Boycotting a pedophile's business

[pinkfreud]

My husband recently received an email from an acquaintance. The email, which has apparently been widely forwarded, asks the reader to boycott several local restaurants because the restaurants' owner is a registered sex offender. It is verifiable that the owner, who is now out of prison, has served time for two sexual offenses related to minors: the fondling of his 5-year-old niece and the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl.

My first instinct was to join the boycott and forward the email. But I have given the matter more thought, and I am of two minds about boycotting a business establishment solely because its owner is a convicted pedophile. I'm horrified by the sexual abuse of children, and I don't like the idea of contributing to the welfare of a pedophile.

On the other hand, the man has the right to earn a living.

I am curious about the opinions of others. Is it appropriate to boycott a business establishment because its owner's past behavior is reprehensible?

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

On the other hand, the man has the right to earn a living.

Some might say he gave up that right the day he decided to act on his sexual desires.

[pinkfreud]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

Some might say he gave up that right the day he decided to act on his sexual desires.

So if he doesn't have a right to earn a living, should he be executed? Imprisoned for life? Or should the state support him?

[Zebra]

Of course if you want ex-cons to become productive members of society, you wouldn't boycott. Then, consider the people this man employs. Should they suffer because of what he did? What about the businesses that supply his restaurants. They will lose money if his restaurants fail.

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

So if he doesn't have a right to earn a living, should he be executed? Imprisoned for life? Or should the state support him?

It's not my opinion. My opinion is undecided, I don't know what should be done about such people. But some might say he chose to give away any sypathy or benefit from others by acting on his desires.

A person who has desires but never acts on them deserves sympathy.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

So if he doesn't have a right to earn a living, should he be executed? Imprisoned for life? Or should the state support him?

I can't speak for Lobsang of course, but since he is a European I think he probably doesn't believe in execution. (I could be wrong.)

Life imprisonment? Surely there are people who deserve to have the key melted down, re-cast as a piece of costume jewelry, thrown into a lake where it is eaten by a trout, the trout caught and the ex-key dug out of its guts, and then thrown away. But I think that such things have to be determined on a case-by-case basis instead of a 'zero-tolerance/one-size-fits-all' approach.

In any case, there are people who believe that life should be made as hard as possible for sex offenders. If the sex offender is put into a position where he cannot earn a living, then the State will have to support him -- in which case people will ask why such scum should get a 'free ride' and not have to work.

[rjung]

If he's served his sentence and has performed no other crimes, I'm not sure I see the justification for the boycott.

[Bippy the Beardless]

This is more thorny than simply allowing ex-convicts to make a living when they are released. If the restaurant owner had been a member of the KKK or the BNP and if it is uncertain whether the owner still holds such views would many people here consider boycotting the owner's restaurants to be a bad idea? Yet acting on pedophilia (and in this case the man is a pedeophile having been found guilty of fondelling a girl bellow the age of puberty, his niece no less) is at least as bad as acting on racist beliefs.
In both the case of the ex(?) racist and ex(?) pedophile I would require extraordinary evidence that the person no longer follows their old ways before giving them the benifit of the doubt.

[Lobsang]

The sentence is a punishment decided by a govornment. It's not necesarily the punishment that fits the crime in any real sense. Only a political sense. I doubt the victims who's lives have possibly been ruined think there is no justification.

[Dangerosa]

He has a right to make a living, you have a right not to give him your business.

If his business isn't profitable, he will go under. And his suppliers will supply his competition, his staff will be employed by his competition. They also have choices - and with an email like this circulating, they can decide not to accept credit from this guy or decide to start looking for another job (I would - just to protect my own interests, even if I wouldn't want to work with/for a known pedophile).

If his business is wildly successful, despite the boycott, well, I think I'd sleep better knowing I'd chosen to increase the wealth of people who weren't convicted of being slimeballs instead of this guy.

[Ike Witt]

Face it, a pedophile is a different class of convict than others. Databases don't list locations where former bank robbers live. People don't try and force whitecollar crimanals out of their neighbourhoods. Sex offenders have to register with the police whenever they move.

Is it fair? Probably not, especially if the sentence has been served. Is that going to change anything for this guy? Probably not, but this will most likely stay with the guy until he dies.

[Revtim]

Are there stats as to whether a convicted pedo is more likely or less likely to commit another illegal act if they are successful or not successful financially?

[DrDeth]

Yes, it's fair to boycott, but don't do it lightly, or without careful thought- and checking the facts.

[Binarydrone]

A little while ago, I attended a neighborhood meeting that concerned a convicted pedophile that had just moved in. There were speakers from the Police, Corrections and Victim's Advocacy. The consensus from those speaking was that it is more likely that they will re offend if they are not gainfully employed and engaged in the community in some way.

[ninetypercent]

Originally Posted by Revtim

Are there stats as to whether a convicted pedo is more likely or less likely to commit another illegal act if they are successful or not successful financially?

