Last I checked, you still have the right to take your business where you please.
Fair warning: a topic nearer to my heart than to most.
Can you cite a single instance of a reformed pedophile?
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.
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.
Tell you, without you having to find out the hard way (“Mama, Daddy, a man did something bad to me.”), who isn’t safe.
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.
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.
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).
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.
This would be exactly my reaction.
To my mind, the most important question would be “Is the food any good?” :dubious:
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.
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.
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.
So people who would patronise the place are indecent? 
November 16, 2003:
Yeah, child molestation was exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said that. :rolleyes: 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.
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.
Yeah, I mean, since when do politicians capitalize on high-profile cases?
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.)
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.
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:
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.
Boy Howdy! Its gettn’ hard to buy stuff nowdays.
Lets see here
[ul]
[li]No Wal-MArt with the Chinese and all[/li][li]Carefull with the coffee-gotsta be fair trade shade grown bird friendly and organic[/li][li]No Micro$oft or buy it just hate them as well because …[/li][li]No French stuff anymore- Or can we do that now?[/li][li]No SUVs [/li][li]Only organic, recycable or recycled, and bioderadable[/li][li]Integrity of the company and employees is vital[/li][li]Are we allowed to eat carbs yet?[/li][li]McDonalds and most other Fastfood chains are pure evil[/li][li]Definatly no tobacco[/li][li]Be careful for the genecticly KRAFTed foods[/li][li]I think we have a greenlight on Martha’s crap[/li][li]Box stores are evil its ok to shop there I think you just have to claim its evil kinda like Microsoft[/li][li]I think you can buy pretty much anything else provided its on the internet and you dont use your credit card to do it.[/li]
[/ul]
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:
- What can/should the guy do to satisfy you/us that he’s rehabilitated?
- 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?
- Would you boycott a business because it employs a convicted pedophile?
No, but thanks to Walloon I can say that at least 90% of them appear to be.
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.
True, regrettably, but irrelevant to any point I was trying to make.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.