Ferguson appears to be an absolute idiot. He has been punished in accordance with the law. He should now be helped to re-enter society. If he fails and returns to his old habits, then he becomes beyond help and should be held in a mental institution at whatever degree is necessary to control him. I consider another animal, the dog. He savages the stupid kid, his tormentor. The dog is put down without protest or further interest by the media. Why is Ferguson different and why does he have privileges above his mental peers?
Angryant47.

Examinator, “Col, at the risk of invoking your scorn”

I do not scorn any ones view, only the way some address me and I don’t think we will have any issues there : - ).

“Clearly without individual rights being maintained ‘common good’ becomes meaningless.”

The common good is always meaningless.

What is not meaningless is the expectation for children to be protected from the abuse and depravities of pedophiles

“ uncharacteristically reactionary and inconsistent to comments in the abortion topic.”

Maybe but I feel no discomfort in the apparent difference.

It is simple, I believe in the rights of individuals and that means their right to be protected from the excesses of others.

Hence, the demands imposed by a pedophile upon another individual, a child are heinous and the child is deserving of protection.

In the instance of a pregnant woman, the embryo / fetus is inseparable from the woman’s body and thus, protections from the woman herself are inappropriate. In fact, the woman is deserving of protection from the demands which other people would impose upon her (albeit for different motives than the pedophile) to accept their decision over her own.

“As I write I wonder if this post maybe perceived as deliberately intrusive”

It is a public forum and could never be considered “intrusive”

“Likewise paedophiles are most often victims themselves.”

Understand and accept that however, it remains the responsibility of the individual pedophile to find less destructive outlets for his particular practices, just as you or I, whilst we may both see individuals which “take our fancy” and might even think how they are in bed but do not act upon those ‘dreamings’ (without checking those feelings are being reciprocated).

“Logically I think harming another for what is social vengeance is regressive.”

I do not suggest execution as a vengeance but as the only solution which protects the innocence and rights of future victims.

Dennis Ferguson is now costing the public $1000 a day.

I doubt any of his victims are being so indulged and I do find something wrong with this.

“Dennis Ferguson is now costing the public $1000 a day.

I doubt any of his victims are being so indulged and I do find something wrong with this.”

This does create a quandary Col. What is this money actually being spent on? Is it in any way aimed at preventing him from reoffending or is it entirely quality-of-life support? Is it being used to protect him from vigilantism? Is there a requirement for all of it to be spent on Ferguson or is the relevant church group able to pocket a good part of it? Are there any of his victims in need of support, who are not getting it, or not getting adequate help?

$1000 a day seems like an awful lot. A more realistic figure would be a $1000 a week.

The taxpayer is also paying for police to guard his home.

How long will these arrangements continue? What will happen when they stop?

Is he also drawing the dole or other income? His new home is government-owned. Is he paying any rent?

Oh what the hell. Does any of this really matter? The important thing is that everyone concerned has put in a solid effort to find a place for him to live, in comfort, while respecting the rights of his neighbours and community. I think it is a pretty good effort, with a reasonable balance being struck, in what is a very difficult situation.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2296933.htm

rehctub, I don't grasp your ambivalence towards the beast Ferguson.
see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1950#39954 where you accuse protesters of giving him a free ticket to offend again, yet you take umbrage when I state the simple fact that if he molested my kids, he would be dead. So, while you admit that he may offend again, you don't accept that I should carry out my own solution. What if it was your kids?

I reckon it's you that doesn't get it. You seem to agree that the judge should have dropped serious charges because 'people like me' have robbed him of any chance of a fair trial. If Hitler had survived, would you have applied the same logic and advocated cancellation of the Nuremburg Trials?

As dickie wrote, vigilantes spring up when the legal system fails those it should protect.

Col thanks for the reply. My comments re "each to their own capacity” was a comment with the highlight that some posters aren’t as incisive as others and consequently they may not understand the context or intent.

Responding to a comment about ‘civility in comments issue’ the poster made note that without conflict the site would be boring. This indicated that the person was either viewing the site as ‘entertainment’ (al la big brother type voyeurism rather than an ‘informational’/‘intellectual’ pursuit which is inherently interesting and thereby ‘entertaining’) or spotlighted their reasoning skills limits. Likewise another poster is prone dogma, aggression, and irrationality/abuse. Again responding in kind to this religiously “twisted sandshoe” is pointless.

Lifeline training emphasises “Always remember which end of the conversation the problem is and isolate the problem from the delivery”. Yours/my dignities, egos are well intact regardless of what they say.

The “intrusion” comment perhaps should have been “personal intrusion.”
Experience and training has taught me that absolutist responses are usually motivated by fear (which is in turn generated by personal insecurities).
Or as a consequential response to personally experiences.

I also alluded to
• Our own dark corners including transgressions against our personal morals biasing our judgements.
• The seeming contradiction for the Dafur children et al.
• Lack of apparent concern about other related issues
• Not to mention the public’s almost vicariously hysterical and disproportionate responses to ‘sex’ crimes that borders on voyeurism.
• The public’s disregard/ selfishness disregard for the victims impeding their recovery.
• Every new media profit driven “circus maximus” forces revisitation on all suffering victims of sex or violent crimes .
• Giving positive consequence to the victim’s suffering as part of the rehabilitation.

In the light of these factors I wondered at the thought process that gave a seemingly emotionally regressive response especially considering your undoubted mental skills.
BTW Your definition on foetuses being part of and dependent on the mother’s body is interesting and I think a good determinant.
regards

Well, we seem to have sorted the situation with Ferguson. Now we must consider, Will anyone so accused ever get a fair trail in the future or will the jury convict just in case. No; it is not new, juries already convict and have done so for years just in case the mongrel is guilty and they dont need witness or corroboration to do it. They even convict when so warned by a competent judge of the dangers arising in such cases. Anyone who thinks that people dont accuse falsely is a fool. The compensation money is a lot of dollars to some people and they really dont care a fig about the ends to their means. If the current Attorney General and many before had any gutz, this problem could be brought into perspective but the government has to be seen to be doing the right thing irrespective of evident false allegations. If Ferguson is to be tried again, then he must face a panel of judges, not an emotional jury. Peers at Fergusons mental level would be hard to find. It is hard to find the end date of a punishment ,correctly or incorrectly given unless ofcourse it is murder,bank robbery and all manner of thuggery.
Angryant47