IIRC, the recividism rate of convicted pedophiles is among the lowest of any type of criminal. No sites, sorry. This guy was convicted twice, but there is no indication that the "sexual assault" was actually non-consensual.. except legally, of course.

OTOH, has an attraction to pre-pubescent children. He's acted on that attraction. Now he must face the consequences. I can't imagine that pedophiles would not be aware of the unmitigated derision that is directed at them. The only conclusions that I can reach is that he is incapable of controlling himself, or he is sociopathic. Either way, he is a dangerous character. He would not be getting any of my money.

[Inigo Montoya]

If I chose to boycott I would do it because I thought it was the right thing to do and not because someone else wants me to do it.

I figure that since WE as a society have decided not to make his a capital or a life behind bars crime, then WE need either to let him put his past behind him when we accept him back into society or change the sentence. If you boycott his business and take away his livelihood then you need to go all the way and get behind/start a movement to change the sentencing for his crimes so that he doesn't NEED a job.

I think its reasonable to boycott an operation that is actively causing harm--like a sweatshop, non-union brewing facility or one that sells whale meat. But an operation that does not inherently cause harm just because I don't like the owner? No. I still might not visit the place simply because I don't like the owner, but I don't necessarily wish harm on him.

[Dead Cat]

Er, ever heard of people changing their ways for the better? The fact that he has a (so far) successful public service business seems to suggest he is not sociopathic. I think it may be worth giving him the benefit of the doubt that his sentence has encouraged him not to reoffend, unless you have other information about him. FWIW, I think that making lists of paedophiles public is wrong for the simple reason: what good can it possibly do? This seems like it could be just one more example. Obviously the authorities should be aware of their whereabouts, but are you going to keep your daughters under lock and key until they are 21 just because someone down the road touched up a 15 year-old 25 years ago? 99.9% of the time (no cites - this is IMHO ), people who are still a danger to the public won't be released.

[pinkfreud]

Thanks for the opinions, y'all. I love this place!

I have decided that I prefer not to patronize the restaurants in question, but I don't plan to pass the email along, and I am not going to spread the information about the owner's prison record.

Unknowlingly, I have probably eaten in lots of restaurants that were owned by low-lifes, and will almost certainly do so again. But knowing who's getting my money makes a difference. I just don't think I could enjoy a meal while thinking about the owner's unsavory background.

[vetbridge]

If I found hair in my meal on two visits to a restaurant I would likely never return. If my waitress openly sneezed onto my food I would likely never return. If the food was bland, spoiled, over priced I would likely never return. If I discovered that the owner raped a minor? Not a difficult decision. I have many restaurants from which to choose.

[Abbie Carmichael]

I'd boycott and pass it along. No tears here for the poor widdle child molester losing money.

I wonder if his employees know.

[CynicalGabe]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

On the other hand, the man has the right to earn a living.

Last I checked, you still have the right to take your business where you please.

[iampunha]

Fair warning: a topic nearer to my heart than to most.

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

Er, ever heard of people changing their ways for the better?

Can you cite a single instance of a reformed pedophile?

The fact that he has a (so far) successful public service business seems to suggest he is not sociopathic.

How does having successful employment necessarily have anything to do with sociopathy? One can privately shun social order and publicly be thought of as a gift from God. It isn't like pedophiles go around molesting children in public; part of the reason they're so hard to catch is that they're good at hiding it.

I think it may be worth giving him the benefit of the doubt that his sentence has encouraged him not to reoffend, unless you have other information about him.

People generally have an understanding that murder/theft/arson/usury/etc. are bad. Pedophiles don't always (often?) have the sense that they shouldn't act on their desires. There's a reason murder isn't listed in the DSM-IV-TR and pedophilia is.

FWIW, I think that making lists of paedophiles public is wrong for the simple reason: what good can it possibly do?

Tell you, without you having to find out the hard way ("Mama, Daddy, a man did something bad to me."), who isn't safe.

Obviously the authorities should be aware of their whereabouts, but are you going to keep your daughters under lock and key until they are 21 just because someone down the road touched up a 15 year-old 25 years ago?

That's, in addition to being an ad absurdem argument, also conveniently ignoring the fact that the man fondled his five-year-old niece. This isn't a case of a guy making an inappropriate comment at work or patting the butt of one waitress too many. This is sexually touching a child.

Nor is the issue about her children. This is an issue of how to deal with the knowledge that a business owner is a convicted pedophile.

99.9% of the time (no cites - this is IMHO ), people who are still a danger to the public won't be released.

People who complete their sentences are generally released unless they are mentally ill. I'm interested in knowing why a convicted pedophile wasn't put in a mental hospital/psychiatric ward, mind, but notwithstanding your opinion when was the last time someone completed jail time and wasn't released?

Were I in your position, pinkfreud, I would go no closer to that business than absolutely necessary. However, as I said, it's an issue nearer to me than to most.

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Fair warning: a topic nearer to my heart than to most.

