't apply here. Geller having meaningful work does not remove the opportunity for someone else to have meaningful work. It's not as though we have to find the most goodest person, throw them into meaningful work, and then go down the list.

Furthermore, this is an anti rest-just take. You can't simultaneously say "I believe in rehabilitation, redemption, and that people can change for the better!" but also say "They must be locked out of this important thing that all people have the right too!"

You don't think Geller should be able to use his talents in a meaingful way to make a livelihood for himself, and must instead settle for simply selling his labour in an alienated work force? Fine, but you're dehumanizing offenders there, which is the opposite of rest just.

but no one has a right to it.

We all have the right to the pursuit of it.

Making arguments in a video as a profession requires you to be someone the audience likes and aspires to and accepts as authoritative.

No, more than that it requires your analysis to be accurate. It's more important to be right than it is to be likeable.

You cannot demand people do that.

I didn't say we should. I said Geller deserves the opportunity like any of us, according to rest-just.

None of these people have to platform anyone they don't want to for any reason. You cannot cry "free speech" when these places shut someone down, because free speech is in the gift of a government. Not a company. You cannot legally compel a company to give you a platform.

I'm actually not crying 'free speech.' This is more about civic engagement.

Yes. I agree. The open public forum has been privatized, and you are celebrating that. But the power that these platforms have is the very same power that they can use to deplatform Palestinian activists.

I'll extend you an olive branch: I'm also okay with deplatforming, but only when its to stop the spread of harmful ideas. Ie, Andrew Tate, Alex Jones. But Geller wasn't doing that. There is nothing unsafe about his content, and him being a rapist doesn't make any of his arguments/analysis any less true.

[u/SkippyTheKid → u/Raspint]

He does not have a criminal record and, as a result, has the opportunity to pursue employment to the same extent of most members of society.

Where his livelihood has been affected is because of the type of work he chose for himself, video essays, podcasts and critical analysis and content on public platforms whose financial viability relies on popularity.

In the simplest terms, he himself chose the worst kind of field to earn a living in, one that relies on reputation and popularity, knowing that he had a past that would make his brand toxic if and when it became public.

Now that that has happened, rest just does not require anyone to ignore this hugely significant part of his past and he does not have any kind of entitlement to the same audience size or fandom that he had before the news broke.

I’m a former fan that doesn’t want Geller to rot in a cell or anything but that doesn’t mean that I have to keep liking his public persona or engaging with his content. His work lives and dies by how many people choose to consume it, and he has made it more unpleasant to consume by adding on this extra complication with the material. Biography just cannot be separate from content, even art, our brains don’t work that way, and he knew that when he started with YT and with GI and MM and here we are.

Convicts are not owed a job that pays them well above average post incarceration, and my interpretation of rest just doesn’t include that either.

[u/Raspint → u/SkippyTheKid]

Now that that has happened, rest just does not require anyone to ignore this hugely significant part of his past

The word "ignore" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. But a rest-just advocate is committed to accepting that yes, people like this can reenter society and interacting with society in ways that most people can, including making and publishing art.

Convicts are not owed a job that pays them well above average post incarceration

They are if there work is that good though. An excon deserves the same payment as anyone else for doing the same job.

[u/Lancasterbation → u/Raspint]

One is not entitled to a YouTube or Nebula channel, regardless of their criminal history. Those companies can do as they please with who they elect to platform. He might just have to get a job like the rest of us schmucks. Restorative justice doesn't demand that the offender eventually gets access to a privileged position in the community, just that they are reintegrated. And individuals can decide who they like or support on their own.

[u/Raspint → u/Lancasterbation]

Those companies can do as they please with who they elect to platform

My problem with this, and why I don't accept it, is all you are doing is arguing for the privatization of the market square.

Nebula didn't kick him off for justice reasons. They did it to protect their brand. Purely cynical.

I'm not talking about Nebula. I'm talking about the people who will claim to be rest-just, and then demand he be deplaformed despite having never ever made any harmful or pro-rape content.

He might just have to get a job like the rest of us schmucks.

Youtube is a job. Your view that it is not is loaded with some assumptions about labour that I dislike.

I think everyone has the right to unaliented, meaningful work. You would likely agree with that, even if we both understand it is not possible for everyone (same way that health can be a right despite the existence of the chronically ill). And Geller found such work

What you are saying here is "Everyone has the right to meaningful, unalienated work, unless if they do a bad thing then they lose that right forever."

And I don't believe that. Unless the punishment is death (which it often should be), then offenders have the right to engage with life and society like the rest of us after they have given us their pound of flesh.

[u/Lancasterbation → u/Raspint]

You have the right to employment, you don't have the right to any specific job. An employer can choose to employ you or not for dozens of reasons that aren't related specifically to job performance. Doubly so for independent contractor work like YouTube. I've done work for TaskRabbit. Go on the TaskRabbit subreddit and see how often people get their accounts suspended or outright removed for sometimes inexplicable reasons. By using TaskRabbit (or YouTube or Nebula, etc.) I'm engaging with a business in order to have access to their customer base. In the modern tech economy, they set the terms of that deal and can revoke access to their customer base at their discretion. That's the cost of engaging with the platform.

I'm not arguing for the privatization of the town square at all. We don't have a public resource with the reach of Google, unfortunately. Maybe with robust public investment we could, and maybe even we should. But all of that is irrelevant. Society chose to privatize the public square by moving all relevant public conversations to apps built and operated by businesses. Just because there's not a public alternative doesn't suddenly change how these businesses are run. They exist for the purpose of making money, if they deem association with an individual is damaging to their brand, they won't work with them. This isn't unique to the tech giants (notably Nebula wouldn't really qualify for that description).

And let's be real, his access to an audience has not been permanently revoked. He could start a show on Rumble or whatever about being canceled by the left or how he thinks rape is actually good, and he could make a killing in the griftersphere.

All this is kind of moot, though. Google has not removed his YouTube channel, he got fired by Nebula and MinnMax, which, again, don't owe him access to their audience.

In a world where prospective employers can force you to give them access to the chemical makeup of your piss, asking why a history of basically unpunished rape would jeopordize someone's job is just naive thinking and really doesn't touch on the systems involved in what restorative justice is all about. The system for providing restitution don't really exist. We could take his word for it that he's grown, but the public has no way of validating that he's paid his dues because there was never a legal determination of what those should have been. Leniency and restorative justice aren't the same thing.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Raspint]

His contracts with other streaming platforms are going to say something along the lines of him having to be representative of the company and act in accordance with that. Rape is not a thing the company wants to be associated with, so they're cancelling that contract.

He's a private business, this is a contract falling through. It happens in any line or work.

With regards to YouTube, this is dependent on the level of safeguarding they actually provide.

He's not entitled to any platform on any of these sites. If he can't use them, he is welcome to start his own platform.

If the audience exists he can just do that.

[u/stinkypenguinbukkake → u/Raspint]

but he didn't take ownership of his actions... nobody knew. it's not a mistake he owned up to he tried his hardest to sweep it under the rug

[u/RickRussellTX → u/Raspint]

Society can't compel individual like or dislike. It has literally nothing to do with restorative justice.

[u/nicksey144 → u/Raspint]

They didn't argue that Geller "should" be disliked, just that it was a natural consequence that didn't have to do with the legal system. Cancel culture proponents have a hard time with this in particular, mistakenly equating a lot of people's individual choices to opt out of content with institutional power if some kind.

[u/123yes1 → u/nicksey144]

The point that OP is making is that restorative justice is not possible, if the community is not willing.

Otherwise what are you restoring?

[u/SufficientGreek → u/123yes1]

The restorative part refers to the victim's state being restored to its state before the crime happened by empowering them and involving them in the justice process.

[u/123yes1 → u/SufficientGreek]

Restorative justice argues that if you are not a stakeholder to the particular crime alleged, be that the victim, the local community, or whatever. Then you should butt out and the perpetrator's punishment is not your business.

[u/Previous_Platform718 → u/123yes1]

Nothing you said here is wrong per-se, but to what extent does butting-out make sense in this case?

For example, if I stop watching his content because he's a rapist, should I refrain from telling other people my reasoning?

[u/nam24 → u/123yes1]

That argues essentially nothing of note though

The majority of crimes are non mediatized, and only the direct "stakeholders" and those close to them care, them and the court

By and large the public "butts out" most of the time

[u/Raspint → u/SufficientGreek]

>The restorative part refers to the victim's state being restored to its state before the crime happened by empowering them and involving them in the justice process.

That's not true at all. Because if it were than rest-just advocates would wash their hands of murderers and say murder is a situation where rest-just doesn't apply.

But they don't say that.

[u/DogtorPepper → u/Kaleb_Bunt]

Rape is 100% bad but I’m not sure if all rapists are automatically bad people. Sometimes good people make mistakes and do bad things

If two people are very drunk and they have sex, it’s technically rape but I wouldn’t call them bad people.

If a guy is having sex and the girl withdraws consent but there’s some misunderstanding or he doesn’t hear, that’s technically rape but I wouldn’t call him a bad person

If someone genuinely rapes someone else nonviolently, but is deeply apologetic after the fact and never repeated his mistake, the action was bad but I wouldn’t call him a bad person.

Now if someone is a serial rapist or doesn’t care that they didn’t something bad, then they are for sure a bad person

Just like doing one good deed doesn’t always make you a good person, one bad deed doesn’t always make you a bad person either (depending on the specifics of the situation). It’s the patten of your behavior that dictates if you are generally a good or bad person

[u/mrs-sir-walter-scott → u/DogtorPepper]

Someone knowingly raping another person absolutely makes them a bad person. Rape is one of the worst things you can do to another human. They can do their best to become a better person throughout their life, but they are, in fact, a bad person in that moment and until they put some serious self-work in.

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/DogtorPepper]

 there’s some misunderstanding or he doesn’t hear,

And he doesn’t notice that she has stopped responding?

 rapes someone else nonviolently, but is deeply apologetic

“Nonviolent” != “sexual violation” Saying sorry afterwards doesn’t change things.

   is a serial rapist

Data show most rapists are serial rapists. It’s like drunk driving. By the time someone is caught, it’s a repeated set of behaviors. Not a one-off.

[u/DogtorPepper → u/UpbeatEquipment8832]

Ok sure, serial rapists are very bad people. I don’t think any sane person disagrees with that

But not all people end up as serial rapists and we can’t proactively say someone is going to be a serial rapist.

When faulting someone or judging someone’s character (good or bad), we can only consider what has happened, not what the person could theoretically do

Because if want to talk about theories and hypotheticals about the future, that’s a very slippery slope

Here’s a more concrete example:

Basically 100% of serial rapists are above the age of 10 years old (using the word “basically” because I’m sure someone will find some random obscure exception of a 9yo being a rapist idk).

