I'd suspect a limited choice of degree programs. If they offer degrees.

Then, after court has ruled in their favour, take him out behind a tree somewhere and kick the shit out of him 'til her begs for mercy then kick him lots more for good measure.

@Triphid Rather than kicking the shit out of him after taking out behind the trees, just have a group of huge, well built, men of color waiting to let him know what it feels like to have unwanted advances made on him.

@snytiger6 Oh what the heck, why not be generous and give him both, I reckon he's truly earned it, don't you?

Yeah, the whoel confess and be forgiven thing sort of enables bad behavior. They do it knowing they can be forgiven, and once forgiven they can feel good about themselves and who they are. I think most, after beign forgiven, just go out and do it again, and then, seek forgiveness again.

@snytiger6 It's probably one good reason people remain or become Christians.
Its like the alcoholic who kills his wife and children, then passes out in a drunken stupor. When he comes to at the police station, he remembers nothing and blames it all on his addiction. "I never would have done that." And it may be true, but is it relevant? Maybe, maybe not; it may depend on the circumstances.
The Christian blames [insert crime] because he's a "sinner" and thus fallible, and unable to always resist Satanic urges and temptations.
A non-Christian is prone to the same urges and weaknesses, of course. So why the double standard?
Because, the Christian would say, the non-Christian is not a well-meaning VICTIM of Satanic forces, but a willing, unrepentant AGENT of Satan who, for whatever reason, has rejected Jesus, whether he knows it or not, and so is undeserving of compassion.
The Christian is always TRYING to please God, the reasoning goes, and can sometimes fail, which is a tragic testament to the pernicious power of Evil.
The non-Christian is supposedly NOT trying, because he lacks the moral compass that only a fixed set of Biblical laws can instill in a person.
I have to admit to me this argument makes SOME sense. Assuming the Christian is a SINCERE believer, that belief MAY indicate to some his crime is not part of a pattern of deliberate criminality, but rather a result of some specific situation.
And the non-Christian MAY or may not be a "victim" of SOME kind of "forces," or he may be an amoral, habitual criminal. It depends on the circumstances, but regardless, the non-Christian may not get the same benefit of the doubt, I think it fair to say.
BUT there are a lot of assumptions being made here, and it doesn't allow for 1) deliberate manipulation the Christian's perceived (by some), built-in presumption of morality, and 2) a Christian's self-delusion that, as a "man of God," he is either above reproach and his actions justified by a higher (godly) purpose, OR he is already forgiven, so the crime is a spiritual failing best addressed by prayer and self-correction.
If a non-Christian feels remorse, with no underpinning moral context or framework within which to be judged, he is more likely to rationalize his actions as being the result of his upbringing, or due to unwise associations, or circumstances beyond his control, or other factors, or a combination of 'all of the above.' He may be right, too, and it may have some bearing on the severity of his punishment, but he must make his case without an appeal to an objective 'code of conduct.'
An impartial observer may think this unfair, and it may well be, but can often be the case, and can lead to a less forgiving result.
Maybe an unnecessary, incomplete, and irrelevant take, so take it for what it's worth.

@Storm1752 Back when I was earning a degree in Addiction Studies we were told about studies that had been done. Basically, if a person drinks to the point of blackout, they still have a present awareness of right and wrong. It was those studies that changed the drunk driving laws. A person may be impaired, but they still know when they do something wrong when they are doing it.

@snytiger6 Interesting. But blacked out or not, knowing it's objectively wrong doesn't matter, does it? If you're drunk, all that goes out the window with the empty vodka bottle! It's the extreme severity of the punishment which deters most people, IF they're deterred.

@Storm1752 Nope. The studies found that even drunk to the point of not remembering, in the moment, even being that drunk, the person still knew the difference between right and wrong and understood the consequences of their actions. So, at least in the U.S., that person is held accountable for their actions, even if they don't remember what they did due to blackouts.

It did used to be that being drunk meant a poerson could get away with a lot of things, but not since around the late 1970's. The courts ruled that even if a person doesn't remember, at the time of the illegal act, they understood what they were doing and are thus to be held acountabel.