"While there are some offenders within homes, by far the most dangerous predators are those who target large numbers of children over a long period of time"

Some? Most offenders are in homes and live in amongst us all in nice middle-class suburbia. That is because MOST child-sex offenders are known to their victims. They are usually a parent, a step-parent or other close family member. As the law in most jurisdictions protects the identity of sexual assault complainants, the offenders are inadvertently afforded protection too as revealing their identity will, in turn, indentify their child victim.

To assert that the predatory offender is "most dangerous" seems to suggest that the sufferings of the victims of incest are somehow diminished when compared to the child-victims of the stranger. I am sure that incest victims would proffer a different view.

I am not condoning Ferguson’s behaviour. His assaults were abhorrent and readers could have been spared the titillating extra details about his assault on those children. In the words of one of his former lawyers, he does look like "a kiddie fiddler from central casting. It makes it easy for the pitchfork waving mobs to single him out while the vast majority of child sex offenders -- the nice family man who wear a suit to church, the bloke who owns the auto-repair business you have used for years, the lad who makes your latte each morning -- are living amongst us incognito.

"Outback or isolated rural prison farms or island prisons - with no internet connections - would be suitable." If you want to do something productive, go find this suitable isolated location.

Convincing us that Ferguson's crimes were terrible and that children should be safe achieved nothing.

Othello Cat,
Well said. I to have long felt that the 'in-house preditors' are in a way 'protected' and, considering their level of trust held by their victims, they should be shot if what has happened to DF is any type of benchmark.

It's just a pitty that the author has to show here true colours, much like the presenter of the four corners programe. Gernos should be nutral otherwise they tend to influence to many situatons.

The fact remains that he has done his time and, if members of the public are unhappy with the sentence, then lobby the law makers as it is they who determined the sentence.

Also, it is quite obvious that the authorities went on a 'witch hunt' to get this guy with regards to the incident in Dalby, as there has been no mention what so ever, publicly, about arresting the person who has been suggested as the perpitrator.

It seems that they couldn't get DF so they have dropped their bundle.

It seems much of the debate focuses on where convicted pedophiles live once they are released from prison. If the majority of the population do not want these people to live among them, then it seems the right thing to do is to increase prison sentences for convicted pedophiles.

Personally the minimum I would be satisfied with is life (i.e. until no-longer living) in prison. I am often surprised when I hear of the lenient sentencing for such terrible crimes. Where can we find more information on the average prison sentences for various crimes and who do we petition to change them?

Stezza,
You may have a very valid point, but, the fact remains that this guy has done his time and should be left alone.

As for tougher sentencing, I think that is already here and the changes to 'the sex offenders act' was yet another 're-active' reaction from government when they suddenly realised that DF was about to be released.

They claim themselves that offenders are sent to prison to be rehabilitated, yet, if they were actively trying to rehabilitate him they would have been aware of his pending release and, would have acted in time so that his situation would have been much different.

Notwithstanding this, I still have doubt as to whether a persn can be sentenced on one set of laws, then have their sentence alterered mid stream.

Now if the authorities were doing their job, the job they are paid to do, why then did they forget this guy was being released until it was to late?

Quite obviously, nobody cared about him while he was in prison. The old 'out of sight, out of mind', I think!

This is one of the few times I agree 100% with rehctub. He summarised it pretty well.

rehctub: <"...the fact remains that this guy has done his time and should be left alone.">

He was left alone and he used that time to move in with an underage female and later to sexually assault another two children. The judge in those cases decided the cases shouldn't proceed because DF wouldn't get a fair trial. I, for one, didn't even know who he was until then.

I think therefore that the magistrate was very mistaken. In any case, the court could have flown in jurists from elsewhere - or sometimes a judge only trial is granted; I wonder why that sort of trial wasn't undertaken.

One researcher has stated that the average number of victims for a person caught for paedophilia is 110. It is very unlikely that the one event for which he has served time was the beginning or will be the end of his predatory activity.

Recidivism rates for paedophiles have been assessed as from about 14 to 40 percent. Recidivism is more likely when a paedophile cannot empathize with child victims and/or believes that they have done nothing harmful. DF refused to take offender courses while in gaol - I wonder why. (BTW I understand that such courses are optional).

DF is a very specific type of paedophile; he has particular predilections such as sadism/ perhaps masochism. I think he is amongst the rarer and most recalcitrant type of offender.