Your's is one username I recognise quicker than most others. If you don't mind me asking - How come this topic is near to your heart?

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

Your's is one username I recognise quicker than most others. If you don't mind me asking - How come this topic is near to your heart?

Check your listed email (because there has never - to my knowledge - been a formal charge involved, much less imprisonment, it would be libellous to post even vague information related to this).

[Zsofia]

I'm of two minds here. The guy isn't running a daycare; it's a business unrelated to his offense. And hell, if you let him out of prison, you have to allow him to make a living. My first impulse was to say, no, don't boycott.

But then, I think, I boycott Maurice's Barbeque, run by a crazy racist (and sickeningly popular). Lots of people refuse to eat there. (It's half price during Black History Month!) Then again, I don't choose not to patronize Maurice's because of something the asshole did in the past; I spend my money elsewhere because he continues to be a jackass with remarkable resolve. If he had once been known as a racist, would I still refuse to go there? I don't know.

[John Carter of Mars]

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

Thanks for the opinions, y'all. I love this place!

I have decided that I prefer not to patronize the restaurants in question, but I don't plan to pass the email along<snip>

This would be exactly my reaction.

[Metacom]

To my mind, the most important question would be "Is the food any good?"

Unless it's a Chuckee Cheeses or some other kid-oriented restaurant where the guy is obviously placing himself in a position where he's likely to reoffend, I wouldn't boycott the place.

If I found out it was being boycotted, I'd probably make it a point to eat there, even if the food sucked. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake.

[Unregistered Bull]

I don't boycott due to political reasons. But child molestation and sexual assault of a minor female are incredibly bad crimes. I think that any decent person would choose not to patronize this man's restraunt because of this.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

I think that any decent person would choose not to patronize this man's restraunt because of this.

I think I'm a decent person and I'm not sure what I'd do here, so I'll put in a mild objection.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

I think that any decent person would choose not to patronize this man's restraunt because of this.

So people who would patronise the place are indecent?

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Can you cite a single instance of a reformed pedophile?

November 16, 2003:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sex offenders are less likely to be rearrested after their release from prison than other criminals, a government study released Sunday finds.

The Justice Department study of 9,691 men convicted of rape, sexual assault and child molestation who were released in 1994 found

• 43 percent were arrested for any type of crime within three years, compared with
• 68 percent for all other former inmates. . . .

The study found

• 5.3 percent of sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime after their release.
• Only 1.3 percent of all other criminals were arrested for a sex crime after serving a prison sentence. . . .

[T]he numbers appeared to dispute the popular notion that sex offenders are incorrigible. Even among child molesters, about 18 percent had been arrested for similar offenses before, and only 3.3 percent of those released in 1994 were arrested again for a crime against a child.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by Metacom

If I found out it was being boycotted, I'd probably make it a point to eat there, even if the food sucked. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake.

Yeah, child molestation was exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said that. What exactly is righteous about pedophilia?

Walloon, the reason pedophiles don't appear to reoffend is because they don't get caught. Take a look at Florida, sheesh. The authorities don't seem real concerned about stopping these freaks, do they? There's no telling how many of them are running around that can't be found, doing God knows what to God knows how many children.

They offend till the day they die. The only way to stop 'em is either to lock 'em up or shoot 'em.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

Walloon, the reason pedophiles don't appear to reoffend is because they don't get caught. Take a look at Florida, sheesh.

I'll take stats over two superhyped news stories, tragic as they are. I don't really understand your logic. It's easy to catch them the first time, then they wise up and become undetectable even though they're on watch lists? The systems we have are absolutely not 100% and the crime itself could be very underreported, if that matters here.

The authorities don't seem real concerned about stopping these freaks, do they?

Yeah, I mean, since when do politicians capitalize on high-profile cases?

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's easy to catch them the first time, then they wise up and become undetectable even though they're on watch lists?

Who said they were easy to catch in the first place?

Regarding a reformed pedophile, I suppose I should have been more specific. By reformed, I mean no longer doing the stuff or having those desires. I'd bet it would be extremely difficult to find a significant study on how many former pedophiles there were in this country. This is heading into GD territory as-is, and I'm betting that wasn't the OP's intent/desire.

And Abbie, I too wondered what the relevance was of that particular beatitude in this case. We aren't talking about someone getting persecuted for his religious beliefs here, it seems to me. (I really, really, really hope there are no religions out there that have as part of their belief system the systematic sexual abuse of children. Anyone with a joke about the Catholic Church is invited to put it where it belongs - not here.)

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Who said they were easy to catch in the first place?

I didn't, and I'm aware they're not. I misunderstood a comment that should've been obvious the first time around; it happens when you're not feeling up to snuff I guess. Sorry Abbie, I read you now. Doesn't totally wash away the low recidivism issue, but it's worth keeping in mind.

[Gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'll take stats over two superhyped news stories, tragic as they are. I don't really understand your logic. It's easy to catch them the first time, then they wise up and become undetectable even though they're on watch lists? The systems we have are absolutely not 100% and the crime itself could be very underreported, if that matters here.