Does that mean we automatically assume that anyone above 10y is a potential serial rapist and we should automatically judge them as such?

Of course not, it’s ridiculous when put this way but that’s exactly where your logic leads us

[u/Kwaku-Anansi]

Restorative justice advocates only believe in restorative justice until it relates to an issue they feel an emotional connection with. Then they are as bloodthirsty as any retributionist.

From what I've seen majority of people who are typically pro rest justice has been that Geller should be outcast and isolated, and that he be forever marked with 'I'm a rapist.'

Is not liking someone really synonymous with bloodlust? He is a rapist insofar as rapist means "individual that raped someone." You're allowed to dislike someone who has done that. 

You can also be glad that he is "allegedly" rehabilitated and not want extrajudicial harm to come to him, but the concept of justice doesn't enter into personal feelings 

OTOH, you can also doubt his rehabilitation due to the "slap on the wrist" he received 

Also, I think you may be conflating restorative justice (i.e., restoring the victim/individuals impacted by the crime to their previous state) and rehabilitative justice (i.e., reeducation of the offender to avoid a repeat).

Nothing you've said indicates anything done for the victim, so no rehabilitative justice was done

[u/Raspint → u/Kwaku-Anansi]

Is not liking someone really synonymous with bloodlust?

Yeah. If it's "this person should be isolated and removed from the norms of society so that I never have to speak with, or hear about him again" then yes, its doing the same thing that I'm admitting and being open about doing.

My view is that violent criminals are barely human and we can treat them as such. If a murder is so ostracized from society that he's homeless and only has rats for friends and becomes so depressed he kills himself, that is a moral good in my view. But the rest-just advocate would take severe issue with the above dehumanzation of the murderer that I have advocated for.

The whole "if someone rapes someone they should never ever be able to have a public facing job again" is just a more dishonest way to advocate for what I advocated for the above murderer.

Nothing you've said indicates anything done for the victim, so no rehabilitative justice was done

Rest-justice doesn't care what the victim wants.

[u/Away-Research4299]

The "restorative" in restorative justice doesn't stand for restoring the perp's goodness (via accountability or change) but for restoring the victim to their state prior to the crime. Therefore, restorative justice is impossible to attain without the victim's wishes being part of the process. As you say, we don't know what the victim said or wanted. Therefore, your case that this is an example of restorative justice is not backed by sufficient evidence.

Note that I am not saying that this cannot be a case of restorative justice. I am just saying that until and unless we know that the victim's needs have been met, we cannot call it restorative justice. Successful instances of restorative justice have happened, for example, for Dan Harmon. He put forth an apology that, and this is the key part, was accepted by the victim.

[u/Raspint → u/Away-Research4299]

The "restorative" in restorative justice doesn't stand for restoring the perp's goodness (via accountability or change) but for restoring the victim to their state prior to the crime.

That's not true at all. If it were than all rest-just advocates would immediately wash their hands of any murderer. But they don't. Despite what they tell you, rest-just really isn't about fixing the victim or making them better off. It's more about getting the community back on track.

As you say, we don't know what the victim said or wanted. Therefore, your case that this is an example of restorative justice is not backed by sufficient evidence.

I mean true. I'll have to give you a delta because this is very much "we don't know." It's possible the victim despises how this has played out and hates that Geller was able to have a successful career after this. But given she didn't, I think that's unlikely.

∆

But I maintain that the way that the "community" (progressive internet) has reacted to this is a good demonstration that they really are liars when it comes to rest-just. Their attitude is "I believe in rest-justice unless it's a crime that I have a white-hot emotional reaction to then the person should be killed/castrated/banished forever so I and no one else ever has to see them again ever ever!!

[u/Away-Research4299 → u/Raspint]

If it were than all rest-just advocates would immediately wash their hands of any murderer. But they don't. 

The "victim" in this case are the people affected by the murder, since the direct victim is absent. That's why murderers are still "eligible" for restorative justice, just like any other criminal would be.

It's more about getting the community back on track.

Agree. And the community cannot be considered back on track if it ignores the victim. The community welcoming the perp back happens all the time, especially when it comes to sexual violence. That doesn't make it justice of any sort.

[u/Raspint → u/Away-Research4299]

The "victim" in this case are the people affected by the murder, since the direct victim is absent.

So what about if no one is affected by the murder? There are people with no friends or loved ones. Does rest-just saying that killing them is less bad than killing a person with a loving family?

That's why murderers are still "eligible" for restorative justice

What if the victim was a homeless man whose family were all dead and no one cared about?

[u/anarchobuttstuff → u/Raspint]

Some homeless people have families that absolutely would care if they got murdered. It’s just those families couldn’t help the person or save them from themselves, so they decided to keep some distance. Murder of the unhoused can and does leave gaping holes in people’s lives and the fact that you need this explained to you says a lot.

[u/Raspint → u/anarchobuttstuff]

>Some homeless people have families that absolutely would care if they got murdered.

You're avoiding the question. I'm going to ask again:

What if I murdered a homeless man who no one in the world gave a shit about? Because those people do exist. Is killing them less bad then killing someone with a loving family.

>Murder of the unhoused can and does leave gaping holes in people’s lives and the fact that you need this explained to you says a lot.

I don't need it explained to me. You're shadow boxing, you're getting indignant with an argument I never made.

[u/anarchobuttstuff → u/Raspint]

It’s extremely unlikely that literally nobody will care. At the very least it inspires a couple months of increased halfhearted LEO patrols to ease nearby residents’ peace of mind, because most people don’t like it when people can be murdered with impunity. Even homeless people. If someone cuts a random homeless guy’s throat in front of my building, I have no way of knowing who killed them or whether it was random or a crime of passion. If it was random, who’s to say this unhinged murderer won’t do me next because reasons? I’m going to want something done, some kind of response, because my normalcy bias has been compromised.

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/anarchobuttstuff]

 extremely unlikely that literally nobody will care.

You are ignoring the hypothetical, so let me give you another concrete example.

We had an honor killing in my family. (In the US, in an ethnic ghetto, in the past century.) No one in the community spoke up for the woman. All of the children were minors and speaking up would have damaged their lives even further. And none of the wives would speak up because that wasn’t how my family’s culture worked at the time. The woman was an immigrant. Finding her family would have involved going overseas and hunting down a bunch of farmers, assuming they were still alive. When the US government charged the killer with murder, the community raised funds for his defense.

Officially, the community supported the murder of this woman, because it restored social stability. Adultery had (allegedly) been committed. This act restored the family’s honor.

To give you an idea of how little public support there was for this woman, her daughter was a grown adult before a coworker told her that her mother was “a good woman” who didn’t deserve to die. And that phrasing really suggests that the coworker thought her mother was innocent, not that adultery wasn’t a crime punishable by the death sentence.

This was not a woman who would have had public support. And I can add hypotheticals to make the argument stronger: if she were a new bride, fresh off the boat, she would have had neither children nor friends. She could have been an orphan.

It is possible, in a community in the US, to have a murder where the community at large agrees the death was justified.

Or here’s another easier one: Jane Does show up in morgues sporadically. If I’m found with an unrecognized body in my possession, do we need to wait for the decades it takes to identify it for some sort of justice to be delivered?

 I’m going to want  something done,  some  kind of response, because my normalcy bias has been compromised.

Now you are saying that there are more people affected. But we can’t poll all those people, so we need a proxy vote. Maybe we could write rules with recommended sets of punishments for specific crimes, so we don’t have to try to find friends of   dead people. And so we don’t need to deal with community bias - after all, an honor killing that’s a clear cut case of second degree murder looks pretty similar to me shooting a dude who just rear-ended me. I think our justice system shouldn’t go lighter on someone who murders an untouchable (an adulteress or racial minority) than someone who murders a rich well-loved socialite.

[u/Raspint → u/UpbeatEquipment8832]

Holy crap. What an excellent, excellent way to make my argument in a better way than I ever could

I'm serious great stuff here

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/Raspint]

Lol, thank you!

I think there’s a lot to be said about prison sentences and the like, but I don’t think restoration justice advocates have thought through the actual impact of culture - and charisma - upon what people do or don’t consider a crime. 

I’m white, so I’m doubly allowed to disparage my ancestors. Their culture sucked, and I’m glad they are boring Americans now.

[u/Raspint → u/anarchobuttstuff]

Who is "they"

Anyone who claims to be pro rest-just, but wants Geller's channel's deleted.

and why are you assuming they are representatives of rest-just at all

Because this is a mentality I have seen very often. Where people who are normally progressive on criminality take a massive shift when it comes to sexual crimes.

I’m going to want something done, some kind of response, because my normalcy bias has been compromised.

So murder is bad because of how it upsets your piece of mind? Is that what you are saying? Because if so That is a very disturbing thing to have someone admit.

[u/anarchobuttstuff → u/Raspint]

You’re responding to two different people. The first two points you quoted aren’t from me.

To answer your third question which was actually in response to something I said, I’m merely using myself as an example, not holding up my comfort or value judgement as the be all end all. Most peoples’ peace of mind is upset by murder, even if they didn’t know the victim personally. I was just giving you an example of how the concept of restorative justice can still be applied to folks on the furthest margins of society.

[u/Raspint → u/anarchobuttstuff]

u/anarchobuttstuff, I hope I'm not pestering you but u/UpbeatEquipment8832 gave a very strong response to this rebuttal of yours. I know that life is busy, but I'm really curious if you have anything to say about this?

Tldr: Your point in this exchange with me is that it's wrong to harm people because of the harm it does to the people around the victim when the victim themselves are dead. Well, what if the community around that victim actually endorses what happened to them? Yes even if that includes the family of that victim who endorse the murder?

In your view, has a crime even happened here? Is justice something that needs to be done at all?

Because in my views the answer is YES, 100% a crime and an injustice that needs to be rectified and punished has occurred. But according to you, "The "victim" in this case are the people affected by the murder, since the direct victim is absent." And I don't see how you can answer "yes" to my question?

[u/DNAquila → u/Raspint]

I think you might have confused the ideas of restorative and rehabilitative justice. Restorative justice is about attempting to undo the harm to the aggrieved party, while rehabilitative justice is about reforming the offender into a law-abiding citizen.

[u/Philosophy_Negative → u/DNAquila]

I would say that the system we have now is largely punitive, not rehabilitative.

[u/hacksoncode → u/Raspint]

for restoring the victim to their state prior to the crime.

That's not true at all.

I really don't get where you are coming from here.

Repairing the harm to the victims via a dialogue with the offender is the definition of the term.

The weird part is that you think it has anything to do with Rehabilitative Justice other than the statistics indicating that it tends to help with rehabilitation and not re-offending.

I will admit, though, lots of online people seem very confused about what Restorative Justice actually means.