He also has a role in making sure that the housing he accesses is in a suitable place. So far he hasn't been the least proactive in ensuring that his accommodation would place him away from children; quite the opposite.

I agree with the writer and one or two others who believe that the cost (in terms of potential victims) of trying to reintegrate many (but not all) of these types of offenders, is too high.

Any vacant islands or outback ghost towns?

Until we have done a whole lot more research and know more about how to defuse these walking timebombs - send them to one of those distant locations.

Pynchme, you are 'way off the mark' and, it is quite obvious you are one of those who found him guilty before he had his trial. In fact, it is your kind that allows these people to roam our streets as, if you lot would simply 'clam up' and keep your opinions on one's guilt to yourself, perhaps there could have been a fair trial. In any case, you seem to have made up your mind.

Just a few facts.
1. The under age girl he was living with was a few months from being 18. Huge grey area!

2. He did receive a 'judge only trial' and was found 'not guilty'.

3. The person named as being the one most likely to have committed the recent crime has not been charged. (more evidence the police when on a which hunt in reaction to public outroar) The very 'outroar' that prevent justice being done in the first place.

4. He did attempt to reside on a remote property (well away from any children) but the towns folk, fueled by the media, drove him away.

I say again, you are way off the mark!

p.s. There is a peodophile still on the loose, as DF was found not guilty. So, have you any intentions of bringing him to justice?

I've seen nothing on the media about him, other than the four corners report. Have you?

Where are the police now?

Do they not care about the little girl's (alledged) molestor being on the loose?

Pynchme: "I think therefore that the magistrate was very mistaken."

No, he wasn't Pynchme. He implemented the law as it is written. You can't retrospectively change the law, and the decision has been appealed a number of times and stood firm. So the point remains: Dennis has done his time and is now a free man. If we as a society actually put our faith in the rule of law he should be allowed to do this in peace and quiet without harassment from the media or vigalanties.

If you are correct and all paedophiles are highly likely to re-offend regardless of age we should change the law. It would be good if you could post some links backing up that assertion. I'd be particularly interested in seeing the percentage of paedophiles who were over 60 when they offended.

"If we as a society actually put our faith in the rule of law"
ie Australian laws.
That's the problem- nobody does. Most of us think they're crap and badly need to change. Our legal system has shown itself increasingly corrupt and slanted when dealing with different demographics, and they seem to put low consideration on public safety for serious cases (while harboring a disjointedly harsh stance against leaking information and graffiti).

And assuming Ferguson was in fact guilty (of a repeat offense), it may well be putting others in danger he is to settle near- which is not fair on them.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to side with the locals- it shouldn't be up to them to give up their rights and adjust their lives around this man- if they don't want to. I'd say it's fairer to say it's HIS tough luck than to say it's THEIRS.

Ok King Hass and all those who hate this man.

What about the person who alledgedly assulted these girls from Dalby. Why haven't you lot gone after him?

He is still living in the community, so what makes him any less of a threat than DF? After all, he to is a convicted peodophile!

Now unless you intend to take this matter up and have him face justice, then you really are simply a pack of 'closed minded' vigilanties out to fuel the media hype.

I challenge you lot to 'stand up and be counted' or simply leave DF alone!

Like it or not, he has been tried and found 'not guilty'.

It is very 'double standard' of you all to sit back and do nothing about this alledged peodophile at large.

King Hazza: "it shouldn't be up to them to give up their rights"

I think you are under a couple of misconceptions.

Firstly under Australian law these people have no rights to give up, as we have never had the right to choose our neighbours.

Secondly Dennis, bless his black little heart, does have some rights. He has property rights, tenancy rights and all sorts of other rights given to him under law, which you now demand be taken away.

So don't argue your case on a "I have rights" basis. You don't, but Dennis does.

King Hazza: "it may well be"

It may be. However it may not, and the idea of a 60 year old man going on a sexual rampage sounds far fetched to me. That is why I asked Pynchme to provide some proof it is a real possibility.

All I see in your words is a justification for an unlawful lynch mob. Now I can have some sympathy for lynch mobs. Some of the commanders of Hitler's camps were hung by little more than lynch mobs. The evidence was overwhelming, the crime was great, and at the time unpunished. How can one argue?

But here we have a man who is innocent - he has been punished for all his crimes, and no one claims he has committed new ones. The evidence that he might commit a another crime looks to be based on hearsay. I certainly appears to be so in your case - I'd wager you don't have a clue how often 60 year old paedophiles re-offend, and have never bothered to look it up.