It's difficult to catch them the first time. Children are often abstruse in their communication, and pedophiles who offend more than once with the same child will take care to build in manipulative safeguards with the child or children in order to prevent ready disclosure. Pedophiles who offend randomly, such as those who rub up against children at swimming pools and record the experience to masturbate over later, are often not detected for long periods until they impulsively commit an act that stretches the usual repertoire to the point of objection and subsequent detection. After incarceration, the threshold is lowered again, and there can be a long lag.

The particular mental bent (aka the paraphilia known as pedophilia) that allows adults to find children attractive is remarkably refractory. Acting on impulses via behaviour is another matter. From a review of the disorder and its prognosis via treatment:

What is problematic of treatments regarding pedophiles is that it is caught between the mental health discipline and the law enforcement world. The mental health discipline is unsure of how and why individuals build this sexual desire for children, and thus, there is an etiological problem. With the conceptual models, speculations can be formed, but there are no identified factors that determine why or how a pedophile becomes what he is. Thus, while the initiative to treat the individual is optimistic, the rehabilitation programs may be unsubstantiated by the fact that they may not be tackling the actual problem.

From the law enforcement perspective, treatment is viewed as a naive way of dealing with what are possibly incorrigible individuals. With this perspective, treatment is usually rejected and incarceration is viewed as the only effective method of deterrence. Law enforcement officials often believe that by the time sex offenders commit their first crime, the criminal personality has already formulated. While they also strive to find rehabilitation programs that will ameliorate the conduct of deviants, they feel that the only deterrence to heinous crimes such as sex crimes are to isolate perpetrators from society. With the understanding that the criminal personality originates in childhood, they stress the importance of early prevention through educational programs.

I thought this well put, though perhaps a little dated (1999). Bottom line is that there really isn't much new in the treatment of pedophilia, or its prognosis.

As to whether or not one "should" patronize or boycott a restaurant owned by a pedophile, well, I take a few stances. One is the economic, the utilitarian, the free market. Sure, dude has a right to make a killing in the restaurant biz, God bless America. We as consumers have a right to "vote with our feet." That means not endorsing (through cash exchange) that which we disagree, whether it be because the colour is wrong, they make us bag our own goods, children are harmed in the creation of the item, or we view increasing the comfort of a Bad Person with distaste. Most people work hard for their money. I guess it's up to you if you want to make the spending of it mean anything, or not.

Another stance is the spiritually enlightened. I once did regular mission work in a soup kitchen. I found one man who attended regularly to be pleasant and forthcoming. I learned through other street people that he was an ex-convict pedophile. This caused me some consternation until I realized that I was not there to judge the recipients of the meals; I was there to perform a service. So I performed the service, and it was up to someone else to make the judgment.

My final view on this is personal and emotional. I testified twice to jail my childhood assailant, and startled the Crown Prosecutor with my expressed wish that he (the assailant, not the prosecutor) be forced to endure anal rape at least once. The repercussions of his actions, over 30 years ago, have seeped into my relationships, my health, and my career, and I don't mean that in any dramatically vague way: I mean I am forced to think of him daily in my interpersonal relations, when I tend to consequent health issues, and when I go to work. Literally. Not metaphorically. Those impulses he acted upon are an integral part of my identity, much as I wish they were not. Wishing doesn't help. Getting on with life and focusing on priorities does. As for the restaurant question from this point of view: guess.

[fifty-six]

Boy Howdy! Its gettn' hard to buy stuff nowdays.

Lets see here

• No Wal-MArt with the Chinese and all
• Carefull with the coffee-gotsta be fair trade shade grown bird friendly and organic
• No Micro$oft or buy it just hate them as well because ...
• No French stuff anymore- Or can we do that now?
• No SUVs
• Only organic, recycable or recycled, and bioderadable
• Integrity of the company and employees is vital
• Are we allowed to eat carbs yet?
• McDonalds and most other Fastfood chains are pure evil
• Definatly no tobacco
• Be careful for the genecticly KRAFTed foods
• I think we have a greenlight on Martha's crap
• Box stores are evil its ok to shop there I think you just have to claim its evil kinda like Microsoft
• I think you can buy pretty much anything else provided its on the internet and you dont use your credit card to do it.
  

[zagloba]

I would feel some unease at patronizing his restaurants. I wouldn't actively boycott them, but I imagine I'd steer myself to other places. But I have to ask:

1. What can/should the guy do to satisfy you/us that he's rehabilitated?
2. The guy's been released from prison; he has to support himself. If running a restaurant is not a acceptable way for him to make a living, what occupations are acceptable for convicted pedophiles?
3. Would you boycott a business because it employs a convicted pedophile?

[Dead Cat]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Can you cite a single instance of a reformed pedophile?

No, but thanks to Walloon I can say that at least 90% of them appear to be.

How does having successful employment necessarily have anything to do with sociopathy? One can privately shun social order and publicly be thought of as a gift from God.

