I’d like to see more of this for some of these Karens.
Right?!
If anyone reading this lives near there, you should find out where she works, go there to eat, and just be the worst.
“Can I get a glass of hot water? Before you serve it to me, let it cool down to room temperature first. I just need to know that it was once hot. Also, I’m in a hurry, but if it’s not right, I will send it back.”
Yeah I have a big order (constantly asks for clarifications over the phone while ordering for a small army)
How will the logistics of this work? Are there fast-food restaurants that would accept a privileged Karen with anger management issues as a member of their team? After all, they have a business with tight margins to run, and this sounds like a huge liability.
most fast food places are desperate for staff right now. if they get a guaranteed 60 days out of a hire I bet they say yes.
They would say yes to a huge liability?
Maybe the court ruled that any liability she incurs is hers.
Judge Timothy Gilligan gave her the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
That’s just thinly veiled revenge justice. It’s not a good doctrine for a humane (or working) society.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.
It’s at least good that the victim is pleased with the judge’s response (per her quote in the article).
And if the goal is reform, as it should be, it’s a better choice than jail. Hopefully it works.
No thanks, jail is fine
Something something cruel and unusual punishment
Sounds like a Seinfeld episode lol
She would be the fast food workers butler.
It’s a show about nothing!!
“NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!”
The hand out window in drive thru, the one where you give the customer their food is the most stressful position to work because whoever is in that window has to deal with all the bullshit pretty much. 2 months of working only that position would be pure torture.