As for the murderer thing: the families and friends are also victims, and are the target of Restorative Justice in those cases.

Despite what they tell you, rest-just really isn't about fixing the victim

You're basically saying they're lying about what they want. But if that's true... why would this example you give have any effect on whether they believe what they claim.

Indeed, the lack of any restorative actions to the victim justifies their reaction if and only if they actually do mean that.

I.e. The Jacob Geller incident refutes your claim that they don't really mean what they say restorative justice is, and reinforces their claim.

[u/Raspint → u/hacksoncode]

for restoring the victim to their state prior to the crime.

I'm confused, isn't this me responding to someone else's point? I didn't type out " for restoring the victim to their state prior to the crime" here.

Repairing the harm to the victims via a dialogue with the offender is the definition of the term.

You know I will say I've always found this idea funny that it's treated as such a wonderful idea. Like someone hurts/traumatizes you in a profound way and the response is "Hey, let's sit you and the offender in the room together."

Like, how many victims never ever want to see their attacker again? Like I personally was a child when bad shit happened to me, and what? The rest-just person is going to insist on me being put in the same room to talk to someone who I probably hate and am terrified off in equal measure?

And everyone's accepted that rest-just is the "let's not retraumatize and value the victim" mentality. It's not quite as odd to me when people say with a straight face that Donald Trump is a Christian president, but it's the same sports league.

the families and friends are also victims, and are the target of Restorative Justice in those cases.

I dont' believe this, because rest-just types never endorse it when families are like "Okay, we want this person killed in the same way they killed our loved one."

It also raises the issue of rest-just advocates implicitly think that the murder of a person with no family or friends is less bad than killing someone with a lovely family. Which again, rest-just people don't say outloud because they know it sounds insane.

[u/ChaosWaffle → u/Raspint]

But I maintain that the way that the "community" (progressive internet) has reacted to this is a good demonstration that they really are liars when it comes to rest-just. Their attitude is "I believe in rest-justice unless it's a crime that I have a white-hot emotional reaction to then the person should be killed/castrated/banished forever so I and no one else ever has to see them again ever ever!!

I want to address this specifically. The voices you see in cases like this are the loudest and most angry, and shouldn't necessarily be construed as indicative of an entire belief system as they tend to drown out those who aren't angry and don't want retribution. I do agree that those people don't really fully believe in restorative justice in this case, and not everyone always sticks to their beliefs in the heat of the moment across political values and beliefs, humans are complex and many people hold contradictory beliefs at the same time. I personally think the whole situation was handled extremely poorly especially given we have basically no details of what actually happened and the actual victim was not consulted, but I'm not posting about it all over the Internet. Meanwhile a single person could be talking about this all day trying to deplatform and ostracize Geller and would make it look like people like me don't exist even if there were thousands of people that shared my view for every one loud voice opposing (I don't necessarily think that's the case, but I have no idea, I'd bet most people probably don't even know about this specific case).

[u/Raspint → u/ChaosWaffle]

I think you have a point here, in that the people I'm talking about do exist and very much are hypocrites. I think with this cmv I wanted to talk about that contradiction that I've seen and I dislike, but you're probably right there are people who are rest-just and don't want Geller to have to live the rest of his life hiding under the covers isolated from society as much as possible.

[u/Philosophy_Negative → u/Raspint]

What's your source for that definition of restorative justice?

[u/mlljf → u/Philosophy_Negative]

Yeah I think OP is confused about what restorative justice is and/or is confusing it for rehabilitation…

[u/scarab456 → u/mlljf]

That would explain a few things about their responses.

[u/RickRussellTX → u/Raspint]

Can you give some sort of formal definition? Who are you challenging when you say "despite what they tell you"?

unless it's a crime that I have a white-hot emotional reaction to then the person should be killed/castrated/banished forever

How would you demonstrate that there is a significant population of restorative justice believers/advocates who are calling for Geller's execution, castration, or banishment?

[u/DeltaBot → u/Raspint]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Away-Research4299 (1∆).

^{[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem}) ^{| [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards})

[u/eefr]

Geller never raped anyone again.

I think you mean: he has never been publicly accused of raping someone again. Whether he has is unknown.

I note that facing social consequences for your actions is in no way inconsistent with restorative justice.

[u/bluewolfhudson → u/eefr]

Legally and officially he never raped any one at all.

At no point has been been accused of or noted as raping someone.

What he was listed as doing was sexual assault and that is an extremely broad thing.

Not sure if he can be believed but sounds as well like he turned himself in after talking to the victim.

[u/Raspint → u/eefr]

Whether he has is unknown.

Whether or not you have raped anyone is unknown. Sure, maybe he has. As in, there is a non-zero possibility, but that's not the issue.

I note that facing social consequences for your actions is in no way inconsistent with restorative justice.

If those social consequences are "You must isolate yourself and ensure that your existence is a quiet and inconsequential" then yes it is. Rest-just is all about reintegrating the offender back into the community.

[u/eefr → u/Raspint]

Whether or not you have raped anyone is unknown. 

Yes, to you it is indeed unknown. If you based your argument on the assumption that I had or hadn't, someone would be quite justified in calling you out for it. 

[u/Raspint → u/eefr]

If you based your argument on the assumption that I had or hadn't, someone would be quite justified in calling you out for it.

No they wouldn't be. I shouldn't assume or insinuate you have raped anyone until I see evidence to suggest otherwise.

[u/TraditionalEcho4106 → u/eefr]

We can only work off the facts we know. Also, it would appear Geller faced professional consequences in addition to the social ones. I understand his job is public facing, so maybe that’s inevitable.

[u/eefr → u/TraditionalEcho4106]

We can only work off the facts we know.

Yes, and this is precisely why you shouldn't be making definitive declarations about facts you do not know. 

Also, it would appear Geller faced professional consequences in addition to the social ones.

Professional consequences are part of social consequences in my mind. Restorative justice is about the legal processes between the state, the defendant, and the victim. It does not oblige independent third parties to like, endorse, platform, hire, or listen to the defendant; they are entitled to choose for themselves which people they want to platform or work with or listen to.

[u/TraditionalEcho4106 → u/eefr]

To your first point, I’m not sure I’m comfortable treating everyone as a potential rapist, even though I know it’s a possibility. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, though.

For the second point, I’ll admit I’m going off the restorative justice script, but there’s evidence that ex-cons are more likely to reoffend when they struggle to take part in society. Job opportunities are helpful to keep them off that path, hence my emphasis on professional opportunities.

But nothing says Geller needs to have a public facing job, and the social aspects of his crime might preclude it. He’s not a victim just because he has consequences.

[u/UncleMeat11]

Apologizing to his fans is not restoration. Did he do something to restore his victim? Has he spent substantial time and money benefiting battered women shelters? "I feel bad about it" is not what restorative justice means.

Further, it seems like he was completely content just keeping this quiet forever. How does that work?

[u/Raspint → u/UncleMeat11]

Did he do something to restore his victim?

Possibly. We don't know.

Has he spent substantial time and money benefiting battered women shelters?

I think he's literally done charity streams that send money to abuse shelters and stuff.

"I feel bad about it" is not what restorative justice means.

That's a dismissive way to characterize this.

Further, it seems like he was completely content just keeping this quiet forever. How does that work?

Because he paid his "debt." Rest-just (and hell, even my own bloodthirsty sense of justice) doesn't require he wear a sandwich board saying "I'm a rapist" for forever. When the punishment is done it's done.

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/Raspint]

Possibly. We don't know.

That seems rather critical to understanding whether any sort of restorative justice has been attempted.

That's a dismissive way to characterize this.

I genuinely do not understand the difference.

Because he paid his "debt."

How? I really don't understand. Are you saying that his suspension from college paid the debt?

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

Restorative justice means allowing people back into society. That means addressing the fact that he's done a terrible think that some people are going to find irredeemable.

It's like freedom of speech.

Restorative justice means that the legal system will try to find a way for you to re-enter society where possible. It doesn't protect you against the views of people in society about what you did.

In fact, this is part of it. People being able to say that he deserves to burn, and being able to express anger about what he did and to isolate and shun him means that he is allowed to start again. The burden on those who are most affected is relieved because they aren't obligated to rehabilitate him. They can want him to rot in a cell. He gets to re-enter wider society and he gets to try and live life, knowing that people know what he did. This in turn hopefully keeps him away from danger and makes him less likely to reoffend and gives the community a degree of being able to consent to having him return.

[u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

Participating in society requires one to not be shunned en masse by the general public. Ignoring this specific case for a moment, I think it's a useful thought experiment to imagine a society where everyone knows what crimes everyone else has been convicted of and the vast majority of people refuse to associate with criminals who have been convicted of certain crimes. Are those criminals really being let back into society? I'd argue not.

It is, of course, everyone's right to accept the past actions of someone or not, but it does seem like it would be a logical contradiction to support reintegration of criminals into society while also refusing to associate with criminals who committed any crimes you believe to be sufficiently bad, regardless of their character or behaviour since their crimes.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot]

Well, there is no legal barrier to it.

We have no real protection against the social barrier for those who haven't committed crimes, so they're only being subjected to the same society as anyone else.

Also, this is what the social safety net is for. When there is a bottom on society, people stop falling and hopefully are given an opportunity to rebuild their lives. Especially when that safety net includes opportunities to get into work and reintegrate.

In many states, there is also the eventual clearing of crimes, so not everything has to be reported.

[u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

We have no real protection against the social barrier for those who haven't committed crimes, so they're only being subjected to the same society as anyone else.

This is where I'd disagree. Social interaction is essential to our lives and has a strong effect on mental health. If you are being shunned by lots of people, you aren't experiencing the same society as everyone else.

Especially when that safety net includes opportunities to get into work and reintegrate.

Well except that you can't reintegrate into society if nobody is willing to associate with you. Employers can choose not to hire you based on your history. People can choose not to talk to you based on it, or not serve you at shops. That's why I posed my thought experiment. If I imagine a society where the vast majority shares similar opinions regarding criminals, and that opinion is one where criminals who have committed some set of crimes are irredeemable and should not be associated with, then it's impossible to truly rehabilitate anyone who has committed one of those crimes because they will always be missing out on a fundamental aspect of human life.

If someone has this opinion and also believes more broadly that criminals should be re-integrated into society, it either means they have a double standard where they expect others to socialize with criminals but aren't willing to do it themselves, or they don't really believe that criminals should be rehabilitated if they've committed one of the crimes they consider bad enough. Now, I haven't seen OP demonstrate that this person actually exists or exists in large numbers, but if they do I would use this logic to consider their positions as either internally inconsistent or setting a double standard, which is quite akin to an internal inconsistency.

In many states, there is also the eventual clearing of crimes.