True, but this guy has got a bit more than "successful employment" - he provides a service to society at large, and quite a "personal" one at that. Society is dependent on food, so a restaurant business doesn't seem like the first choice for an ardent sociopath. Besides, although paedophilia can be seen as a form of sociopathic behaviour, it doesn't mean the paedophile is a sociopath.

It isn't like pedophiles go around molesting children in public; part of the reason they're so hard to catch is that they're good at hiding it.

True, regrettably, but irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.

People generally have an understanding that murder/theft/arson/usury/etc. are bad. Pedophiles don't always (often?) have the sense that they shouldn't act on their desires.

Correct me if I'm wrong (anybody), but I believe many paedophiles were themselves abused in some way as children and/or had an unhappy upbringing - certainly thay weren't taught and/or loved enough to be shown paedophilia is wrong. One would have thought that serving a prison sentence combined with the appropriate counselling would persuade the vast majority that that is indeed the case, particularly as it is much easier to get caught the second time.

There's a reason murder isn't listed in the DSM-IV-TR and pedophilia is.

Sorry, not being a US citizen I'm not sure what you refer to here. But if I may guess, there are many murderers who do not understand killing is wrong, fraudsters who will do anything for money etc.

Tell you, without you having to find out the hard way ("Mama, Daddy, a man did something bad to me."), who isn't safe.

OK, you know "who isn't safe". I repeat: what are you going to do about it? Hide your children and shout abuse at them if you see them in the street? Show your kids mugshots of all sex offenders within a 30 mile radius and instruct them not to get in a car with these people? They should already know not to get in a car with strangers anyway.

That's, in addition to being an ad absurdem argument, also conveniently ignoring the fact that the man fondled his five-year-old niece. This isn't a case of a guy making an inappropriate comment at work or patting the butt of one waitress too many. This is sexually touching a child.

Look, I'm not in any way condoning this. But I do think people should be given a second chance. If they blow that, lock 'em up forever if you want.

Nor is the issue about her children. This is an issue of how to deal with the knowledge that a business owner is a convicted pedophile.

Yes, but the wider and more important issue is about releasing sex offenders' details to the general public, which I contend causes more harm to society than good. I wouldn't hijack this if the OP hadn't already said her question had been answered.

People who complete their sentences are generally released unless they are mentally ill. I'm interested in knowing why a convicted pedophile wasn't put in a mental hospital/psychiatric ward, mind, but notwithstanding your opinion when was the last time someone completed jail time and wasn't released?

As I said above, unless the offender is insane or retarded (in which case they probably would be detained in a secure hospital), they are likely, as shown by Walloon's cite, to see the error of their ways.

Gorgonzola, given the, er, balanced nature of your post, guessing your choice is hard! Your tone suggests you might lean towards "forgive and forget" like myself, but I'd fully understand if not.

alaska56 - don't forget no Cuban stuff either!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by zagloba

1. What can/should the guy do to satisfy you/us that he's rehabilitated?
2. The guy's been released from prison; he has to support himself. If running a restaurant is not a acceptable way for him to make a living, what occupations are acceptable for convicted pedophiles?

The answers to both of these, for at least some posters, would probably be found in Lobsang's comment that he "he gave up that right."

I don't know if I could go to this restaurant myself. But I have problems with the boycott idea. I'm familiar with boycotts as tools to discourage a company from doing business a certain way. This is a punishment, though. Molesting children is a crime that should be punished, but avoiding the restaurant neither encourages nor discourages the owner from being a pedophile or acting on his impulses. So my question is this: what would a boycott accomplish? His restaurant fails? He moves away? Maybe starts a business somewhere else, or ends up on welfare or homeless? I can see all of those as consequences, but is the end result nothing except "he's did something horrible, therefore we should do all we can to make his life hard?" That's just vindictive and I would have problems getting behind it.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

No, but thanks to Walloon I can say that at least 90% of them appear to be.

Good for them. What percent of people appear to be pedophiles? We aren't talking about a crime where there's a giant, flaring alarm system that can be heard for blocks. In some cases you've got parents (almost predominantly fathers) abusing their kids; other times it's uncles, cousins, friends of the family, etc. If those involved chose to ignore the court's findings (and I can *almost* guarantee you I know several people just like that) and allow pedophiles around their children, you're looking at a likely case of a repeat offender not being caught. What you have is "appear not to be molesting children anymore," not "no longer have the desire to be sexually involved with prepubescent children," though I will freely admit I have no cite - and I'd be surprised if there were a cite - showing the percent of the latter.

True, but this guy has got a bit more than "successful employment" - he provides a service to society at large, and quite a "personal" one at that. Society is dependent on food, so a restaurant business doesn't seem like the first choice for an ardent sociopath. Besides, although paedophilia can be seen as a form of sociopathic behaviour, it doesn't mean the paedophile is a sociopath.

