Trying to shout down a mob is useless. You have to trick them into arguing on your terms, and watch as their arguments fall apart.

Re FXH way back: “I thought she was the Police Commissioner but perhaps not all Police Chiefs in other states are women.” Oh goodness, that was very nice for a laugh, and to highlight how things can change. I must say even the idea of having a female police minister in Qld is lovely. Last time I lived there (15yrs or so), I don’t think it would have been a go at all.

Sterolizing

Indeed, what’s next, NPOV? Are we to face the threat of quadrophonic kiddy fiddlers?

http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/sexoffenders.htm

Now I’m no sort of expert, but I believe that statement there is precisely the opposite of the facts. Paedophiles have a far lower recidivism rate than criminals generally.

Michael Coombs, what a waste of time your post was. Almost ironic.

This is a problem?

Rather than getting so easily offended by other people’s comments and criticising those few people who are offering solutions and encouraging discussion (Kit seemed to be the first person to actually do this and continued to attempt to do this, along with a very small handful of others) the discussion has been intellectualised, personalised and sadly stunted! And we wonder why nothing ever changes… it’s because the time wasters on this blog are usually the useless blah blah’s that run in politics. If you’re one of the thin skinned touchy ones already taking offence to this post, then yes I’m talking to you.

No doubt you’ll still be on here tomorrow posting away your criticisms of others and getting over-offended by everyone else’s comments… all the while saying that nothing can be done and offering not one insightful solution.

Though I’ve never understood the concern about pre-trial publicity because if the defence is worried about that there is always the option of a trial by judge alone. It’s a different matter once a jury trial is underway, of course.

As for Kim’s suggestion of the option of voluntary imprisonment, he’d have to volunteer for segregation – prisons are full of the type of people who are keen on vigilante justice.

And what’s with the two full years on remand and they still hadn’t got around to trying him? Those sort of delays are very unfair to both accused and victims, and expensive to boot. Surely cases where unconvicted people are imprisoned should get priority.

I always like to cheer myself up with a good laugh thinking about the macho redneck moviegoers who paid twenty bucks to get an eyeful of leather and muscle in the movie called “300″ so they could indulge in a bit of hero worship. Funniest of all is that these Spartan heroes were hard-core Socialists (probably the most extreme Socialists ever known on Earth), they were mostly Gay, and were well known for sodomizing young recruits as a sort of “welcome to the army” ritual. If I had to rank the biggest threats to myself and my family then human capacity for hypocrisy would be far ahead of a small handful of convicted sex offenders.

Rather than note the silly ‘silvertal socialist’ jibe, I could have picked on the far more offensive inference that everybody disagreeing with Kit had no idea and/or didn’t care about the effects of sexual abuse on children.

The higher the level of righteous outrage or name calling has no correlation to how much a person cares about chlidren or about the issue.

Anyway, I broadly agree with Ken.

I also note there is a convicted paedophile living in inner-Brisbane who regularly hangs out right next door to a boy’s school. He is also being overseen and supported by a Christian group, just like Mr Ferguson is. Should he be run out of town or offered ‘voluntary jail stay’ as well?

Demographics aside, I find the government to have been placed in an invidious position by the judiciary. Further to the Radio National interview to which Nick refers, he neglects to mention that Judy Spence also declared that the people do NOT have a right to know where these paedophiles are being housed by police, social groups or in this case, government. I find that statement incongruous, especially in Ferguson’s case, give his habitual inclination to re-offend almost immediately he’s released from custody. Granted, media sources actively sensationalising the issue for the sake of filling broadcast time and attracting viewers, doesn’t go very far in helping to manage public sentiment, however I do believe the people have a right to know. I also believe the tenets of a legislative structure similar to the so-called US Megan’s Law needs to be seriously considered in the case of offenders like Ferguson.

On the opposite side of the issue, Ferguson is, as police have stated, a ‘free man’. At least until the outcomes of the AG’s appeal to the Qld Court of Appeal 22 July. He is entitled to live in the same peace and protection which rule of law provides to us all. This issue is not a simple one and won’t be solved by community expressing vigilante-like outrage, burning effigies, or holding vigil. It can be solved by effective lobbying of relevant sectors of law and government to seriously consider legislation like Megan’s Law, which will work in our society.

First, I agree with Nick.

But I would like to apologise to Kit for the snide & bitter attacks that some others have thrown at her… when it was clear from the start that she was eager to engage only in constructive discussion to resolve an issue that rightfully leaves many people worried.

And I find it weird and backward that Andrew Bartlett would then complain about Kit’s name-calling because she said “silvertail socialist”. This shows a drastic lack of perspective.

Kit — while your innovative solution is interesting, the problem is that the current laws mean that the police need to protect anybody in danger. From what I know, the danger is real. So the protection must stay.

I understand the instinct to ignore the law when it conflicts with perceptions of justice. Most of us like the scene in movies when the good guy ignores the bureaucratic wanker, breaks some petty law and saves the world. But I strongly believe we need to resist that temptation when it comes to real-world government. If the government/police started breaking their own laws when they considered it appropriate this sets a dangerous precident that nearly always ends with much greater danger than the original problem.

But just because your first option might not be appropriate, that doesn’t mean there is no hope. You “voluntary jail stay” could be offered to him (without threat of removed protection). And Ken Parish has offered some suggestions for potential legal changes.