Well, but not the social consequences. It would be difficult, unethical, and unconstitutional to mandate that the social consequences of crime disappear, so nobody is ever truly free of all the punishments.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot]

I guess my question is just "What do you want?".

We don't actually live in that society. There are a few critical moments when you might need to make it known, but otherwise your record is your problem.

Also, I think we actually don't care as a society. There are a few people who feel particularly strongly about the crimes people commit but many popular figures in public life get away with all sorts and we don't cancel them. A lot of others say they're "cancelled" and actually just are doing the same thing for fewer people.

Likewise, how many criminals have you met? If you found out that someone had done some things, would you still be able to accept them?

It's relatively dependent on who they are. But seriously, you don't care all that much what the person behind the counter was arrested for. You care they do their job well. There are some crimes that I think it's difficult to get social consent for (pedophiles being one of the big ones) and that's a problem, but that's kind of my point. You have to work with society to allow people to re-enter it.

It's hard to argue that the social barrier is unfair, given that there are many ways to hit the social barrier and often they're not your fault. Try having a disability. Get sick for a bit. Go into debt. Get addicted to a legal drug.

It's also a relatively temporary and relatively negotiable problem for most minor crimes.

[u/Raspint → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

>Well, there is no legal barrier to it.

That doesn't matter. Rest-just is not only about the legal court system.

>We have no real protection against the social barrier for those who haven't committed crimes, so they're only being subjected to the same society as anyone else.

One of the major goals of rest-just is for soceity to change their attitude towards offenders. That includes those outside the specific legal system.

This is like saying that anti-racists are only concerend with on paper, legal descrimiation. When of course they are also concerned with like, interpersonal social stuff.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Raspint]

You're identifying that these are two completely separate things to be concerned with. That means two completely different ways of handling it.

A critical element of restorative justice is getting societal consent to allow criminals to re-enter society. If you don't have that, then it's kind of impossible to do. Otherwise, like with racism, they might just resort to vigilante justice.

Having legally set former criminals to the same rights as everyone else, societal consent requires that they are managed and monitored, that they don't get special treatment, and that they can be identitied as necessary.

There are also justifiable reasons to not let certain criminals into certain places. Do you think a pedophile should work in a school?

I think you need to articulate what you think the system is missing for us to have a proper discussion about it.

[u/Raspint → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

You're identifying that these are two completely separate things to be concerned with. That means two completely different ways of handling it.

No. I'm saying that rest-just tackles and is concerned with both of these.

If you don't have that, then it's kind of impossible to do. Otherwise, like with racism, they might just resort to vigilante justice.

Omg no they don't. The response is "Let's change people's attitudes so they are more accepting of these people and no longer dehumanize offenders."

There are also justifiable reasons to not let certain criminals into certain places. Do you think a pedophile should work in a school?

This is a terrible, terrible, horrible counter for you to make. Because the reasons you don't want a pedophile to work in a school are immensely different from why rape survivors wouldn't want Geller making youtube video essays.

Can you imagine what that difference is?

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Raspint]

You don't seem to have understood anything I've said.

Tackling both of these does not mean having to tackle them in the same fashion.

Trying to change society's attitude?

Why was that necessary?

Is it because there is no restorative justice without societal consent?

So, exactly nothing is preventing Jacob Geller from participating in society besides people not watching his videos as much?

The complaints you actually have are a lot shallower, I think, than I initially anticipated.

Quite simply, nobody's opinion matters on this, he has been allowed back into society.

However he doesn't get to enjoy a privileged place in society. He is a content creator. He is reliant on people wanting to watch his videos. Now he's done something horrible, people are far less inclined to watch his videos. That's fine. That's consent. Sure, they were happy to watch the videos of a guy who seemed like a decent person. They found out what he did, and they no longer want to watch his videos. Nobody is burning down his studio or whatever. And if they did, he has the same rights as everyone else, that's a crime.

[u/Raspint → u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot]

>I think it's a useful thought experiment to imagine a society where everyone knows what crimes everyone else has been convicted of and the vast majority of people refuse to associate with criminals who have been convicted of certain crimes. Are those criminals really being let back into society? I'd argue not.

This is an excellent way of putting it. Thank you.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Raspint]

You mean like all the celebrities that have done awful things and continue to have long and profitable careers?

This is proof if anything that if we did know all that we probably wouldn't care too much about it.

[u/RevolutionaryHole69 → u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot]

How do you propose we control society in this way? There is nothing that can be rationally done to prevent people's opinions forming about a rapist. They can have all the legal protections they want, but people are still going to find them disgusting. There is nothing that can be done about that.

ANYONE can be shunned or bullied by society, and in most cases, there is not a thing anyone or the law or the government can do about it.

That's fairness. The rapist is being subjected to the same fundamental societal possibilities as anyone else.

[u/InspiredNameHere → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

Unfortunately, if someone is so shunned from society, that life itself becomes problematic, I can see them easily just sliding back into crime to stay afloat.

Not here to argue for or against the crime of this person in question, but only that the idea that letting the court of public opinion have at this person could be far more dangerous than any jail could be.

Plus, the public arent exactly well known for measured and respectable steps in working with people considered criminals. The law should be there to protect a criminal from the public, just as much as the public should be protected from the criminal.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/InspiredNameHere]

None of what you've said disagrees with me.

Also, people are offered a chance in society. Unfortunately society doesn't have free jobs. It's unfair to coerce people into working with or hiring criminals just as it's unfair to decide they can't re-enter society.

This is really an argument for a good social safety net which also provides opportunities to work to contribute to society.

This kind of means that everyone who really wanted to work gets a chance to do so.

[u/InspiredNameHere → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

Not really looking to get into a big dialog here, but from what I recall (not an expert), there are laws on the books that protect excons during the job process. Again, might be wrong here, so dont quote me on it.

But my post is more to do with vigilante justice, and the court of public opinions than society allowing a convict back in. If enough people dox an excon, or make their lives harsh and cruel, then I can see the excon hust going back into prison through one reaon or another to fit in with people they can relate to.

But thats just an opinion. I dont have recidivism bumbers available, only how I think people would react if the world turns against them.

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

It's unfair to coerce people into working with or hiring criminals just as it's unfair to decide they can't re-enter society.

Funny. I’d thought many advocates were fighting for “ban the box” legislation. Justifiably, because the people who check the box have served their debt to society. Unlike, say, the people who are allowed to wander free without consequence.

I worked with a pedophile in grad school. He never got jail time. He left his field, but he’s got a recognizable name, and I still fight off the temptation to dox him. He’d made the Chicago Tribune, but it turns out the internet isn’t forever. Had he served a day in prison, I’d feel otherwise. But he never faced consequences for what he did.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/UpbeatEquipment8832]

I also think those people are entitled to their views. We should listen to them, and then probably ignore that advice.

I get the stress of having to report your crimes, but that's ultimately your cross to bear. Your employer has a right to know that much.

What do you actually know about the pedophile?

I presume if you did out him, you could expect him to try and sue for libel.

Also, there probably is an archive somewhere. If you actually know, then you could probably dig it out. That said, you want to be very sure it's him and they can prove it before you do something stupid.

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

So we should let these people wander the streets. We’re free to hate them (that’s the “restorative justice part”, apparently), but not to actually keep them locked up so we feel safe. But - good news - we can ensure that they are unemployed and unsheltered! We’re going to compensate for that by implementing UBI, which hasn’t been done in the US on a wide scale, and I assume public housing, which definitely won’t become known as a shelter for criminals and avoided by everyone else.

What do you actually know about the pedophile?

That he (Kevin Kreisel), in 2008, decided to cheat on his pregnant and postpartum wife. Amongst the several women and girls he reached out to were a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl. And because our university was not allowed to fire him for being charge with a crime, I was stuck in a position where, should I wish to continue with my PhD, I would have had to work with this man at late hours of the night with no guards around. No rest-just nonsense would have applied at this point because the man had not faced trial yet. And we are not allowed to fire people who are accused of crimes for obvious reasons.

(Late hours are expected in grad school; the instruments I used were available in large blocks of time only at night, as they were used in shorter segments by others during the day.)

The police report is the sort of thing that required brain bleach, but there are enough minor details that match with what I saw for me to believe it’s accurate.

So I know quite a bit. He hasn’t been charged again, so he’s probably safe, but he was let off without prison time, and I have not forgotten that fact.

[u/UpbeatEquipment8832 → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

 The burden on those who are most affected is relieved because they aren't obligated to rehabilitate him. They can want him to rot in a cell.

Good news! Our current system also doesn’t require affected people to rehabilitate someone. And they can want him to rot in a cell and get their wish answered!

 hopefully keeps him away from danger  

I mean, Brooke Allen Turner, the rapist whose swimming prospects were enough to keep him out of prison, is definitely helped by the fact that no one thinks his sentence was long enough. And his notoriety has definitely prevented him from vigilante justice.

 makes him less likely to reoffend 

Do we have evidence of this?

and gives the community a degree of being able to consent to having him return.

“A degree.” But not actually a degree, because it’s society’s responsibility to let him back into society, regardless of how anyone actually feels about it.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/UpbeatEquipment8832]

I'm not sure what your line of thinking is. I guess you've mistaken me for an activist which is just not my position.

I'm describing the current system.

We have rehabilitation and we have restorative justice.

The law tries to appropriately sentence people according to what they have done (obviously there are some questionable sentences that don't spark joy).

At the same time we try to balance the law and avoid giving in to our most extreme reactions. We can and should want people to return and make a better go of it.

There are failures in the law, but there are a lot more reasons it goes wrong than just woke judges and juries thinking they don't want to punish people.

[u/Raspint → u/Open-Butterfly-5288]

That means addressing the fact that he's done a terrible think that some people are going to find irredeemable.

If you (general you) find it irredeemable than that means you don't believe in rest-justice though. Full stop.

It doesn't protect you against the views of people in society about what you did.

True, but doesn't it protect you against, say, getting fired because of a criminal record? If I got fired from my job because I was a felon who had served my time, a rest-justice advocate would likely rush to my defence.

[u/Open-Butterfly-5288 → u/Raspint]

The good news is none of this is based on my personal opinion. Steal my car and I may want you locked up forever.

That's not up to me. Society has to reintegrate you back into it. There is no burden on individuals to believe you're redeemable. It's a state burden to do that and try to bring you back in.

In most places your employer is allowed to ask for honest information before you get hired. Usually they will wait for your information before you get hired. This allows them to make a decision on whether they think you're an appropriate hire. Unless there is a specific context that prohibits a criminal record, there is no rule saying you can't be hired by most companies.

The realistic outlook is that you don't get hired, if that's something the employer thinks should stop you. Alternatively, some employers do appreciate ex cons because they are ex cons. They need the job so they do it well because they actually want to be there as opposed to prison.