The guy owns a restaurant. You want "personal" service? How about a grade school? In addition to having a family of ten children, that is. Also helped to found a church. Published author, poet, translator. Educated man. You'd think he'd have known better.

Stand-up guy in public. Not so much in private. A lot of people trusted their kids around this guy (and his kids, and including all of those kids).

True, regrettably, but irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.

Goes toward the low repeat offender rate. They try hard enough, as is, not to get caught. Getting caught, if you are determined to continue doing it, just means you're going to try harder unless the punishment becomes too much (or, preferable in my opinion, just isolates you from children. Permanently.).

Correct me if I'm wrong (anybody), but I believe many paedophiles were themselves abused in some way as children and/or had an unhappy upbringing - certainly thay weren't taught and/or loved enough to be shown paedophilia is wrong. One would have thought that serving a prison sentence combined with the appropriate counselling would persuade the vast majority that that is indeed the case, particularly as it is much easier to get caught the second time.

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but nobody ever say me down and said "iampunha, when you get to an age where you can be labeled as a pedophile, do make sure you don't go molesting children." My understanding is that pedophilia isn't one of those things you have to be shown is wrong.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that being abused as a child *can* be a determining factor in being one, but it can also (fortunately) make you a victim who doesn't continue the cycle. I do not have statistics on the number of pedophiles who were molested as children or had an "unhappy upbringing" (I suspect you mean that to sound more unhappy than it does), and I do not currently have enough love in my heart for pedophiles to go googling anything revealing same statistics in an attempt to defend them.

Regarding being shown that something is wrong: does that then take the desire away from them?

Sorry, not being a US citizen I'm not sure what you refer to here. But if I may guess, there are many murderers who do not understand killing is wrong, fraudsters who will do anything for money etc.

The DSM-IV-TR is the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (that site claims the version posted there is incomplete). The IV refers to the fact that it's the fourth edition.

There are probably more than a few sociopathic murderers, sociopathic fraudsters, etc. I don't want people outside of prison walls who have a fundamental inability to understand basic concepts such as "Don't go randomly knifing your next-door neighbor," "don't go randomly holding up banks" and "don't rape children."

OK, you know "who isn't safe". I repeat: what are you going to do about it? Hide your children and shout abuse at them if you see them in the street? Show your kids mugshots of all sex offenders within a 30 mile radius and instruct them not to get in a car with these people? They should already know not to get in a car with strangers anyway.

No, if I had children, I sure as hell would *not* want them around anyone convicted of pedophilia. And while children should already know not to go off with people they don't know, it can be mighty hard to resist a nice, unassuming stranger with candy, so to speak. Finally, I would really rather not have to hide my prospective children, anyway; I'd rather not have to deal with a pedophile ever again.

Our of curiosity, how familiar are you with the many ways pedophiles and other sexual aggressors work?

Look, I'm not in any way condoning this. But I do think people should be given a second chance. If they blow that, lock 'em up forever if you want.

I tend not to want to trust people who've gone fondling children. Mostly that's because it tends not to be a one-and-done thing. This guy, for example, sexually assaulted at least two minors. To me, the second one *was* his second chance, though I'd just as soon rather not give such an opportunity to someone who was messing around with a five-year-old.

Yes, but the wider and more important issue is about releasing sex offenders' details to the general public, which I contend causes more harm to society than good. I wouldn't hijack this if the OP hadn't already said her question had been answered.

I'd submit to you that there's a difference between "barely statutory" sexual misconduct and a man who does things of a sexual nature to young children. The DSM-IV-TR, in fact, makes specific allowance for this:

Originally Posted by DSM-IV-TR

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

To me, there's a difference between a five-year-old and a female teen who's a month away from being of legal age. I don't want to be around someone who'd be sexually involved with the former.

As I said above, unless the offender is insane or retarded (in which case they probably would be detained in a secure hospital), they are likely, as shown by Walloon's cite, to see the error of their ways.

Or perhaps they are likely to work hard not to get caught.

I freely admit that my posts have are colored as much by my experiences as by anything else. However, I do not find it realistic that a majority of pedophiles reach down deep inside, suddenly (or even over a period of several years) *click* and realize that molesting children, regardless of how deeply they want sexual relationships with their five-year-old nieces, sons, daughters, students, college buddies' kids or whatever, is wrong, and are never again dangers to children.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

Correct me if I'm wrong (anybody), but I believe many paedophiles were themselves abused in some way as children and/or had an unhappy upbringing

Oh waah. Who DIDN'T have a shitty childhood?

certainly thay weren't taught and/or loved enough to be shown paedophilia is wrong.

They already know it's wrong -- if they didn't, they'd be doing it out in public in broad daylight. They go to great lengths to hide what they do.

One would have thought that serving a prison sentence combined with the appropriate counselling would persuade the vast majority that that is indeed the case

On what planet?

You can tell a freak till you're blue in the face that it's wrong to have sex with children, but what their dick wants is going to win out every single time. Their sexual urges are more important than anything else in the world, even a child's life.

particularly as it is much easier to get caught the second time.

