638
The FBI Doubles Down on Easing ‘Bestiality’ Hiring Standards (www.wired.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago* by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Why would you even get into bestiality?” he asked. “We’re not into bestiality,” said Patel.

In a further exchange, Patel explained to Senator John Kennedy, the Louisiana Republican, that previously, regulations had barred anyone who engaged in bestiality “on either side of it.”

“Either side of what, the bestiality?” asked Kennedy. “So you disqualified the animal?”

“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

That seems wrong to me.

Newsflash, there is a lot in this world that isn't fair.

There are a lot of government requirements like these and they rarely allow for any considerations. It's a yes or no, and the wrong answer is an instant failure with no recourse. There are plenty of other people applying without that disqualification. Whether it's an excuse for their actual reasoning or not, it is a valid consideration that the current rules don't allow for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    Ok hang on. I definitely understand that the world isn't fair.

    I'm not a lawyer. And I'm not really sure how to even go about looking this up, nor do I particularly want it in my search history. But are you saying that the current US law as it stands allows being convicted of beastiality simply by being a victim of force?

    Because it's not like they hook you up to a magic lie detector and ask if you've ever participated in beastiality. They are asking if you have been convicted of said crime. Which is something they can look up and verify. And I would assume said conviction would require a court case. With a decision by a judge or jury. And so during the case, if you make the argument that you were trafficked/forced into it you still face charges?

    And if that isn't how the law works, then we would be talking about cases where somebody was forced into that situation, but was unable to prove that they were forced in court, and were wrongfully convicted. Then we are talking about an exception to an exception. And that just seems insane. Especially with the fact that the guidelines change is so broad and sweeping, rather than as granularly specific as the case trying to be argued here.

    Again, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not well versed in the laws regarding beastiality. Maybe there's something I'm just missing. But I don't understand how you could be added to a registry, or have something put on your record without some sort of conviction. And I don't understand how you can be convicted of something if you were a victim yourself, and being forced to do something, especially as a minor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    The change is just making a yes answer not an immediate disqualifier. Meaning it's still a question, and could disqualify you, but now you can provide that context.

    The system gets shit wrong all the time. People are convicted for stupid shit all the time. Texas famously just convicted a group of people recently for terrorism for being at an ICE protest and having Anti-fascist flyers.

    Relying on the system to always have an authoritatively correct and accurate decision without any room for context is ridiculous, and that's what the old policy was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago

    Oh good lord. That antifa conviction was not a "letter of the law" accident. It was the most intentional twisting of statute to go after maga's "enemies" that we've seen yet.

    As for the beastiality requirement, that could have been changed with the word "willingly", without letting in whatever nasty boys ole's toad eyes wants to let in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago

    Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

    I get that it shifts it from being an immediate disqualifier. But then we're right back to the issue at the start. A "yes" to that question means there has been a conviction. And while yes, the system gets things wrong all the time, especially given the example you cite, why are they specifically making this carve out for beastiality? Like you said, people were wrongfully convicted of terrorism for attending protests. There are plenty of felony convictions that can be incorrect or unjustified or biased. And I'm assuming those felony convictions would also be an immediate disqualifier for employment at the FBI. So it's really weird for them to act like beastiality is a unique charge where these sorts of things can happen . Which makes the whole excuse bullshit.

    There's a cognitive dissonance here that I just can't explain away as anything other than just blatant excuses with no real basis. If the argument is that sometimes convictions can be wrong and there can be extenuating circumstances, then that should be applied wholesale. And there shouldn't be any immediate disqualifiers without having a discussion with the candidate. If they're willing to accept convictions for other crimes as gospel because the judgement came from the system, then the same should apply to beastiality.

    The fact that this specific carve out is being made (I know that there are other guidelines being relaxed as well, but it's not across the board, they are choosing a handful of specific things) really does just make it seem like no matter what justifications Patel provides he really just does support/like/excuse beastiality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent