I never listened to R. Kelly’s music and probably never would, but I can’t agree that any artist’s works should be stamped out if they turn out to be a bad, even an evil person.

Classical composer Richard Wagner’s political writings are clearly those of an anti-Semite., but what opera company’s repertoire would be complete without his music? Thomas Jefferson fathered children on slaves. Do we abandon the Declaration of Independence? Roman Polanski had sex with young girls but Chinatown is still a great movie and should be watched and enjoyed.

I strongly believe in separating the art from the artist’s day-to-day life. Especially today when so many other people are involved in the production. An artist isn’t the only person who is compensated when his music is played, his books read, or his movies downloaded. To say that those people should suffer because someone they worked with turned out to be a criminal isn’t fair.

Another consideration is the potential award of compensation to the victims. Isn’t it better that R. Kelly have as much money as possible to give his victims when he’s forced to do so?

He’s in his mid-fifties. He’s going to prison for a minimum of 10 years, guilty on nine counts including racketeering (this charge alone could get him up to 20 years), sexual exploitation of a child, kidnapping, bribery, sex trafficking, and violating the Mann Act.

If his estate goes broke, where does that leave his kids, his ex-wife, his victims? The most he’ll be getting is pocket money to buy Cheetos at the prison snack bar. The people who will lose out the most are the people he hurt. If you look at the big picture, I think boycotting his music has too many unintended circumstances.