It's not -- there is no telling how many people were molested as children and never told a soul. Only about 5% of pedophiles ever see the inside of a prison -- the other 95% never get caught. What are the chances that a former inmate will do it again and will NOT get caught? Pretty damn high.

Kids are easily scared into keeping quiet -- "if you tell, I'll hurt your Mommy, etc." I bet, if people were willing to talk, we could find at least 100 people on the SDMB alone who were molested and never told anyone.

OK, you know "who isn't safe". I repeat: what are you going to do about it?

1. Keep my kid away from them.

2. Run them out of the neighborhood (legally).

3. Make sure everyone in the vicinity knows who they are and where they live so they can avoid them accordingly.

Look, I'm not in any way condoning this. But I do think people should be given a second chance. If they blow that, lock 'em up forever if you want.

The restaurant pedo has violated 2 kids that we know of -- there's no telling how many more there are (there's always more). One of my law professors, who makes her living putting these guys in jail, says the current estimate is that your average pedophile will get their hands on about 100 different children in their lifetime (I'll find out where she got that info).

This study, however, puts it at almost 150. The average number of children pedophiles victimize BEFORE they finally get caught the first time is 117 -- unless the pedophile only molests boys, then the number goes up to 280. The chances that the restaurant guy "only" molested 2 kids are almost nil.

If you sexually assault a kid, no, you shouldn't get a second chance to do it again. Should someone who blows up a building be given a second chance, even if they were completely law abiding before then? No, we sentence people (partially) in accordance with the crime they committed. The vast majority of murderers are pretty much back to normal after they've killed whoever was pissing them off -- many are NOT a danger to society, but they still end up in prison for life because society considers taking someone else's life a Very Bad Thing.

If we'll lock up someone for life who, if released, would probably NEVER commit murder again, why should we give a pedophile a second chance, when we have practically a 100% guarantee that they will continue to do it the rest of their life? Simply because they don't physically kill their victims (usually)?

You do understand we're talking about a crime in a class by itself, and that crime is sexually assaulting children, right? These aren't car thieves, these are people who are completely fucked in the head and, so far, nothing has been found that works. The heinousness of the crime itself is so great that the thought of giving these people a "second chance" is pretty much a slap in the face to the victims -- who will never get a second chance to have their innocence restored.

They can get their second chance from God -- not society, who should hold pedophilia in such a regard that nothing but permanent removal from society could possibly be justice. The Supreme Court, so far, hasn't prohibited executing them, but I imagine they probably will now that someone has actually been sentenced to death for it. We may not be able to execute 'em, but we can sure as hell make sure they never get within miles of a child ever again.

As I said above, unless the offender is insane or retarded (in which case they probably would be detained in a secure hospital), they are likely, as shown by Walloon's cite, to see the error of their ways.

They don't change. They've got a built-in reluctant-to-come-forward victim, and all a short prison term does is motivate them to never get caught again. They get smarter.

Walloon meant well, but his (her?) cite isn't saying what you're wanting it to mean.

"Sex offenders are less likely to be rearrested after their release from prison than other criminals, a government study released Sunday finds."

The key word here is "rearrested." To be rearrested, you have to get caught, and we've already established that 95% of them never do. Of the 5% that do go to prison, the chances are high that they don't get caught again -- and we already know they don't stop molesting kids.

We've had pedophiles here BEG to be kept in prison after their term expired. I remember one case in Georgia where the guy was saying "look, let me out and I'm gonna do it again, and this time I'll kill the kid to shut them up. If you're smart, you'll lock me up for life." (The government, dumbasses they are, of course let him go.)

I could go into a tirade about how the US very well COULD afford to hunt down a good number of pedophiles and lock them away for life if we'd simply quit putting people in prison for stupid reasons (like many drug offenses), but I don't want to hijack.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Binarydrone

A little while ago, I attended a neighborhood meeting that concerned a convicted pedophile that had just moved in. There were speakers from the Police, Corrections and Victim's Advocacy. The consensus from those speaking was that it is more likely that they will re offend if they are not gainfully employed and engaged in the community in some way.

Seconded. Outcast someone and he has nothing to lose, and might become desperate enough to go there again. I would personally erase his priors from my mind and at best save that memory for when it might actually matter.

[twelvericepaddies]

Originally Posted by ninetypercent

IIRC, the recividism rate of convicted pedophiles is among the lowest of any type of criminal. No sites, sorry. This guy was convicted twice, but there is no indication that the "sexual assault" was actually non-consensual.. except legally, of course.

OTOH, has an attraction to pre-pubescent children. He's acted on that attraction. Now he must face the consequences. I can't imagine that pedophiles would not be aware of the unmitigated derision that is directed at them. The only conclusions that I can reach is that he is incapable of controlling himself, or he is sociopathic. Either way, he is a dangerous character. He would not be getting any of my money.

