Sounds to me like you’re saying, if he works as a dishwasher, it’s okay to go to the restaurant, because he’s just a low-salary serf. But if he scrimps and saves and opens his own restaurant, then you won’t go there, because he’s no longer a low-salary serf? What about if he works diligently and becomes a mid-level manager, supervising others, with a salary to match? Would you only go there half the time?
I understand there’s a personal and emotional basis for your answer, but I find the arbitrary nature of your decision perplexing. “It’s okay if he makes $X, but not if he makes $Y”…?
Unless he was the one who attacked you, I’m not sure why he’s obligated to “serve yours.”
See, your second sentence here is the problem. In particular, the way that you seem to equate having pedophilic desires on the one hand, and acting on those desires, on the other.
If a released sex offender manages— through repentance or counseling or fear of going back to prison or whatever—to go through life without committing any further sex offences, that should be enough for us. Trying to guess what’s going on in the person’s head is fraught with way too many problems for my liking.
But you’re required to have some point behind your actions. The point of a punishment is to prevent a person from continuing undesirable actions. If you shop at Target instead of Walmart because of Walmart’s offensive business practices, your ultimate goal is to convince Walmart to stop those practices. Once they stop those practices, you’ll stop punishing them with your lack of patronage. But what would be your ultimate goal in punishing the convicted child molester restaurant owner? Boycott him until he uses a time machine to go back and stop himself from molesting his victims? Well he can’t do that because we don’t even have time machines. Your boycott has no goal, so it doesn’t make sense.
I find a difference between owning a business and “just working there.” Business owners take more risks, one of the risks they take is I won’t go to their business. In exchange for taking risks, they have the possibility of more reward, I don’t care to make that reward for a pedophile any more probable.
He isn’t obligated to serve my sentence, but I’m under no obligation to free him from serving his while I still serve mine and while other victims of sexual assault still serve theirs. Actually, I’m under no obligation to give him my support even if my hurts and the world’s were to heal tomorrow.
As I’ve said, you are free to patronize the establishment if you wish.
I know a great little restaurant run by a really cool couple that happen to be lesbians. Its out of my way, I don’t go their often, but I like to patronize it because I like the food. I like the atmosphere. And I want these people to be successful in their business. The contrary is also true, if I don’t care for someone personally, for what they do now, or what they do in the past, I’m not inclined to want to contribute to them being successful. When I go out to eat, I have many restaurants to choose from. Why would I choose one run by someone whose prior actions have been dispicable? Some things can be forgiven, but not forgotten.
If they have knowledge of it, then yes. I’m not that fond of pedophiles and convicted rapists. Maybe it’s because I was molested as a child, and I just don’t care for the SOBs. Or maybe its because my moral compass can find True North sometimes.
They won’t, though, that’s the thing. And then there’s the idea that sexually assaulting a child – even once – is a bad enough thing to warrant a life sentence on the first offense (given that there’s the evidence to back it up, a fair trial, etc.).
Just because someone happened to (physically) live through whatever crime was committed doesn’t mean a life sentence shouldn’t be imposed.
I think pizzabrat has made an excellent point. The purpose of a boycott is, presumably, to pressure a business owner into doing something differently. In this case, since we have no evidence that this restaurant owner is currently committing sexual acts against children, how can he mollify the people who are boycotting his restaurants?
The more I think about it, the more it looks to me as if this isn’t really a boycott at all. It’s just an organized way of displaying contempt for this man and the acts he has committed. While I admit that I feel contempt for the acts, I still don’t feel right about passing this email along to others, and encouraging them to shun these restaurants.
Why does this particular topic act as such a magnet for people who persist in making claims with no basis? You’ve actually been shown statistics, in this very thread, that demonstrate that not all sex offenders are recidivists, and yet you seem happy to partake in the intellectual equivalent of “la la i can’t hear you.” What, exactly, is it that allows you to make assertions based on no evidence other than your own say-so? I’m truly interested in where this hubris comes from.
Completely different argument. If you want to make the case that all sex offenders deserve life sentences, by all means go ahead. But the fact is that, according to the laws we have now, they don’t all get life sentences. And, like any other offender, once they’ve served their sentence, they have a right to re-enter society.
The only cite I saw was a cite that said that pedophile ex cons don’t get rearrested very often. Why do you interpret that to mean that they’re suddenly no longer doing it?
Correct me if i’m wrong, but i seem to remember that you have a job somehow related to the legal profession?
Even if my memory on that issue is incorrect, i’m sure you’re aware that in the US legal system the fact that someone hasn’t been arrested is, in and of itself, sufficient to demonstrate that they are not guilty of a crime. I know that this topic seems to bring out the irrational in people, but even when discussing a subject as emotionally fraught as sexual offenders it would behoove you to remember the principles of justice upon which this society is built.
Ok, so if a pedophile ex-con hasn’t been arrested a second time, we are to assume that they’ve been on their best behavior since the day they were released from prison?
If you truly believe that, then I guess you’d have no problem letting your child (or any child) be around a registered sex offender? I mean, if they haven’t been arrested since getting out, they MUST be safe now, right?
You and I both know that’s not the case. Past behavior can be a pretty good indicator of future behavior – this is why banks have the right to, say, discriminate against job candidates that have been convicted of grand larceny.
Why are you ignoring the cites I produced? Those who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff will generally tell you that pedophiles reoffending is a matter of time – they WILL do it again if the opportunity presents itself. Do the experts simply not know what they’re talking about?
I don’t put an enormous amount of faith in studies and experts – considering they say that the average pedophile violates 117 kids before they’re ever caught the first time, I hope to God they’re wrong. I’m definitely going to believe their word, though, over a pedo that assures me that they can be trusted around a kid all because they’ve been through 6 months of court-ordered therapy. :rolleyes:
Geez, why not just push for mandatory death sentences for pedophiles, then? “Yes, you served your sentence, but since your crime is horrible beyond any hope of redemption, there is no way we’ll ever let you have a normal life again, so we’ll save everyone the bother and just shoot you now.”
I think i’m going to have to throw in the towel too. Some people just can’t seem to be rational about this issue, and that something i’m going to have to learn to accept.
How is it irrational not to want to give your business to someone who molested a child?
Serving a prison sentence doesn’t mean that everyone forgets what you did.
And it isn’t about desires. You can desire whatever you want. But if you actually molest a child there is no reason you should ever be completely free of the consequences.
I have a point. I’d RATHER give my business to someone I respect. I have a limited amount of money and I get to decide who to give it to. Giving it to the pedophile means I’m not giving it to someone else.
