Vexing the vigilantes

Disagree, Ken. Pedophiles don’t have a “higher risk of recidivism”, they have an EXTREMELY high rate of recidivism. Parents should have the right to know if a known pedophile moves on to their street. The vigilante activity you’re seeing reflects extreme anger resulting from a failure in the justice system to reflect community values. I don’t think it is in any way artificial or contrived.

Personally, I’m not so sure the “poor old bastard”, i.e. child rapist, should have the right to live anywhere other than prison.

Community values are not necessarily the same as community prejudices.

The local MP courts popularity by publishing the guy’s address. The local media promote something close to an affray. Everyone whips themselves up into a fine lather. It doesn’t solve the problem and these people have to live somewhere.

The penalties for child sexual assault should be amended to allow permanent close supervision. Local police and others can be subjected to rules about privacy. Politically motivated affrays claiming to represent community values are not a good answer.

oops, I meant to post a link to the article where some of this info comes from in today’s Courier-Mail:

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12131603%255E952,00.html

One report I heard, it might have been sky News, mentioned that this fellow had 14 days to apprise the police of his new location once he had moved to that location and thereafter was required to report the police yearly.

Given that the chap moved in next door to a day-care centre and could have resided there for a fortnight quite happily under the law, I think these people protesting might have something to be unhappy about.

Peter Beattie is unhappy and uncomfortable but there is a case to answer here and some degree of public protest (yes even against a Labor government) is certainly understandable.

Could be …

I certainly agree that the system you describe sounds much looser than I would like given the demonstrable high risk of re-offending. I suggest that all convicted pedophiles should be required to notify police of any change of residence and seek approval for it ahead of time, with failure to do so amounting to a breach of parole permitting immediate re-imprisonment. Legislation should provide that convicted pedophiles are permanently on parole and subject to these conditions for the rest of their lives.

I commented on Prof Qs post ‘Habib and proceeds of crime’ with the following:

“Interesting to compare the softly softly approach to terror suspects cf the reverse hardline approach to paedophilia suspects by the exactly the same commenters. OTOH the govt and community are expected to give an Habib or Hicks the benefit of the doubt, but woe betide any religious leader who took precisely that same attitude with similar accusations of paedophilia, particularly within the church.
So, what you have to ask yourselves is: Do you want to catch these types of miscreants in their respective acts before they become ‘persons of interest’? So Ruddock is to be pilloried for instituting the precautionary principle here, while in my state Premier Rann has blatantly and publicly interfered in the future parole chances of Von Einem. Personally I think both of them are right to treat these men with the precautionary principle and so do the vast majority of the electorate. What we are extremely sceptical about is the motives for hypocrisy by the usual suspects. Some civil rights are more equal than others eh chaps?”

Now what I was really raising was the view from the lunch room. This was very unequivocally expressed in response to my proffering the idea that Habib might deserve some civil rights consideration, particularly in light of the fact that he has not been convicted of terrorist acts, but rather more guilt by association. This went over like a lead balloon, with one comment-‘Nah, these people are like paedophiles, you can never trust them’, to which there was unanimous nodding. In other words the consensus was really that if you hang about with terrorists, we’ll treat you the same as if you hang out with paedophiles.

Now Ken’s link to the discussion of recidivism by paedophiles cf child molesters raises an interesting question as to how society should view an Habib. Is he(in their view) really a hopeless recidivist like a paedophile, or perhaps redeemable like a child molester(given that they have already judged him guilty by association of course)? I don’t think they see any such nuance and so it has the same ramifications for Habib living freely in society now, as it has for our Qld friend. Of course Keysar Trad came out promptly and stated he and the folk at the Lakemba mosque were looking forward to welcoming Habib back into their community, but that would only ostracize them further, in the minds of many.

I guess what the left or perhaps those concerned with civil rights need to understand, is that the broad community may well treat their stand on the civil rights of an Habib, as similar to standing up for the civil rights of our paedophilic friend. All I’d say is that the left need to be very sure of their motives in the case of an Habib. It would seem that some on the left might be beginning to tune in to the feelings of the lunch rooms as described here

Nice try, Observa.

Dennis Ferguson is a convicted pedophile.

Mamdouh Habib was found guilty of what crime, by which jury, in which court of law in which country? Oh, that’s right: the USA held him in illegal detention and tortured him for three years before concluding they didn’t have a case.

You really are shameless.

Fyodor, I accept your point totally with regards Habib. However I have my doubts that many in the community do and that is why Habib now lives in a ‘secret’ location. I am merely raising the general point about guilt by association and community attitudes here. It seems to me the discussion about the treatment of suspected paedophiles is very relevant to the treatment of suspected terrorists and infringing both group’s civil liberties.