So all I see is a man whose blood is boiling at the thought of remote deeds done in a distant past, and now saying he has the "right" to chase another out of town because of it. That doesn't seem right to me.

Rehctub and rstuart: Ensuring the safety of children doesn't even imply hatred of DF. In fact, he has shown a long standing pattern of contempt for the law and for his obligations as a citizen - he has no internal locus of control and therefore, in seeking to apply external controls, we could be seen to be working FOR him by helping him to avoid further occasions of incarceration.

As to rights: rstuart you have forgotten that Australia is a signatory to (and helped draft the UDHR) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under these we all have a right to live in safety; but as well as that parents and authoritative bodies have a duty to protect children, especially from sexual abuse and exploitation. One of the articles refers specifically to prevention.

DF is not a helpless piece of flotsam, as his capacity to move about and obtain a substantial share of community resources demonstrates - being placed in a location appropriate to his situation is more a matter of his personal responsibility than that of anyone else or any department. He knows full well that over the years his presence in the vicinity of children has been disastrous for one or more of various children, communities or himself.

Rstuart - the magistrate's decision was criticized by peers who said other available legal options - such as instructing a jury - hadn't been considered.

There were two little girls; not just one. DF took his companion of 9 months or so - another known paedophile with charges outstanding - to that house for the supposed purpose of discussing a business venture with the mother. DF said his companion had to drive him there. Both ended up in the house and trying to engage the children in sitting on one or both laps.

DF has shown a long standing pattern of managing to place himself in dangerous proximity to children - and for the second time in company with a fellow paedophile. The judge summed up that the 5 yr old had been molested but was presented with two suspects each of which denies culpability.

My personal bet is that both were involved, just like the first time. If only one acted, I think there is a fair chance the other knew about it. As an example, look at how contact with the children targeted in his first offence came to be known and accessible to DF and his child molester partner at that time.

The limitations of our laws are glaringly apparent.

Recidivism rates: there are a few (literally too few) studies that you can find online. One that sets out various risk factors is provided by Fazel, Sjostedt, Langstrom and Grann (2006) Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism in Older Sexual Offenders, in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 18, No. 2.

A base rate reconviction cited in that study for offenders 55 years and older is 6-7 %.

Risk factors increasing risk for reconviction:

1. Any previous sexual conviction.
2. Any previous conviction.
3. Any non-contact sexual conviction.
4. Index offence included non-sexual violence.
5. Previous non-sexual violence.
6. Any unrelated victim (acquaintance or stranger).
7. Any stranger victim.
8. Any male victim.
9. Age <25 at release.
10.Single status.

* Consider cohort effects too.

Rectub- perhaps you need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to read- particularly the word 'if' which should have informed you a little better about my stance- before accusing me of being a lyncher.
But yes, you totally got me- I hate Dennis SO much that I don't even care if he may turn out to be innocent (of all cases against him)- nor care about present sexual predators in society anymore. And I'm not ashamed!

Same to you rstuart, I am in fact an enthusiastic lynching lobbyist who demands the right to lynch on the drop of a hat because I hate the missed opportunity to find out someone is innocent before I get to lynch them first.

(I think I should add that I am being sarcastic- most people would have figured this by reading the above- but I seriously believe you two lack the perceptive cognition and actually need the clarification).

Anyway, my REAL opinion is that it should not be down to some community to endure a (supposedly cured based on arbitrary pre-sentence ruling alone) repeat sex-offender in their neighbourhood and be expected to make the adjustments at their own expense- my answer is simply that sexual crimes need to have a life-imprisonment sentence- with a longer parole period and ONLY on the grounds a psychologist can guarantee complete reform.
Criminal justice system is supposed to be about protecting people- and sentences should be geared primarily for that purpose alone.

Pynchme: "A base rate reconviction cited in that study for offenders 55 years and older is 6-7 %."

I'm impressed. You did me a favour and produced that figure even though it is not terribly good for your side of the argument. Thanks - it is appreciated.

Using the title you gave as a search term I found this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16639535?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

I suspect you have the means to get behind these pay walls - I don't. However the abstract says:

"Then for the small group aged 60+ no further sexual reconvictions were found."

Unfortunately I assume "small group" means "statistically insignificant", sadly. Dennis is now 61.

King Hazza: "my answer is simply that sexual crimes need to have a life-imprisonment sentence"

Fair enough, but that is at odds with what you said before about "siding with the locals".