The context of you getting fired for criminal record is that you lied about your background and they found something else out. So, it's not clear what the lawyer would do besides say "Yeah, this is because you were lying about it". Also, in the US, there are a lot of at will states. If they really want to fire you, they don't have to give much of a reason. In places with better protections, they just have to establish a pattern so that they can follow process to get you fired unless you're on probation in which case they just fire you.

[u/navis-svetica]

No one is entitled to fame, attention and an audience. You can’t force someone to like you, people like or dislike other people for a wide range of logical, illogical, objective and subjective reasons.

If you’re a public figure like a YouTuber, whose career depends on people liking you, you are unfortunately inevitably at the mercy of public perception. People have every right to not want to watch or support you anymore, at any time, for any reason. This has nothing to do with ’restorative justice’, obviously a person’s treatment in the legal system should be just and appropriate for their crimes, but you are not owed forgiveness or sympathy from ordinary people.

If you get charged with pedophilia, get sentenced, serve your punishment and get released, is it hypocritical for people who say they believe in restorative justice to not want you anywhere near their kids? Is it unreasonable, even if they truly and honestly believe you have reformed and would never do something like that again, if they can’t ever trust you the same way they would trust a ’normal’ person again?

[u/ThomasHardyHarHar]

To begin with, your argument is based on too many assumptions. He has not acknowledged it as rape. He said sexual assault, as did the university. All rape is sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape. We don’t know what he did, partly because that’s a massive violation of the victim’s privacy. We really cannot say whether he’s faced anything close to a just punishment, or whether he learned anything.

Moreover, you’re focusing on likelihood of reoffending as evidence of successful punishment. That’s one of many things that makes people shun rapists and other sexual assaulters. A huge part of it is moral revulsion and disgust. People are disgusted by how casually somebody can victimize people, and how they create lifelong trauma in victims.

[u/Amazing_Loquat280]

Ah, a generalization. How does this apply to anyone who hasn’t responded to this in the way you described?

Also, big difference between restorative justice in a court of law vs court of public opinion

[u/Raspint → u/Amazing_Loquat280]

rest-just advocates never intend for their ideas to stop at the court of law.

If a drug addict was let out of jail, but shunned by his community so he could not get a job, or socialize, or do the things that humans need to do to enjoy life, a rest-just advocate would get up in arms about that.

[u/udcvr → u/Raspint]

I don't think you know the views of this group you're talking about as well as you think you do.

Restorative justice is defined as justice focused on repairing the harm caused rather than punishing the offender. The rest is highly variable, and it can look like so many different things. Many people subscribe to the line of thought that offenders should be rehabilitated and almost anyone is redeemable to be accepted back into society. Others don't mind so much what happens to the offender in society, as long as the justice system alone is focused on repair rather than punishment. Some think that some particular crimes should lead to permanent incarceration regardless/are uniquely irredeemable, since not all crimes are equal, but that the impact of this should be about harm reduction rather than punishment still.

It's not remotely as strict as you're putting it - not to mention you seem to be subscribing this rest-just belief to any person who hates Geller on the internet and I'm not sure how you'd even know they believed in rest-just in the first place. It's the Goomba fallacy, is it not?

[u/Amazing_Loquat280 → u/Raspint]

They might, and they’d be well within their rights to express disappointment/anger about it. But at the end of the day, nobody HAD to engage with Geller’s content anyway, and no law/court order should be permitted to change that.

There’s a broad misconception in general that our laws should reflect our beliefs on what living morally should look like. It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t. In reality, rest-just does not have to be a moral belief, it can merely be a policy belief. Take me for example: I think that rest-just is frankly smart policy if your goal is to minimize crime/poverty/prevalence of reoffenders. It is a belief pertaining specifically to what the court ought to do with the very unique power granted to it. I don’t have to belief people “deserve” second chances and the opportunity to do some good via their sentence to believe that doing so from a legal perspective works.

I also don’t believe that this fact obligates anyone to grant it or respect the fact that someone else already has, beyond what the law otherwise requires. Geller was given a second chance via having the opportunity to settle and continue living his life. His second chance isn’t actively being taken away, he was given a second chance and chose to become a youtuber. This was always a risk

[u/PandaMime_421]

Let me start by saying I'm approaching this more so from a philosophical perspective than with direct knowledge / experience.

It would seem to be that you are conflating two different issues.

Does restorative justice require that once someone has been sufficiently rehabilitated they be give a public platform? Seems to me the goal is to rehabilitate a person so they are no longer danger to others and can contribute to society. At that point their sentence (as applied by the justice system) can end and they should not be discriminated against when it comes to obtaining housing, employment, etc.

You might argue that because Geller employment his tied to him having a public platform he is being discriminated against when it comes to employment. I disagree, though. As long as he can still find gainful employment that is not public facing / requires a public platform, then I don't see this as employment discrimination. No one is guaranteed their preferred type of employment.

Isn't restorative justice about the systemic approach to justice (justice system, government protections from discrimination, etc)? Are restorative justice advocates trying to restrict what the public is allowed to think/feel about a person whose sentence has been served and is deemed as having been rehabilitated?

[u/Raspint → u/PandaMime_421]

Does restorative justice require that once someone has been sufficiently rehabilitated they be give a public platform?

He wasn't 'given' one. He made one. Youtube is the modern equivalent of going to the forum and speaking your mind. I might think rapists deserve things I can't type out here, but they also deserve to be able to keep doing that after they have given their pound of flesh.

People often misunderstand what is meant by 'platform/platforming.' Video essays are giving your opinion/argument/analysis on something. Even rapists have the right to do that for the public.

Moving beyond rest-just, this is just a point of democracy. And it's actually somewhere I think I can see eye-to-eye with rest-justice. A common criticism of our criminal justice system is how prisoners are often barred from public engagement.

To say after someone serves their punishment that they ought to be bared from going to the marketplace forum (youtube) is an anti-democratic idea.

Seems to me the goal is to rehabilitate a person so they are no longer danger to others and can contribute to society

The idea that Geller should be bared from any sort of public facing job is specifically against the idea that he ought to be able to contribute to society. That's the hypocracy of rest-just advocates.

And it's likely just a hypocracy that is born out of personal sensitivity to the issue of sex crimes. If Geller had of killed a man in a bar fight, or pistol whipped a gas station clerk so badly he could never walk again ten years ago and had never done so since and "paid" for it, the urge to "deplatform" him would not be as strong as it is now.

As long as he can still find gainful employment that is not public facing / requires a public platform, then I don't see this as employment discrimination.

Yes it is. You are saying that Geller no longer has the right to speak at the market place forum. You're dehumanizing criminals in way that even me, in all my pathological hatred of criminals, don't do.

[u/PandaMime_421 → u/Raspint]

He wasn't 'given' one. He made one. 

No. No one "creates" their own public platform. It exists because the public grants it. If the public never chose to watch/follow him then he'd never have had his platform to begin with. And the public can just as easily choose to remove this platform they've given him.

[u/Raspint → u/PandaMime_421]

No. No one "creates" their own public platform.

He made his essays. Not the public.

If the public never chose to watch/follow him then he'd never have had his platform to begin with

Sure. But he's still allowed to go to the market place and speak at the forum even if it's just to the wind.

[u/PandaMime_421 → u/Raspint]

Sure. But he's still allowed to go to the market place and speak at the forum even if it's just to the wind.

Yes, and no one is preventing that. I've not seen YouTube ban him web hosting companies refusing to host a website for his works. He can try to continue putting his work out, but without an audience his platform is gone.

[u/math2ndperiod]

Deplatformed and dehumanized aren’t the same thing. Perfectly reasonable to be against locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life while not believing they should be able to just return to their exact living conditions prior to whatever offense occurred.

[u/Raspint → u/math2ndperiod]

Deplatformed and dehumanized aren’t the same thing

They are actually. All Geller did was make video essays where he spoke his mind. That's it. It's the modern equivalent of going to the market place or forum and saying what you think, and attracting whatever audience cares to listen to you.

Deplatforming is used against people specifically promoting toxic worldviews, like Alex Jones or Andrew Tate. Geller was not doing anything like that. The content of his message or views does not make the world a worse place.

The whole "he doesn't deserve a platform!" line is just a fancy way of saying "I want him isolated in a way that I never have to hear from, or about him ever again. He does not have a right to speak or make commentary."

It's 2026. The whole "They are not allowed on youtube!" is the equivalent of banning someone from going to the market place to talk about whatever issues they think are important. Not only is it anti rest-just, I'd even say it's anti-democratic.

By all means, take Geller's pound of flesh (literally) if that's what the victim wants. But once that is over then it is done. If you take your punishment you're supposed to be able to reengage with society. Even my pathological punisher-esq criminal hating butt knows that.

[u/DancingWithAWhiteHat]

How does his victim feel about this?

And I don't mean this as the usual fuck you response to restorative justice demands. Its actually a serious question.

The first step of restorative justice is asking the victim what they want. You need the victim's consent to begin the restorative justice process. And then you need to work with the victim to create a vision of what the restorative justice process will look like for the perpetrator. 

Jacob Gellers victim was not consulted. Nobody got her consent to begin the restorative justice process. And without her consent, restorative justice does not apply, you are just advocating for leniency. 

So tl:dr restorative justice does not apply here. 

[u/Raspint → u/DancingWithAWhiteHat]

The first step of restorative justice is asking the victim what they want.

That's incorrect. Or rather it's false advertising from the rest-just person. Because if you ask the victim what they "want" and if the victim says "I want my rapist to be raped himself/castrated/put to death" then the rest-just advocate goes "We don't do that here" and tries to brow-beat the victim into being a "good" victim for some hEaLiNg bullshit.

[u/NoWin3930]

So what restorative justice took place? It is not clear from the post

[u/xfearthehiddenx → u/NoWin3930]

I'm confused by this too. I understand restorative justice as the punishment of the perpetrator being part of restoring the victim to whole, or as close to it as possible. Restorative justice would be paying for a car you damaged, scrubbing the graffiti off of a wall you tagged, etc. I'm generally for this kind of punishment for lesser crimes, where restoring the victim to whole can eliminate the hardship from the crime.

OP seems to be referring to rehabilitative justice. The process by which the perpetrator is given a sentence and punishment meant to help them eventually return as a productive member of society. Something I also believe in for, probably most crimes, actually.

I wonder if OP is confusing the two.

[u/GonzoTheGreat93]

What part of this sequence

<“Geller raped someone.

Geller owned up to this and acknowledged it as rape.

Geller faced consequences most of us (me included) consider too light.

Geller never raped anyone again.”>

Do you consider restorative?

This is a textbook example of penal justice, there is no aspect of this that at all resembles “restoration.” Restoration means repairing harm, through respect, building relationships, taking responsibility, then reintegration.