I would make the point that our laws and consequent penalties are changing in response to new emerging realities. For example we have seen how the possession of downloaded paedophilic images from the internet, will now make you guilty of a crime, a person of interest and subject to guilt by association, irrespective of engaging in any paedophilic act. Now a decade ago this crime was not even contemplated. The same could be said of terrorism. Laws to deal with terrorist activity are now on the books, which may have convicted many in the past(perhaps even an Habib, I don’t know)

I am not here to point score, but ask some more serious questions about how long term, to treat a relatively new threat of terrorist activity. Catching and subsequently convicting a terrorist in the act is obviously the simple tip of the iceberg, as it is with paedophilia. The question may be, are there any parallels to be drawn here and where is the evidence or indeed the research on the issue? We may have to get more serious about this in future if we are to learn to live with terrorism long term and not unduly persecute the innocent as Fyodor points out. Just be aware that IMO and indeed I think increasingly the pollies, the community is very hot on the precautionary principle here. Basically if it whiffs of terrorism or paedophilia, persecute it.

Fair points, Observa, except that you do not make the essential distinction between a proven pedophile and an alleged terrorist. It’s a distinction our government was also unwilling to make, to their lasting shame.

By all means let us persecute perpetrators of heinous crimes, but not at the sacrifice of the rule of law, democracy or the presumption of innocence. So long as we stick by those principles the fight will be worth it.

As a final point, there is nothing new about terrorism. Governments have had to deal with terrorists for decades, if not centuries. The qualitative difference in recent times is the proliferation of WMDs but the underlying nature of terrorism, and the strategies to combat it, have not changed.

Unfortunately, the current GWOT has been used as a Trojan Horse to subvert the very democratic principles we’re trying to defend. Whose side are we on, anyway?

FWIW Fyodor, I know of a man who had his 2yr old daughter abducted from under the nose of his wife in a major suburban shopping mall and interfered with in a handicapped toilet. Last year when another mother screamed at a man who was leading her toddler son away by the hand in that same shopping centre, the culprit dropped the little hand and fled quickly. The desription and age of the offender could indicate perhaps both incidents were perpetrated by the same man. For the 2yr old’s father, the thought that this culprit may have been plying his trade in that shopping centre for some 15 yrs, was not a pleasant one.

That same father experienced for over a decade, the family trauma of the false accusation of incest/paedophilia by his older sister against his own father. The sister was at the time involved in a failing marriage with an increasingly paranoid schizophrenic husband who would stalk her after the breakup. With two young boys of her own to bring up, this rheumatoid arthritis sufferer from childhood herself, was in a desperate struggle to cope with life. She found a ready made emotional crutch in the arms of the women’s shelter crowd and eventually a well-intentioned ‘childhood recall therapist’, for want of a better term. A decade or so later, she would recant fully in writing and apologise to every family member for a terrible and damaging lie. She enjoys a stable life with her grown up sons and a well adjusted second marriage today. At the time her brother could understand her mistaken self deception, simply because he experienced 18 months of acute sciatica himself, as a result of a work incident. He would come to appreciate the tricks long term acute pain could play on the mind’s ability to be rational and well adjusted under such circumstances.

So Fyodor, such a man would appreciate only too acutely, the tightrope that needs to be trod between preempting and guarding aginst evil intent, while eschewing persecution of the innocent on a whim or hearsay. I of course happen to be the holder of one of the letters of apology from my sister and the 2yr old toddler is now my lovely daughter of nearly 18, in her 2nd week of a new job, after finishing YR12 and deferring Uni for a year.

Oh, and the observa will continue to bring his observations here from the smoko room from time to time Fyodor, as well as take them some of yours and others presented here. As for discerning the truth among it all, well that is often stranger than much fiction. I am ever the optimist though. As for shameless, I probably am after more than 50 years Fyodor.

Red Letter Day! I’m in total agreement with Ken Parish.

Paul’s sarcasm doesn’t contribute much IMO. Terry O’Gorman, he of civil liberties fame, said he wouldn’t relish at all the prospect of Ferguson living next door. “I wouldn’t like it, but I’d have to live out the principle I’m now espousing”. (CM 3 Feb)

Frankly, I feel the same way about it.

As for Wendell Rosevear he doesn’t have nearly enough rooms to house all the marginalised people he helps.

David Tiley’s thought about “hunting witches and torturing scapegoats” resonates with me. My own thought was that we haven’t come far from the time when we put people in stocks and pelted them with rotten eggs, fruit etc. We really do have to do better and there is not much sign of it happening.

There is for me an unresolved question as to whether Ferguson actually is a pedophile. The link in Ken’s post seems to differentiate between a pedophile whose sexual orientation is towards children and a child-molester who is more opportunistic. The distinction seems important. Two acadaemic criminologists writing in the CM said the reconviction rate for child molesters was 15%. Janine Buckley in another article is quoted as saying that the recidivism rate for “pedophiles and sex offenders is very high, with more than 80 per cent reoffending”. She is from MAKO (Movement Against Kindred Offenders). While she has apparently telescoped both categories and I’d trust her a little less than the academics it does seem that the difference in recidivism is large enough to warrant different public policy for child molesters and pedophiles.

We know that Ferguson was jailed for 14 years for raping three young children and was recently jailed for a further 15 months in NSW for taking emloyment which could bring him into contact with children and not notifying the police about it. The residence he tried to live in in Murgon was a couple of hundred meters away from the child-care centre according to the CM, not next door as stated above.