King Hazza: "ONLY on the grounds a psychologist can guarantee complete reform."

That is an impossible ask. No psychologist could give that guarantee for you, let alone Ferguson. It is like asking the mechanic working on your car to guarantee it will never break down, or you guaranteeing to your insurance company you will never have an accident. The best you are going to get is the sort of figures Pynchme quoted above.

That said, my guess was that not releasing him until he hit 60 was a pretty good approximation to what you want. And now that I have seen some real figures on the subject I'd say the guess has a reasonable chance of being right.

"Siding with the locals" means I generally support the concept of them being able to refuse convicted pedophiles to take up local residence- lynch mobbing no- lobbying councils to deny permits to purchase or reside in property, yes- and only on the grounds of justification via, for example, a prior conviction for a major offense.
Not fair on the convicted- but fair for the community if they do feel inclined to lobby against his residence.

And to address your flawless statement of the impossible:
"It is like asking the mechanic working on your car to guarantee it will never break down, or you guaranteeing to your insurance company you will never have an accident."
Obviously, if one or more psychologists can analyze him with some tests (based on similar tests psychologists of mental wards in other western countries would use to get a PRETTY confident belief that their own patients no longer need treatment/incarceration, then that would be a reasonable yard stick for a 'guarantee'- of course, if they can never be certain and he must remain indefinitely in prison- so be it. But I think a life-sentence with a few decades of parole based on the above criteria- or immediate release with compensation if in fact proven innocent- would be the correct approach.
Simple.
Now, if the criminal procedures were like the above, THEN I would consider my top statement moot and unnecessary.
Until then, I will happily tolerate local communities having some kind of say over who comes into their neighborhoods, as I find it abhorrent that they must lump whatever the system's failings dump on them.

rstuart: Sorry but my posting wasn't complete because of post limits.


Cont'd:

For average number of victims (110 per offender) and offences (300 plus), read Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee and English (2000) The Imapct of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders, in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12(2), pp. 123-138.

Recidivism x number of years from index offense was recorded by Prentky, Lee, Knight and Cerce (1997) at intervals of 1, 5, 10 and 25 years - at 25 years 39% for rapists and 52% for child molesters.

Recidivism rate by type of offender: Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found that the recidivism rate for child molesters with male victims varied between 13 and 40 percent; other studies cite figures up to 46%. Meta analysis by Hanson and Bussiere state a base rate of child molestation at 12.7 percent and rape 18.9 percent; with recidivism for any offense at 36.9 and 46.2 respectively.

Hanson and Harris (1998) noted risk factors for recidivist sex offenders:

1. Unemployment.
2. Poor social influences.
3. Substance abuse.
4. Less inclination to show remorse or concern for victims.
5. Recidivists tended to see themselves as being at
little risk of reoffending.
6. Recidivist sex offenders were less likely to avoid high-risk situations.
7. More likely to have engaged in deviant sexual activities.

Risk of recidivism was found to be higher for child molesters who refused to participate in sex offender treatment programs, at 43 percent, compared to 18 percent for people who undertook treatment; over a 4 year follow up. (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988); although other researchers and meta analytic studies showed effects of 17.6 percent compared to 7.2 percent.

The studies can be found through a university library and the latter studies are referred to by the US Department of Justice.

Btw: There are well documented cases of offenders over 70 yrs old.

I think parents living near him would be extremely negligent if they failed to do all in their power to remove him from the vicinity of their children and that we should support them.

Pynchme,

Thanks again. You have obviously put a fair effort into answering my question, far more than I deserve really.

Pynchme: "There are well documented cases of offenders over 70 yrs old."

Yes. So after that remarkable interlude lets return to what passes for debate here on OLO.

There are also well document cases of family dogs ripping apart children, and family cars running them over. However, in terms of what the appropriate response to these accidents one has to know how often they occur. A signal instance does nothing but tug on the heart strings.

It does appear from everything quoted and linked to here the odds of Dennis reoffending are low. For example, in that study you quoted of N=752 none offended when over 60. If that was a representative sample, that means the odds are of all sex crimes committed, less than 0.1% will be by people over 60.

King Hazza: "lobbying councils to deny permits to purchase or reside in property"

I would have a lot more sympathy for this if, before trampling all over the rights of others, the people lobbying for it put some effort into deciding whether they were acting out of an irrational hysteria whipped up by the media, or there was a good reason for asking him to move on. To do otherwise would be to sanction the burning scary looking old women as witches and the persecution of Galileo.