You’ve provided no evidence that there’s been any repair, relationship, or respect. Just taking responsibility.

Until you provide evidence for this being “restorative” the rest of this post is useless.

[u/Raspint → u/GonzoTheGreat93]

Do you consider restorative?

The part where it was made clear to him what he did wrong and he never did it again.

through respect, building relationship

This something I've never gotten. A rest-just response to rape is to put the victim in the same room with a person she likely never wants to see again and force her to 'build a relationship' with her rapist?

I don't understand how rest-just gets to pretend to be the 'pro victim' stance when it advocates for things like that.

You’ve provided no evidence that there’s been any repair

Yeah I have. Geller not raping anymore and now being anti-rape.

[u/GonzoTheGreat93 → u/Raspint]

Refraining from further infractions isn’t restorative justice (its literally the bare minimum of rehabilitation) and by this point I fear that you have no idea what restorative justice means.

And “being anti-rape” is an easy stance to take in the abstract, he hasn’t, to my knowledge, done anything to repair the specific harms.

Frankly, I don’t know much about this case save for what you wrote and a quick google, and by that measure you haven’t made any sort of case that even whiffs the very well defined parameters of restorative justice.

It seems to me you think that restorative justice means… we didn’t execute him and he was allowed to reenter society. Which is not what rest-just is.

The whole point of rest-just, especially for assault cases, is for the victim to heal, through reestablishing their agency. By focusing on what this guy did and went through, you’re demonstrating a lack of care for the victims agency, which is fundamentally not rest-just.

[u/arky_who]

The core of restorative justice is not about making sure it never happens again, but for the victim's welfare to be put front and centre, for their situation to be restored.

I wasn't close to the geller case, but i did know another youtuber who was a rapist, and a key demand from the victims was for the rapist to not have a position of influence that youtube afforded them. A key sign that the rapist was engaging with a restorative process is that their youtube channel would be deleted and that never happened

I don't want blood from rapists (unless necessary), but i want them not to be in positions of authority or influence

[u/h4ckerkn0wnas4chan → u/arky_who]

The issue with this case that ruins your argument is Jacob Geller only attained any popularity after his crime.

His crime was in 2016. He only really started achieving any level of fame or success in 2018. He plainly and clearly didn't use his influence for the crime, so why is he expected from you to delete all his social media and become the equivalent of a social binman?

[u/Raspint → u/arky_who]

, but for the victim's welfare to be put front and centre, for their situation to be restored.

No it's not. If it where then murder would be a 'whatever' case for them. Go talk to any rest-just person anywhere other than this post and they will tell you that "Ensure this never happens again!" Is like, one of the THE major goals of the whole project.

[u/mlljf → u/Raspint]

What are you meaning when you say ‘restorative justice?’ Restorative justice is a model that, with the victims consent, works to address their needs, sometimes involving the perp in this. Are you talking about rehabilitation in general?? 

[u/Raspint → u/mlljf]

What are you meaning when you say ‘restorative justice?’

Broadly: A system of justice that focuses on rehabilitation and community engagement. Offenders are not "punished" because punishment for punishment's sake is considered a moral bad. Goal is to have the offender understand why their action was wrong, and work to repair that action. Ultimate goal is to have society/community repaired and reintegration of offender into community.

Claims to care about and center the victim, but cares much more about the community. If the victim wants blood or torture of the offender, they are a bad victim and can be dismissed (the last two sentences is my addition of what I think of this cuck worldivew).

[u/adnaj26 → u/Raspint]

You’re simply wrong about the definition of restorative justice. It is not true at all that the ultimate goal of restorative justice is to reintegrate the offender into the community, or that it focuses primarily on offender rehabilitation. You can read the definition on Wikipedia, on the website for the National Center for Restorative Justice, in several law schools’ literature on the subject, etc. These are just the first few sources that come up disproving you when you google this.

[u/mlljf → u/Raspint]

You are referencing a pro-rehabilitation belief. That is not ‘restorative justice.’  A very quick Google search will clarify that:  https://ncorj.org/what-is-restorative-justice/

[u/anononobody]

Hmm. Two things.

1) the faculty letting him go easy IS restorative justice, plus we have no idea why his punishment was less severe as others on the list. If your argument is that people are hypocrites when they argue for restorative justice but are also against how these colleges treat sex crimes in campus, then you may have an argument there.

2) But him being "cancelled" has nothing to do with restorative justice. It always boils down to if his target audience wants to consume the content anymore, and if his business partners want to continue to associate with his brand. That's it. There is no conflict between wanting restorative justice but also not wanting to see / support / hang out with someone they don't like.

[u/Theory_Technician → u/anononobody]

Point 2 is very weak, it feels performative to believe in restorative-justice but also think its ok if someone who experienced it loses their livelihood over it. You basically think everyone should just hate these offenders but that the government shouldnt hurt them, “yeah i want the law to help and treat these people, but i also think its ok if they are a social pariah and cant get a job” you essentially want these people on the street and/or alone without forgiveness. Isn’t the mature and consistent with restorative justice thing to do forgive the person and continue patronizing their content/business? Because if the end result of restorative justice is still a crappy isolated life, i dont think it can be a successful approach to justice it simply wont be a compelling moral approach nor does it appear as ethical as I thought restorative justice was meant to be. It feels like were failing our first test of restorative justice, “we did it guys someone was restored in a just way, anyways we can obviously never forgive him or move on so lets upend their life now and withdraw any support of any kind but at least its not the state punishing him”.

[u/TyChris2 → u/Theory_Technician]

You do know he can get a real job, right?

His entire career is based around maintaining a fanbase of willing patrons. What is happening is simply the natural consequence of that.

A world will never exist in which everyone universally forgives someone for any crime they commit. It’s simply impossible. Restorative Justice NEEDS to be solely focused on the government, on the law, on the institutions in place. Because you simply cannot force people to think a certain way.

[u/Previous_Platform718 → u/TyChris2]

His entire career is based around maintaining a fanbase of willing patrons. What is happening is simply the natural consequence of that.

It's worth expanding on this more. People drop off from supporting content creators for a myriad of reasons; the creator's content becomes stale, they start covering more niche topics, they give some bad takes, they start putting less effort into their content, whatever.

Those content creators suffer the same exact fate as Geller, yet have done literally nothing morally wrong. So it can't be right to say what's happening to Geller is an injustice - for the real crime he committed, he's experiencing the same consequences as someone does for the "crime" of no longer being mass appealing.

[u/Raspint → u/TyChris2]

>You do know he can get a real job, right?

Youtube is a real job. People might not be ready to hear that, but if youtube isn't a real job than neither is being a writer or musician or painter.

>Restorative Justice NEEDS to be solely focused on the government, on the law, on the institutions in place. Because you simply cannot force people to think a certain way.

You're completely wrong. Rest-just is about altering the ways the community responds to criminality, beyond the legal responses.

Similar to how BLM is not only against legal or institutionalized racism. It's also against things like micro agressions, or forms of racism that are more interpersonal/social.

But you'd never go "BLM doesn't care about changing anything other than 'on-paper' racist policies, because you can't force people to think a certain way!" When literally a major goal of the Civil Rights movement was to change public perception of racism.

[u/cantantantelope → u/Theory_Technician]

There is a lot of room between “can’t get a job ever” and “gets to have a media platform with people watch his stuff”

[u/Raspint → u/Theory_Technician]

>You basically think everyone should just hate these offenders but that the government shouldnt hurt them, “yeah i want the law to help and treat these people, but i also think its ok if they are a social pariah and cant get a job

This is a very good way of putting it, thank you. Better than I could have.

[u/Raspint → u/anononobody]

If your argument is that people are hypocrites when they argue for restorative justice but are also against how these colleges treat sex crimes in campus, then you may have an argument there.

It's more that, and this might make for a better cmv in the future, that you cannot go "I believe in rest-just except for the crimes that I have a personal issue with."

and if his business partners want to continue to associate with his brand. That's it. There is no conflict between wanting restorative justice but also not wanting to see / support / hang out with someone they don't like.

Actually there is. Because if there is not, then you could say that the constant discrimination that offenders face via job searching with a criminal record is just "people not wanting to work with/support/hang out with someone they don't like."

If an employeer refuses to hire a guy with a record for battery or robbery or drug use, that is simply the employeer going "I don't want to associate with someone like that."

But of course the prevalent discriminating against previous felons is antithetical to the rest-just advocate.

[u/Philosophy_Negative → u/Raspint]

Hey there, just wanted to let you know you aren't using a definition of restorative justice that anyone uses. Let me know if you'd like to understand what restorative justice really is!

[u/Raspint → u/Philosophy_Negative]

Hit me.

As far as I understand restorative justice is pretending to care about what the victim wants, but when the victim says "I want that person killed or hurt in the same way they hurt me" the victim is dismissed as a bad victim and brow beaten into accepting some "let go and hEaL" bullshit.

[u/Philosophy_Negative → u/Raspint]

This is from Wikipedia. Does it help you at least get a footing here?

"In criminology, restorative justice is a method or ethos1] of criminal justice and youth justice that seeks to repair harm after crime or violence by empowering the harmed (victims) and harming parties (offenders) to participate in a dialogue. [2] In doing so, restorative justice practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the process[3] and to reduce feelings of anxiety, unfairness and powerlessness."

[u/Philosophy_Negative → u/Raspint]

Who told you that?

[u/nicksey144 → u/Raspint]

There's a world of difference between what content people choose to consume and what employees are legally obligated to do or not do in the hiring process. And that's a good thing. Restorative justice addresses our legal system, not our personal viewing habits. Do you also expect pro death penalty advocates to be vigilantes in their private lives? The point is that you can have different ideas for how you live your life and what rules we structure society under, and holding people to this standard is pretty unrealistic.

[u/Raspint → u/nicksey144]

There's a world of difference between what content people choose to consume and what employees are legally obligated to do or not do in the hiring process

I don't see how nebula kicking him off their platform is different from the employee thing.

Restorative justice addresses our legal system, not our personal viewing habits.

No it doesn't. Rest-just tries to be holistic than that because it's community base. It would not allow for, say, a drug addict to be shunned by the community to the point they can't get a job to pay rent.

[u/Ok_Artichoke_2928]

It’s hard to change your view because it’s a characterization of another person’s (or group of people’s) view that we can’t directly interact with. Do you have a more specific example of a restorative justice advocate who has responded inconsistently to this incident?

[u/Philosophy_Negative]

You speak of restorative justice but I see no examples of how Geller did anything to make the situation better with his victim. Is that deliberate or an oversight?

[u/tren_c]

Theres not a single crime you could convince me shouldnt be subject to rehabilitation.

Theres also way too many innocent people in prison for me to think retribution based sentences work.