What - 16 yrs is "pre-pubsecent" - give me a break - what planet do you live on. I cannot even imagine why 16 would be considered underage. A few decades ago women at 16 bore children and worked very hard - now they are suddenly "Children." There is a "scorched earth" mentality abroad today - women seem to try to think of ultimate, infinite and unending punishments for everything they consider a transgression. Tiresome, bitchy, sickening, mean, nasty, mentally unbalanced.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by zagloba

1. What can/should the guy do to satisfy you/us that he's rehabilitated?

Clearly, he should just roll over and die, because studies have shown that we have no way of knowing how many children, if any, he'll molest, and that he'll molest a vast number of children.

I just don't have the will to argue with people like Abbie or iampahuna anymore. I've argued for the rights and dignity of sex offenders in the past often enough. All I'll say in this thread is that I find the demonization of sex offenders truly digusting, and our collective frenzy of lust for exacting vengence upon them even more horrific. They've done bad things, but frequently the punishments inflicted upon them for those things--both by the justice system and by extrajudicial actions like boycotting their business and running them out of town--seem grossly disproportional to the harm they generally inflict. I view them as people like the rest of us: imperfect to varying degrees, capable of love and of being loved, and whose lives are as sacred as any other person's.

[Dangerosa]

A little while ago, I attended a neighborhood meeting that concerned a convicted pedophile that had just moved in. There were speakers from the Police, Corrections and Victim's Advocacy. The consensus from those speaking was that it is more likely that they will re offend if they are not gainfully employed and engaged in the community in some way.

Sure, but there is a difference between being gainfully employed and owning the means of production. I would probably knowingly patronize a restaurant where a pedophile worked (it it were an adult restaurant and not Chuck E Cheese), but if I knew the owner was a pedophile, I wouldn't need to contribute to his profit.

I happen to have pretty good knowledge that a local business man of significant success tried to date rape someone I know - years and years ago. Never spent a cent in his enterprises. Now had that company merely employed the man, I would have happily spent money there.

[Rashak Mani]

No one questioned if the email is true ?!

Maybe its someone using emails to hurt an enemy with false rumors ! NEVER EVER forward emails with information you don't know are true. Its slander at its worse.
If he really is a sex offender... why not give him a chance ?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

No one questioned if the email is true ?!

Maybe its someone using emails to hurt an enemy with false rumors ! NEVER EVER forward emails with information you don't know are true. Its slander at its worse.

From the OP:

Originally Posted by pinkfreud

It is verifiable that the owner, who is now out of prison, has served time for two sexual offenses related to minors: the fondling of his 5-year-old niece and the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl.

[wonderwench]

The germane issue is the nature and location of the business. A pedophile shouldn't be operating a business near schools nor a child themed business, imo. If the business caters to adults, then there is no reason for a boycott.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by twelvericepaddies

What - 16 yrs is "pre-pubsecent" - give me a break - what planet do you live on.

Did you miss the part about the 5 year old niece?

Originally Posted by twelvericepaddies

There is a "scorched earth" mentality abroad today - women seem to try to think of ultimate, infinite and unending punishments for everything they consider a transgression. Tiresome, bitchy, sickening, mean, nasty, mentally unbalanced.

Right. The pedophiles rape children, and those who want them locked up for life are the "sickening" and "mean" ones.

Originally Posted by Metacom

They've done bad things,

No, darlin. Stealing petty cash from your employer is a Bad Thing. What pedophiles do is unspeakable.

Originally Posted by Metacom

but frequently the punishments inflicted upon them for those things--oth by the justice system and by extrajudicial actions like boycotting their business and running them out of town--seem grossly disproportional to the harm they generally inflict.

"Grossly disproportional" would be to allow the public to hunt them down and take them out. Merely refusing to contribute to their financial well-being or refusing to allow them to live in a neighborhood full of children are pretty damn reasonable reactions in response to what they've done. And both perfectly legal, I might add.

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

Sure, but there is a difference between being gainfully employed and owning the means of production. I would probably knowingly patronize a restaurant where a pedophile worked (it it were an adult restaurant and not Chuck E Cheese), but if I knew the owner was a pedophile, I wouldn't need to contribute to his profit.

I see what you're saying. If the guy is just washing dishes at The Olive Garden, he's going to make minimum wage regardless of how good business gets, so eating there isn't going to measurably benefit him. The owner of the restaurant, however, does benefit as business increases because they generally either reinvest the extra money back into the business, or use the new profits to upgrade their own standard of living (baby needs a new car). Sure, they might throw the employees a bone and give them all an extra 25 cents an hour, but they're certainly not going to raise their wages so much higher that it'll have any appreciable impact on their take-home pay. In some cases, the paltry raises restaurants generally give actually end up decreasing how much money the employee sees.

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

No one questioned if the email is true ?!

Obviously pinkfreud did considering she said she verified it.

Information like that is pretty easy to confirm. Public record and all.


/Nitpick

If the email weren't true, it'd be libel, not slander.