OK, I know I ask too much. In fact I ask more that I can do, because I am not a wonderfully rational person either. But I do think it is right to hold our government and our courts to that same standard. I know they will never reach it, and I know they constantly have to be reminded of it. But if you don't continually remind them, they don't stay still - they go backwards.

That is why I don't like it when I see people do what you are doing here, in suggesting that in this "one special case" there is no need to uphold that standard.

rstuart, I'm afraid that your estimation of risk is mistaken. You are not accounting for the additional risk factors (two categories of those have been supplied). DF meets most of them as far as I can see. We don't know what his drug use is but I have assumed none.

He was assessed at high risk - possibility of rehab nil - after release for the abduction and molestation case. He has done nothing since that time to demonstrate that static and dynamic risk factors no longer apply - quite the opposite.

One study correlated recidivism with age. The fact that there was weak correlation between older aged people and recidivism doesn't ensure that older/aged males don't offend.

Recidivism can be measured at varying stages: as police report; charges being laid or at conviction. Fewer older offenders being convicted may just mean they haven't been caught (have got better at evading detection, perhaps) or haven't been convicted. There are cases of offences committed by people well into their 70s and older. Regardless of age, one must take account of the risk factors as well as the base rate (which varies from study to study).

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/04/elderly_paedophile_jailed_for.php

http://www.mjsol.co.uk/2009/general/elderly-paedophile-viagra-nhs/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4923251.ece

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Elderly-child-molester-Francisco-Esquivel/Xzvukr3n90mTxMANA6jMWg.cspx

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600148139/Elderly-molester-staying-in-prison.html

http://www.wkrg.com/florida/article/elderly_man_molests_5_year_old_child/15812/Jul-31-2008_12-35-am/

etc - Google.

Rstuart;
I think the frequency of offenses and the cases themselves need to be addressed as separate issues;
For example, if a family dog eats one of the kids, obviously you'd still have to put the dog down as a threat.
If there were substantial repeat cases, then further preventative measures would have to be taken regarding pet ownership issues.
The same deal with being run over by a car- obviously if it's an irregular accident, there is nothing much to do but investigate the conditions of the accident, and determine if the driver was at fault.
If there were multiple cases then there would likely be some form of investigation into car safety to minimize these accidents occurring.

As it is, Fergusson is a singular case.

As for local rights- generally I don't see it as a special case but think locals deserve more input into whether someone has the right to be granted residence if there are any security concerns- at least until parole conditions are weighed more into the condition of rehabilitation and not the expiry of a finite sentence.

Pynchme: "rstuart, I'm afraid that your estimation of risk is mistaken."

Perhaps Pynchme, but it is probably more accurate to say there is no firm data either way. I admit to having no idea how the statistics combine, but they don't always combine the way you imply. Only independent variables do that. Without more studies it is impossible to say, however the simple interpretation of the figures "none in a random sample of 752" means its pretty slim.

Although am I impressed with your ability to drag up news stories of paedophiles on Viagra, even 10's of them isn't terribly significant given the billion odd in the OECD, which looks to be your sample space.

[rant] How you academics manage to put yourselves in the situation were you write the papers, you review them for free, then you have to pay to access them is utterly beyond me. [/rant]

King Hazza: "the frequency of offences and the cases themselves need to be addressed as separate issues ... obviously you'd still have to put the dog down as a threat."

No. Think about it. You are saying it is a threat because it did the deed before. You are doing precisely what you say you should not do, you are not separating the issues of the dog doing it once and the odds of it doing it again. You are having difficulty doing that here, and I presume you are also have difficulty doing it with Dennis.

Normally of course you would be right. However this time Dennis is in his twilight years. A little longer and it may as well shrivel up and drop off completely. He is in effect not the same dog.

He has offered to submit to chemical castration, probably because given his advancing years it doesn't mean much to him. If he did, would you still be in favour of allowing all and sundry driving him out of their neighbourhood?

I see where your coming from rstuart but his probability of re-offending is less predictable (having repeated the offense previously and showing little signs of rehabilitation while incarcerated).

His consent to chemical castration is more re-assuring though.
However, I still believe that if any local resident can make an argument of concern for security, the council should have the right to deny convicts such as him right of residence (putting aside his threat level isn't the highest- although I don't believe it worthy of flat-out dismissal).