Hat tip to Mike for this link to a Telegraph article concerning a fascinating but deeply tragic situation. Summary of the article: a man was convicted after admitting he committed indecent acts with a four-year-old girl. The day after the court hearing, he was sacked by his employers - a publishing firm called Kevin Mayhew, which is owned by a Christian and produces church music and hymnbooks. He worked as a music setter, so to continue in his job would not have placed any children in danger - his job had absolutely nothing to do with working with children. He is therefore suing his former employers for unfair dismissal.
Two quotes from the article. The first is from the owner of the firm, Kevin Mayhew:
"It beggars belief that he has the cheek to try and claim compensation after what he did to this little girl."
And the second is from Michelle Elliot, who is the director of a children's charity called Kidscape:
"If abusing a four-year-old girl is not grounds for dismissal, I do not know what is."
But is it? On one level it is easy to see the invidious position the firm is placed in, especially since it works within the church - if they had knowingly allowed a convicted paedophile to continue in his job would it have left them open to charges of sheltering and covering up? The church's reputation in this area is distinctly sullied at the moment - and with reason.
However, it is hard for me to see why it can be right to dismiss someone from their job because they have committed a crime of this nature. It is right that such an individual should be publicly prosecuted and punished by the lawful authorities. Furthermore, if his job had given him access to children in any way, clearly he could not be allowed to remain in such a post since the protection of children would be paramount. But I can't see what legitimate grounds there are here for such a dismissal. Mayhew and Elliot's comments seem to suggest that if someone commits a crime of this nature they have so placed themselves outside the pale of humanity that they no longer deserve to be treated as a fellow human being, whom one is not at liberty to fire simply because they have done something wrong. This doesn't seem right to me - yes there must be punishment for someone who commits a crime of this nature, but that is for the law courts to decide, which makes Mayhew a vigilante. Perhaps I am being incredibly naive. Let me know what you think, especially you legal eagles out there - I'd be interested to know what you think about the legal ins and outs of the situation.

You're quite right about the punishment being the job of the courts. Also I think that the sentence of a court should be about rehabilitation as well as punishment and this sort of attitude to employment makes rehabilitation rather difficult.
I think it is unreasonable to think he should be sacked, in the same way it should be unreasonable to think he should never work again - we should be trying to make useful members of society out of criminals where they have served their sentences and it is safe to do so.
It should be a responsibility of society to try to get people into (suitable) work after committing offences and serving their sentences to help rehabilitate them. This seems to be suitable work and his employers would hopefully step up to the responsibility we collectively have to find him work, given that they were already providing him with it.
All that said, maybe things will come up at the tribunal that swing things one way or the other from the rather sparse reporting we get in the papers for this individual case.
Posted by: Edd | July 22, 2005 at 11:16 AM
Just to clarify, I live in the US of A. I have always believed that an employer has the right to set hiring standards for his/her company, without arbitrary discrimination based on gender, race, etc. Hence, I think the owner is within his rights.
On the other hand, I agree that the charitable and Christian thing to do would be to offer a chance for repentence and reconciliation.
Truly an interesting dilemma.
Allen Lewis
South Carolina, USA
Posted by: LocoOwl | July 27, 2005 at 04:53 PM