If I "knew for a fact" I would present my evidence to the authorities.

Absolutely! If you don't have "proof in hand" (like pictures, etc.), at least make a phone call to one of the hotlines! If you are afraid of retaliation, make an anonymous call to the police or Child Protective Services! They usually take these calls VERY seriously, and usually check them out, at least once. But, be advised, you will probably need to come forward, eventually, to substantiate the claims! But, to protect a child from this heinous person, I'd come forward in a heartbeat!

Yea you act on it! No brainer! Children must be protected from pedophile scum!

Before it would be possible for me to know for a fact ... I would need some sort of proof ... if I had this proof, I would find a way to use it legally against the guy. The only other sort of action I would take, would be a paparazzi sort of action ... I would "stalk" them in an effort to gather enough evidence to force the cops ... maybe follow them untill I can catch them in the act of abducting a child, then call for police backup as I rescue the kid before any serious harm can happen ... I will settle for a kidnapping charge even if I interupt him before he can be caught commiting a sex offense.

I'd hire someone

You're damn right I would take action myself! Especially since I have children.

I would band together with a lot of other people and make it known to the offender that he or she will always be under scrutiny and surveillance. I wouldn't try to go after the person myself with physical force to harm him or her---that would get ME in trouble. With the help of many others, we can drive the offender out of town, without resorting to physical violence.

it depends. i read a news story recently about a guy raping a two year old so severly that she died hours later in the hospital from the severity of her internal damage. in a case such as that, where if for some reason, due to some clerical or other insignificant error, the police were unable to act, i would not only take actions myself, i would organize a lynch mob and tear that guy apart. how could i live knowing that guy was walking the streets my children ride their bikes on, and that someday it might be my child?

Yes. And have. Nothing illegal of course.

I'm not really into vigilanteism...

I was going to answer this in the affirmative, then I re-read it several times, and discovered the question is far to broad to answer. Where did he commit his crime? How did I find out what I "Know?" Why do I know what the authorities do not? Was I there? and if so, why am I debating this minutes, hours, days, months later? If I knew that a person had offended (IN ANY MANNER) against a child, I would put my energy into helping & protecting the child.

What if you were married to him.Would you lie for him.And if he wasnt do you think hed hide from the kid now 34 who he did it to.

I would always take action, whenever possible, to protect anyone, including children, whose well being is threatened. If I knew a pedophile and I knew he had “acted on his urges” – which I assume to mean that he had some kind of sexual encounter with a child, the action I would take depends on if I felt the children he had acted upon were actually harmed, as distinguished from the axiomatic view that children are always or must be harmed by such an encounter. I consider harmful essentially non-consensual acts. Whether or not children do have the mental ability to make informed decisions about sex, or otherwise so that no harm comes to them (and of course age would be a factor in determining this) we have age of consent laws in the States that deny children the right to consent to sexual activities, where “children” are persons under the age of 18 – although state laws, such as the ones in California, may allow for “age-appropriate” sexual intercourse between, say, two teenagers of similar age (generally not more than three years apart). It’s not clear to me why children having sexual intercourse or engaging in sexual activity with adults must always be harmful to them. Certainly there are many cases where a child is forced baited, tricked, or manipulated to do those things, and I think we can safely assume that the child will be harmed. But, hypothetically, not all cases are like that. I realize that pedophilia is limited to pre-pubescent children and a greater danger is admittedly posed to them than to pubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. But I think most of the people here would find that point meaningless. They would not report only those sexual encounters between an adult and an actual child, but also those all the way up to the age of majority, though again, it may depend on how large the age-disparity. For example, you wouldn’t call an 18 year-old having sex with a 17-year old harmful, though California calls it a civil penalty since it is “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Yet the penal code does not prohibit a 17-year-old having sex with another 17-year-old. But you may report a 40-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old and deem it as “harmful.” 17-year-old or 7-year-old, it makes no difference to freaked out moms and dads once they find out their child is having sex with a man 20-30 years older than her. Now, California has a law that requires anyone who knows about an incident of child sexual abuse to report it to authorities. If you don’t report, you get 6 months in jail plus a 1000 dollar fine. I’ll assume there are other states that have similar laws on this sort of thing. So for Californians, you’re actually committing a misdemeanor by not doing anything when you know of a pedophile who has “acted on his urges.” First, if the children were raped, - I’m not referring to the tautology that assumes any adult-child sexual encounter is “rape” – or sexually assaulted I would report it to the authorities. Then I would request psychiatric treatment for the pedophile in addition to his sentence. If the children ended up okay, I wouldn’t turn him in to the police just because I feel that our current legal framework is more aimed targeting morally objectionable material and fueling this pedophile rage rather than actually protecting children. I would ask him to seek help for himself because if he continues to do those things, whether harmless or not, he’ll have to go to prison. However, if I knew for certain that he had harmed a child, and the police are somehow unable to intervene, I would not step in as vigilante to try to bring him down. That is more suited to the mob. I would warn people I know that there's somebody who has molested children before and to be wary of him. This reminds me a lot of the Jack Mcclellan controversy. He has never been convicted of any child molesting but the whole nation is outraged that our government allows "sickos" freely to leer at children in public. And now they're making a law that forbids him from doing what the public believes him to be doing. Called the Surrogate Stalker Act, it makes it a misdemeanor to “[publish] photos, physical descriptions, and/or locations of children with the intent that another person uses that information to commit a crime against a child” Sure Jack Mcclellan did act on his pedophilic urges, and the police are unable to do anything about it - that is, before Surrogate Stalker Act was passed - but does that mean children were harmed, and more over that other children could be harmed? I don't think so and in this case, I cannot perceive Mr. Mcclellan as a threat to the safety of any child.