Originally posted by: KJasoosChulbulP
bhai. I don’t wanna words like malice or anything. That’s never a standard of harrasment. Intent has zero role to play in resulting punishment. That’s why it’s called zero tolerance policy. If you commit the act. We don’t wanna sit and judge what was your intent. You are fired. And hence I said. There should have been an eviction. Immediately …
I can see why you mean that and I respect your point of view. Nevertheless, I believe intent does matter and whether we like to admit it or not, not everyone grows up with the same exposure and worldly knowledge as the next person. I gave the guy in question the benefit of the doubt about not having the required common sense to gauge the impact of his inappropriate actions and words. Doing something on purpose should have a different punishment than committing the same act clouded by ignorance. Even in case of homicides, it is the intent that decides the severity of punishment.
What Pratik did was wrong. Period. But if it was honestly fueled by ignorance then wouldn't educating him on where he went wrong and helping grow and learn from it the better approach.
I would like to add that the intention behind any conduct does not reduce the impact of those actions. Whatever the intention behind any conduct may be, the perception of it by the victim is to be given more importance.
In this instance, Pratik's intent cannot negate the fact that what he did is indeed sexual harassment and Rajiv is well within his rights to have objected to the same. Perception of the conduct should indeed be valued more than the intention of the perpetrator behind the conduct. But punishments should factor in a person's intent.
Like here, when he did that the second time around with Umar, he should have been shown the door.
Edited by CobraKai1972 - 4 years ago