(a) How is the government ‘pandering’ to this person? It is fairly obvious that this person’s safety is at risk. The fact that he is an unsympathetic character does not mean he has no right to be protected from violence – and the more hysteria gets whipped up, the more protection (and yes ‘cost to the taxpayer’) will be needed. If he was genuinely ‘free’, he could go wherever he wanted without telling the police or anyone else and do what he wanted. Hardly a good outcome for children. But if you think its mostly about to the taxpayer, it’s easily the cheapest.

(b) a ‘solution that works’? A ‘solution’ is people grow up, get real, get rational and realise that having this person under controlled supervision without vigilante ‘justice’ baying outside his door is:
(i) best for the taxpayer;
(ii) best for keeping an eye on what he is doing – that is, best for child safety
(iii) best for chances of not reoffending – that is, best for child saftey

I’ve had released convicted child sex offenders living in my neighbourhood. I no doubt have unidentifed child sex offenders also living in my neighbourhood right now. Its not a nice thought, and yes I wish I could let my daughter play on her own in the park unsupervised, but I cant and I wont regardless of whether or not I know that a person previously convicted of such offences lives in my street.

By far the biggest protectors of paedophiles are churches and other institutions that have children under their ‘protection’. If you want to show you really care about more appropriate responses to child sex offenders, go picket the Pope when he turns up in Sydney.

I take it most people on this blog have never had to deal first hand with the aftermath of a child being sexually abused? It might change your your silvertail socialist stance a little if you had.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Didn’t you claim to be the sophisticated one at the meeting?

I would expect some of the comments youve made to date to come from a person who isnt thinking about this issue but just jumping on the politically correct bandwagon without any real understanding of what went on that night.

I’ve said before that I only heard a bit on the radio. I’m in Melbourne FFS. But that doesn’t change the substantive issue of what the hell you do in a democracy with rule of law with people who may be a clear danger but haven’t yet committed an offence or been charged or convicted. (for what its worth from what little I can see this bloke is likely to re-offend)

The government needs to stop pandering to this fellow and provide a solution that works. And they need to do it NOW

Pandering? You serious?

Ok they need to do it now – what? next 5 minutes? in 1 day – 1 week – or what

Ok you say what the solution is – and make it a legal solution.

You need to stop making comments like you just did and address the issues at hand. Kit seems to be doing that.

The government needs to stop pandering to this fellow and provide a solution that works. And they need to do it NOW…

And I was at the meeting too Francis. I would expect some of the comments you’ve made to date to come from a person who isn’t thinking about this issue but just jumping on the politically correct bandwagon without any real understanding of what went on that night.

The Qld government might well have been nervous about constitutional problems back in 2003 when the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 was first enacted. They would not be likely to have those concerns today. Not only did the High Court hold the Act to be constitutional in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld), but last year in Thomas v Mowbray the Court also held that terrorism control orders under federal law were constitutional. Control orders potentially involve every one of the restrictions on liberty I discussed above (including electronic surveillance bracelets) and may be imposed on someone who has never committed a criminal offence but is suspected of planning or being involved in one that hasn’t happened yet. A fortiori (as lawyers say to impress people) for a Qld law placing the same restrictions on someone who HAS committed multiple serious crimes and is also held by a judge on strong evidence to be a future threat to the community. Queensland isn’t subject to the full constitutional separation of powers doctrine unlike the Commonwealth. I don’t think there is any serious doubt that an amendment to allow post-release applications for orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 would be constitutionally valid. They would certainly be a far more satisfactory and principled procedure than expedient ad hoc executive action to shift high profile released offenders from place to place propelled by media-driven moral panics generating vigilante mobs.

Minister, Dennis Ferguson is obviously causing a fair bit of concern in any community in which you decide to place him. He is a convicted rapist of young children and this deed has consequences, lifelong consequences. He has done his time as far as the legal system goes and as such he is a free man. Lets treat him like one. No special treatment, just the same deal everyone else gets.

Is it a good idea to upset 1000 or so generally decent people to pander to the needs of one man whose own actions have placed him where he is today?

If Dennis Ferguson comes to you, the Police Minister, asking you for help, help him. But do it in a way that isnt going to upset the good folk of any community. One way to do that is to house him in a facility where the security infrastructure is already in place. He can come and go as he pleases, but no longer does he need police protection, and he isnt in a place where the community feels at threat. It would be less effort to do this than to put him in any community. If he doesnt want to go there, then make it clear that police protection will be removed imminently. Also make it clear, that anyone who takes the law into their own hands will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Given this option, and knowing the feeling he generates wherever he goes, spending some time in a secure facility might not seem like such a bad idea.

He is high profile at the moment and it would be in his own best interests to live where the community feels safe from him. Eventually, he will become like the other 2,700 paedophiles living in Queensland, once people have had time to forget.

And the cost of this process IS an issue. If anyone thinks that the cost of this is not an issue then you must be happy to continue writing blank cheques for the government without regard to the way it is spent. People need to take a more active interest in government spending. Not in just this case, but a lot of things. Figures of $250,000 are being mentioned as the cost of housing himmoney wasted when there are better alternatives.

Hopefully we don’t convict as many innocent folk as the US- http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/StateView.php