[u/Raspint → u/tren_c]

>Theres also way too many innocent people in prison for me to think retribution based sentences work.

Retribution has nothing to do with that. It's not something that "works" or doesn't. Working is when people who do bad things suffer.

That's it. That's what justice looks like. That's the goal. Why there are so many innocent people in jail is another issue.

[u/tren_c → u/Raspint]

Distaste in Retribution based "criminal justice" has everything to do with unfairly punishing the innocent.

[u/Raspint → u/tren_c]

It being bad to hurt innocent people does not make it bad to subject the guilty to suffering.

[u/tren_c → u/Raspint]

Rehabilitating people is ethical

Subjecting people to suffering is not.

[u/poozemusings]

I support restorative justice, and I haven’t responded to this case, I’ve never even heard of it. So clearly it can’t really say anything about “everyone” who believes in restorative justice. Have you polled the nation of Norway? That’s a place that actually practices restorative justice. Criminal histories aren’t publicly accessible, and people truly get a chance at a new life.

[u/Raspint → u/poozemusings]

Have you polled the nation of Norway?

I have heard of Norway. It's part of why I hate rest-just so much.

[u/zeniiz]

I'm not going to write too much because personally I don't like restorative justice. That being said;

A lighter punishment isn't restorative justice. Restorative justice involves apologizing and talking to the victim, discussing the harm caused to the community, making amends, etc etc. Its a whole process. The fact that he got a lighter sentence doesn't make this restorative justice, that's literally not what it means. 

[u/Immediate_Gain_9480]

What restoration did this guy do towards victims of rape? For restorational justice he does need to repay his debt to society by serving it in some way.

[u/shamitwt]

I don’t think you understand what restorative justice means.. ? Based on your comments..

[u/sawdeanz]

There are a lot of holes in this claim:

At first it does seems like a goomba fallacy. Who are these people that are typically pro-rest-justice that you've seen attacking Jacob? How do we know these are the same people making contradictory statements?

The other thing is the idea that someone who is generally pro-rest-just must be 100% rest-just is also unreasonable. Most people are likely a combination of the two... and would seek to have a justice system that combines aspects of both.

Then you have the details of this particular case. I don't know who this guy is, but based on a google search it appears he was never arrested or convicted for this crime. If I'm understanding it right, he was academically punished for a rape allegation and this recently came to light, and recently has since experienced more professional sanctions.

It's not clear to me that these are consistent with the general restorative justice model. Do restorative justice advocates condone academic sanctions as an appropriate restorative remedy for rape? Somehow, I doubt it. Further you make even stronger claims that this "worked" and that Geller hasn't raped again again are, well, unfounded. How can you know that or make that claim? Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, this is a complete guess.

[u/MissIncredulous]

I hope it's all right if I ask a couple of clarifying questions:

1. What is your definition of restorative justice and do you have any examples other than Geller?
2. In your opinion, at an institutional/systems level--not individual--who defines what retribution looks like and how it's applied to a perpetrator?
3. In terms of Jacob Geller, what would you consider "enough" and who is responsible for enacting it?
4. How do you think the culture that perpetuates retribution relates to the US carceral system has the biggest population of inmates, a good chunk of whom are waiting for their trial and are exploited for pennies on the dollar for their labour?

[u/ahawk_one]

Don't confuse the justice system with public opinion.

Public opinion is just that. It is how the public feels. You can disagree with it, but it is not analogous to the justice system.

My feeling here is that he decided he was lucky and got off with a light punishment. In the past if he was really set on doing his time he would have gone to the police and turned himself in. People turn themselves in for crimes when they can't bear the guilt of having done the crime. He apparently could deal with the guilt of having done the crime because he did.

That capability isn't a problem in and of itself, but I think it's something to keep in mind when he says things like "I agree the punishment was too light." At any point between now and the committing of the crime, he could have walked that talk. But he didn't.

As a contrasting example of something that isn't the same, but is similar... The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books are about SA and the ways that rich and powerful people, as well as corrupt state officials, exploit their power to rape and extort victims. The author of those books is on record as stating that his inspiration was because when he was a teenager at school, he witnessed a gang rape of a girl at the school and was too scared to do anything or to speak up. Over the years the guilt he felt over this inaction inspired him to tell stories about victims and try to help bring light to how easily this sort of thing happens and how little the larger public seems to care about the plight of young people who are exploited by those with power over them.

I don't exactly agree with the author that this is the best way to handle those feelings, nor do I think those books are the best books that discuss those topics. The point is that he is up front about where he's coming from and why. If you as a reader do not like it or are put off by it, that's fine with him. It's just important to him that he's honest about things he feels he has done wrong.

Jacob was not honest about things he has done wrong. And given the particular space in the public eye that he occupies, it is important to be honest about those things. Because if those things come out later (and they do) then you, and everyone you have worked with, is at the mercy of a public opinion swing that will likely not be favorable. Meaning, other people's livelihoods were put in jeopardy by the fact that he had this in his past and they didn't know about it. The internet is a fickle place. Jacob knows this as well as anyone, and probably better than most.

With all that said... The fact that this is dregged up puts the victim at risk. It was extremely selfish and careless of the person who published this to put the victim at risk this way, and to dredge up shitty things from their past that they may well have managed to "move on from". Or maybe they never did. We don't know and we'll never know. But the point is, this was someone getting a dig at Jacob at the expense of the person that Jacob hurt. And I think that in and of itself is reprehensible and deserves some kind of legal response.

In terms of how his case should have been handled... I think that if someone commits a crime on campus, it should not be up to the school to determine their punishment. I think the school should be obligated by law to pass along their findings to the police and let the law take it's course. I cannot for the life of me understand how we get to a point where criminals are writing essays and getting SUSPENDED for raping students. But I think that is a larger conversation that we need to have outside of this specific topic. Universities should not be in a position of determining guilt and punishment. They should instead be in a position where they do everything in their power to assist law enforcement in conducting thorough investigations of crimes.

[u/Raspint → u/ahawk_one]

Don't confuse the justice system with public opinion.

Rest-just advocates are UBER concerned with public opinion. They see justice in a holistic sense, not just what the courts do.

For example, if a drug addict was let off with no punishment, but they were ostracized and isolated from the community to the point that they were homeless, unable to get a job to support themselves, and unable to form social connections (the important things that humans need to do) a rest-just advocate would take sever issue with that.

They'd argue something that "justice requires our society to change our view of criminality so we do not dehumanize criminals" or some crap like that.

The public court vs law court is a distinction that rest-just rejects.

[u/ahawk_one → u/Raspint]

So then this cmv is just you disagreeing with how some random people on the internet interpret a specific interpretation of a niche concept that incorporates the word justice?

Justice is a word used by the legal system to express a specific outcome or goal that is testable. You can argue in court if justice was served or not.

Outside of that context, we're running with individual interpretations of the word based on the context of things and the perspectives people have. Mitigating this impossible miasma of contradictions is one of the primary goals of the justice system. To do their level best to keep the mob at bay.

[u/Sure_Sh0t]

Geller is not a case of "restorative justice working" because he never did any work or took full accountability. He just avoided full consequences and laundered his reputation to pretend it never happened in the public eye until he was forced to acknowledge it. Notice that he only posted his admission in one place and not on his sources of income. Minimizing.

You seem to fundamentally not understand what restorative justice is about. Maybe you heard wrong from "advocates", maybe you have motivated reasoning to read it contemptuously or a mixture thereof. Here are some major misconceptions you seem to be operating on in your discourse.

1. Geller admitting he raped someone is the bare minimum of accountability and only the beginning of a process he never really followed through. We don't know that he admitted it out of honesty vs pressure. His subsequent actions all suggest he was avoiding full accountability.

2. Geller begged for his campus job back instead of taking a basic L and moving on to another job.

3. You don't need nor are you entitled to being a public figure who takes donations to "make a living". He can make a living by doing labor like 99.99% of the rest of humanity.

4. It is clear he took advantage of people by taking their money when they never would have supported him knowing he is a rapist. By not disclosing himself up front he misrepresented himself to his audience and took advantage of them for financial gain so he didn't need to get a real job, by taking money from people who do hard work.

5. If you rape someone, you are a rapist. That never goes away. It may not be the only thing about a person but it remains and can be called out at any moment.

6. He could have gone to prison, and restorative justice doesn't necessarily reject reporting rape to the state as a measure to protect the community and potential victims. While restorative justice is critical of prisons, it does not preclude the victim's discretion to report the rape as a crime. The victim chose not to pursue that in this case. It is by the grace of the victim he did not go to prison. Which makes your... defensiveness over "feminist carcerality" odd given your admission that you prefer retributive justice.

7. Restorative justice is not about repairing the reputation of the rapist. Earning back enough trust to live peacefully in society =/= people being nice to a rapist on twitter or being able to hide your rape as a basic fact about you from people who would give you money for thinking you're cool. Part of the problem of rape culture is the willingness to launder the reputations of rapists. Part of accountability is the community knowing you are a rapist and deciding for themselves how to navigate that. The rapist doesn't have to be liked to have what they need to live.

8. Any kind of forgiveness needs to be fully voluntary and uncoerced to mean anything. The expectation of forgiveness as some kind of reward for following basic standards of behavior is coddling. The "reward" is that you are permitted the opportunity to re-enter society and coexist.

9. Restorative justice is not about forgiveness. Forgiveness is fully discretionary.

[u/Aezora]

Two things. First, I think you have a somewhat wrong idea about restorative justice. While aiming to prevent recurrance is a goal of justice in general, restorative justice is in practice a combination of restorative and rehabilitative justice. As a result, the aims are undoing the damage caused as much as possible, and also changing the person so that they are genuinely different and would not do what they did if in the same situation again.

Second, it seems pretty clear that for the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of believers in restorative justice, think there's a limit.

As a basic example, take Jeffrey Dahmer. Even if he was released, watched carefully, and never again harmed anyone; no one would trust that he actually changed. They would just assume he never had another opportunity. There is also no possible way to actually restore the victims, and even restoring the community is basically a neglible benefit compared to the risks that letting him be out and about brings. While there are certainly people that disagree, they are absolutely the minority.

I'm not an expert on the Jacob Geller case, and I imagine that a fair amount of what you are seeing is simply a result of the Goomba fallacy, but I also believe that some of the people are legitimately supporters of restorative justice except in cases like this. But that's less an indication that no one believes in restorative justice and more an indication that people believe there's a limit to restorative justice. To me, that seems perfectly fair.

I mean, do you think that retributive justice doesn't have limits? Do you think it would be possible to sufficiently punish people like Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler or Dahmer?

[u/scarab456]

All the advocates and proponents for restorative justice has weighed in on Geller's sexual assault case? What makes the response a good representation of everyone who support restorative justice?

