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.