We know that he didn’t attend rehabilitation sessions for sex offenders while doing the 14 years in Qld.

So we don’t definitively know that he’s a pedophile. Some of what Rosevear said seemed to indicate that he isn’t. His looks and mannerisms don’t help him to melt into the masses.

Yet most pedophiles and child molesters are not easily distinguishable from the rest of humanity and children are in much more danger from persons within or near the family circle than ‘stranger danger’.

So IMHO we should step back and have a good think about all this. I’ll leave you with some quotes.

“The revenge reaction just makes it worse. What you need is to nurture acceptance and honesty”
-Wendell Rosevear

“Progressively during the past decade the opportunities for sex offenders to be released on parole under the care and supervision of a community corrections officer have been withdrawn”

“The very people who need after-care the most are least likely to receive it.”

“In the guise of making the community safer, we have made it less safe.”

“What is needed now is a serious examination of post-release care for sex offenders, not more populist pandering to community fears.”
-Richard Wortley and Dr Stephen Smallbone from the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University

“If you wish to teach the people to reverence human life you must first reverence it yourself.”
-John Bright, circa 1850 (per Geoffrey Robertson on Life Matters today – not sure it’s word perfect.)

So if Dennis Ferguson, as with Anu Singh, is to be live among us we must help him to live in a manner that allows him to develop his full humanity. Nevertheless the worst forms of rape are arguably as bad or worse than murder. I don’t think any of us knows the true nature of the Ferguson case, but in terms of public policy we don’t seem to be heading in the right direction.

Thanks, Ken, that helps a lot.

I was not aware of different standards of proof for the defence and prosecution. My lack of knowledge in these matters is one reason I don’t like making judgements on Justice Crispin, for example.

btw in the case of Anu Singh I attempted to apply ideas inspired by Derrida. In the case of Ferguson I decided they would end up being a distraction. You and other readers may be thankful!

I was going to summarise what I think about Ferguson but it’s too late tonight. I’ll just say now that if recidivism at 80% plus for pedophiles is the correct figure (and that’s only the ones we know about) then the precautionary principle must come well and truly into play. The State should be extremely careful in releasing such offenders into the community.

“Observa, I think there is a confusion of identities sometimes between the real you and the persona you adopt representing views from the smoko room.”
Well Brian the confusion is somewhat deliberate and you’ll have to glean from my utterings the true observa. I am of course a commenter and unlike bloggers find no particular need to be consistent. I may from time to time present particular points of view I’m not personally comfortable with (playing devil’s advocate) and of course we all get out of bed on the wrong side from time to time. However I don’t tell tales that are not true(barring faulty recall) Hence when I recount the experience of my daughter and sister, they are true.

“I wonder whether the smoko room mob aren’t to some extent reacting to what Habib looks like rather than what he is and does. Is their any difference between how they react to Habib and David Hicks? There is a whiff of racism in what you reported.”

No I don’t think there is any particular racism in their view of Habib or Hicks. In actual fact they would probably defer to the authorities wisdom that Hicks is the more dangerous of the two, given his continued detention. Having said that, there is a general PR problem for muslims and by inference Arabs, given that most terrorists emanate from their midst. However I wouldn’t judge it to be much different from a natural antithesis to say Chinese if a bunch of radical Confucians were attacking them in the same way. I can recall at a mate’s factory that an Arab Muslim was jumping about celebrating Sept11 and he shut up real quick when a very multicutural factory floor turned on him in no uncertain terms.

Ken, I still don’t know whether Ferguson is actually a pedophile. I’d assume that the rapes he was convicted for must have been serious, ie involving a considerable degree of coercion and/or violence, to get a sentence of 14 years. But I don’t know anything about them.

I gather he did the full 14 years because he didn’t participate in rehabilitation provided in prison for sex offenders. Rosevear seems to be saying that his crimes stemmed from particular problems within himself rather than a general sexual orientation towards children and that he didn’t participate in rehabilitation because he wasn’t “offered safety” (I think that was the phrase.)

A number of people have commented that he looks and behaves like an archetypal pedophile which means that he would have difficulty insinuating himself into positions of trust with both children and caring adults, which seems to be the trademark of the pedophile. So the fear would be of a trangression which is episodic and accompanied with coercion and/or violence. In any case Rosevear is definitely saying that the vigilante treatment of such people is making the community less safe.

I went back to your original post and while I agree with it I don’t think we can depend on information systems and the police to keep an eye on pedophiles. We are not safe until the offenders are fully rehabilitated. In your recent comment you state that “rationality requires that we devise regimes that maximise both community protection and rehabilitation of the offender, and also accommodate the civil rights of an offender who has served (at least most of) his term of imprisonment and has been adjudged entitled (and safe) to release.”

This is a balanced statement and covers most of the bases. We need a lot more thought on how we maximize the rehabilitation of offenders and how we know whether they are rehabilitated. Most of the discourse has been on containment of the threat and protection of the community.

I am attracted the the new Qld legislation (said to have been inspired by the release of Ferguson) which allows the state to continue to hold offenders who have served their sentence but are still judged to be a danger to the community.