[u/mildgorilla]

When you say “the majority of people who are typically pro rest justice has been that geller should be outcast and isolated”

1) who are these people? Are these actual people who you have seen take pro restorative justice positions and then reversed? Or is this just a “i saw lefty-coded people on twitter have this opinion on geller” without actually seeing them having taken hypocritical positions beforehand

2) usually the main priority of restorative justice advocates is anti-carceral—that it’s mostly opposition to the state throwing people in prisons rather than having any social consequences at all

[u/keifergr33n]

Geller raped someone.

Geller owned up to this and acknowledged it as rape.

Source? I cannot find him admitting to anything other than assault.

EDIT: Two days later, and no response. You built your entire argument on something that I cannot verify.

[u/Dangernj]

My question to you would be what part does the average person have in restorative justice in this case? Are you in the wrong if you would rather watch videos made by someone who has never raped anyone? If you found out someone you had gone on a few dates with had served time for sexual assault and chose not to see them again, that makes you a hypocrite? I think there are a million miles between “this guy should live on the fringes of society and never feel the warmth of the sun on his face” and “I don’t feel as though it is my duty to invite someone with that type of past into my life, no matter how I feel about the general concept of redemption”.

[u/Cats_3424]

Restorative justice is important for when you let people out of prison and back into society. If they're gonna be imprisoned for life it's also important for the safety of the other inmates and prison employees.

I don't even understand how you can be against restorative justice when you know these criminals are going to be back in society.

[u/Philosophy_Negative]

What is restorative justice to you?

[u/kimariesingsMD → u/Philosophy_Negative]

This is where the entire post falls apart. OP and others here seem to have NO idea what "restorative justice" means.

[u/Raspint → u/Philosophy_Negative]

Broadly: A system of justice that focuses on rehabilitation and community engagement. Offenders are not "punished" because punishment for punishment's sake is considered a moral bad. Goal is to have the offender understand why their action was wrong, and work to repair that action. Ultimate goal is to have society/community repaired and reintegration of offender into community.

Claims to care about and center the victim, but cares much more about the community. If the victim wants blood or torture of the offender, they are a bad victim and can be dismissed (the last two sentences is my addition of what I think of this cuck worldivew).

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Pale_Flight_2264, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/mangababe]

I don't know if people's reactions mean they were lying or don't believe in restorative justice.

I think it can be very hard to stick to your morals when your emotions are invested.

I for one am currently working my way how I feel about this instance, and I can tell you I struggle with my reaction to certain crimes being "an oubliette."

That doesn't mean I don't believe restorative justice good or should be the proper route. It means I'm a human, who has more in common with the victim than the perpetrator, and in the case of Jacob Geller, unpacking some parasocial betrayal.

I can logically say I think he's done pretty much what people ask those who have done wrong to do, and there isn't anything else that would be actual justice to be done. That doesn't change that someone whose opinions I valued and I found inspiring did something horrible. Or that I can say I'm comfortable knowing that about him and continuing to invest in him.

I also think that for a lot of people this is the first time they have encountered someone who did wrong, owned up to it, and moved on before anyone else knew about it. Most of the time when people get found out like this they don't act remorseful, they try to shift blame and refuse accountability. So this is the first time a lot of us have been given an opportunity to put our morals to the test. Which means a lot of people are frozen up about it like me, or are reverting to the standard play book for when someone doesn't admit their wrongdoing.

And final point- idiots on the Internet blabbing about what they think should be done in this case isn't the same thing as actual organizers and advocates for restorative justice. Ask anyone with boots on the ground for any cause the top 5 issues they think are obstacles and they will tell you "idiots on the Internet who run their mouth," and it's no different here.

[u/transvex]

I think it's fair for a victim to want a response from society and the state that makes clear that the action or crime is wrong but I think restorative justice is basically the only way forward if you think crime is bad. If you think the victim or victims family feeling mad or sad is what makes crime bad then sure, retributive justice is the way to go, but if you think crime itself is the problem, restorative justice and systemic prevention are the only productive options.

I don't think it's enough to say that the problem solved itself and therefore we mustn't worry about prosecution, but retributive justice wouldn't improve anything in this situation and in the case of rape, I'd argue the US' cultural obsession with retributive justice stems from our subconscious awareness that our society ultimately does not do enough to prevent rape and sexual assault because that would require pro-actively teaching children and adults (men in particular but not exclusively) that men and women are autonomous beings, that they do not owe you sex or access to their bodies under any circumstances, that you have to take some responsibility in asserting your own interest and autonomy, and that in areas where communication is grey an explicit line of consent is preferable. 30 states retain laws which serve as loopholes or exemptions on marital rape that would not otherwise apply and laws that grant to any degree the say of male partners over the current or former female partners decisions regarding pregnancy are both indications that these precepts are not anywhere near universally understood and agreed upon in the US.

[u/PickMaleficent4096]

Justice is something a society does. It requires both that people be treated fairly and the consent of the community, and a system of restorative justice would thus require some sort of prescribed guideline, measurable metrics, and impartial evaluation. Geller just sort of rehabilitating himself and 'seeming ok now' certainly doesn't qualify. Random groups of people choosing not to forgive him and making choices accordingly also isn't related to justice in any real way. It's not even really a punishment.

The core problem is that justice wasn't served, and now cannot be served. It failed in a way that happens systemically, and systemically the consequences of those failures keep compounding. Most of the pushback against individual cases isn't really an attempt to restore justice (a goal it cannot possibly accomplish, and actively works against by re-involving the victim) but to mitigate the consequences of another systemic failure on society. The conversation should really be about fixing the cause of these systemic failures instead of just perennially relitigating their consequences, but I guess everyone has just internalized a belief that this is impossible.

I agree it's kind of hypocritical for someone who believes in restorative justice to not offer a second chance to someone they just personally don't like. But that's human nature. The *entire purpose* of a justice system is to remove that sort of behavior from the equation and enforce a society's core values impartially.

[u/Lonebarren]

I mean the ultimate counter is that your position on restorative vs punitive justice will always be a spectrum. Everyone draws the line somewhere. Im going to give an example

Pretend we have 100 of the same people voting for restorative vs punitive across each possible crime

Adult man rapes adult woman. Maybe 20-80 in favour of punitive

Adult man rapes child. Now its dropped to 10-90

Adult man rapes 2 children. Now its 5-95

Adult man rapes 10 children. Now its 1-99.

Which makes sense right. The 9 of 10 who were pro restorative may change their position if there is a pattern.

My point is. People are allowed to decide what punishments deserve a chance at rehabilitation. Even if you believe in rehabilitation, you can view some crimes as too vile to be able to rehabilitated from.

Rape is a really touchy subject that causes many people to see it as purely black and white. I believe this is largely because many women are either victims who never got justice, or live in fear of becoming a victim.

As such if you are a woman who believes in restorative justice, it makes sense that you would consider rape to be one of the unforgivable offences in your book.

I believe in restorative justice. However I would find it extremely hard to advocate for that for a Paedophile. Impossible for a serial offender.

I dont think that is contradictory nor does it demonstrate I dont believe in restorative justice

[u/Butterman1203]

I would challenge your belief that a “majority of people who are typically pro restorative justice” believe Geller should be further punished. I’ve certainly seen that take, but I have feel like I’ve also seen plenty of pushback.
I would also say your belief that all these people are “typically pro restorative justice” I kinda think is also mostly unfounded. Like it is true that the people criticizing Geller are mostly on the left, so are most of his “defenders” (or at least those saying “what would you have him do”). Mostly just because Geller has a left wing audience so those are the people you’d expect would care about this.
Maybe the majority of people voicing there opinion online are anti Geller (although that’s not personally what I’ve seen). But there definitely has been some pushback to the idea, especially from those who focus on restorative Justice so there are definitely those who definitely believe in it.
Given all this I feel like your opinion is essentially some people are hypocrites especially surrounding an issue is emotional or provokes a strong reaction, which like obviously yeah, but that doesn’t mean everyone who supports restorative Justice a hypocrite hands down, and there are examples of people doing this with Joesph Geller.

[u/PitcherFullOfSmoke]

The problem isn't that people don't believe in restorative justice. It is just frustrating watching it be applied to a person who checks literally every major privilege box about a crime that (primarily due to those same privilege categories) is almost never treated harshly in the first place.

Restorative justice has its roots in trying to rehabilitate a justice system that cruelly targets certain parts of the population for heavy policing and harsh punishment (including even when innocent, but that's another matter). People want to see it used to mitigate those harms, and be part of a comprehensive improvement of crime-handling in our society.

Watching a scenario that can summarise to "semi-famous white boy did horrible deed and got away with it, but he seems remorseful, so lets also give him a personal pass to go with his legal one" get called "restorative justice" feels laughable.

In a society with real restorative justice structures in place: Gellar's case would likely be a non-topic. As-is, though? We don't have those structures, and it feels absurd to see people's desire for them to be built used as a cheap rebuke against them when they are rightly upset at yet another white man getting away with rape.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view, or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Thybro]

Does restorative justice need to be the only aim of criminal prosecution as a whole to evidence that people to believe in restorative justice?

Can one not aim for restorative justice as to the particular individual and deterrence of the crime as to the entirety of the community at the same time?

Can I not be glad that he understood the severity of his crime, that he was treated humanely given a second chance and mad that his case is demonstrative of a pattern of lenient treatment that rarely results in similar restorative outcomes AND does not properly discourage the crime he committed?

[u/Newsalem777]

But...there wasn't justice. That's the point.

The second part of restorative justice, is justice.

Good he never raped anyone again, but the victim and the comunity weren't restored. There wasn't a dialogue, or a path foward for the victim.

He got suspended one semester, and went to have a sucessful career on YouTube until everything blew up again.

People who believe in restorative justice (and in transformative justice) will point out that justice was not served.

That's why people are angry!

[u/RickRussellTX]

I don't think restorative justice addresses -- nor can it address -- what society at large thinks of the offender and their punishment. Restorative justice is about allowing the victim to participate and have their say in the criminal justice process.

Those wishing to no longer consume Mr. Geller's output, or wishing to no longer work with him, are free to do so and it has nothing to do with restorative justice.

[u/e00s]

The definition of “restorative justice” you’re using appears to be a strawman.

[u/comradejiang]

Having your rights restored does not unmake you a rapist, and people are not wrong for not trusting or liking rapists. At the end of the day, he is someone who committed rape, even if he felt bad after. Fucking Dahmer felt bad after he killed people. I don’t think it means much to feel bad. It’s a natural reaction of the psyche when you do something you know is wrong.

[u/PaVaSteeler]

When convictions are guaranteed to be 100% accurate, unbiased, fair and free from any taint of bigotry, then a retributionist system could be justified.

Until then, given the history of the legal and judicial systems in the USA in terms of corruption and bigotry, no such justification is warranted.