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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
), people who are still a danger to the public won’t be released.