Boycotting a pedophile's business

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.

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).

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.).

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?

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.”

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

From the OP:

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.

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

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

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

“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.

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.

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.

twelvericepaddies, where did THAT come from?

Assuming that’s what pinkfreud’s neighborhood is like, are you saying that you’d be satisfied if this guy opened restaurants somewhere where there are no young people? If such a place exists.

Metacom didn’t say the boycott was illegal. He said it was extrajudicial, which it is. I looked at the OP and I see we’re talking about multiple restaurants, so proportionality - how many other people’s employment would this affect? - is important. It seems more disproportional than a personal decision to avoid the restaurant because this is an organized boycott and a “tell everybody” e-mail.

Not answering for 12, but the age of consent in many countries is 16.

Parts of this one, too. I was referring to the bit about women, also quoted by Abbie.

And if the restaurant go under, all those people boycotting the restaurants will eat somewhere else and those places will be hiring. It isn’t like the consumers will stop eating out, they’ll just migrate to a business where they want to support the owner.

If I chose not to shop at “Bill’s Bait and Tackle” for any reason (mainly because I don’t fish) and he closes the shop, the fate of his employees isn’t my responsibility

So ultimately, the boycott has is perfectly targeted, has zero negative consequences on the innocent, and hurts exactly one (1) person, the pedophile? Sorry, I just don’t think the world is that nice and neat.

I’ve seen people float this one before. If you just don’t use the service a business provides, that’s passive and you bear no responsibility. You’re not obligated to give every store in the world your business. If you participate in a boycott of business, it’s different. That’s active, especially if you’re telling other people to bycott it, and the whole point is to damage its profit. The loss of jobs for the employees could absolutely be a result. I think you’d share a portion of that responsibility.

Wait, so you’re saying that this person – because of a crime he did in the past, and was properly punished for – should be prevented from “profiting” in his business endeavors?

Dare I ask how long this banishment should last, and at what level of wealth will you deem that he has made “too much”?

Yep, that’s what I’m saying. Pedophiles screwed up good, and I wouldn’t want to give my business to one. Not ever. Not a penny. You, however, are free to make whatever choice you’d like. I, however, remain free to make sure your choice is informed, should I so desire.

And yes, a boycott is active. But every buying decision I make is active. If I shop at Target instead of WalMart because I like it better, how is that different than shopping at Target because I think WalMart’s business practices are questionable. If I decide to eat at Cafe Blue instead of Cafe Yellow because the proprietor of Cafe Yellow is a pedophile, I think that’s just a competitive advantage Cafe Blue has, just like they also might have a better salmon and easier parking.

I’d do what Dangerosa said she’d do and, as with her, a penny would be too much.

I would, incidentally, have no similar qualms regarding a non-sociopathic murderer/arsonist/embezzler/etc. My understanding is that pedophiles, halfway-relevant cites notwithstanding, don’t get better. As such, having served time would mean little to me in terms of the pedophile’s further desire to be sexually active with children.

So where do you draw the line at? If he gets a minimum-wage job as a dishwasher, and scrimps and saves his pennies and eventually amasses a small fortune, will you demand that he turn it over because he was once a pedophile? How about if he wins the lottery jackpot?

I understand the individual choice of whether or not you should boycott his establishment; I’m just wrapping my mind around the idea that someone who committed a crime but has since properly served time should continue to be punished, ostensibly for perpetuity.

No, if its his money that he has earned, he is entitled to it.

I am not required to employ him, nor am I required to frequent his business.

As I said before, if a restaurant I frequent hires a pedophile, I don’t mind patronizing it (provided the restaurant is an adult establishment). But most owners get some profit from their business employees don’t see. That is what I don’t care to contribute to. Nor do I think they should be run out of town.

When I was younger I was raped (as an adult). I will have that experience for perpetuity. It will back up on me unexpectedly now fifteen years later, affecting my life. I’ve been through therapy, but there is no “getting over it completely.” Forgive me if I don’t really care if he needs to pay for his crimes long after he has served his socially obligated time. He hasn’t served mine. I’m nearly certain his victims haven’t finished serving theirs either.