While the crowds and anger are a concern, while few of us want to kill or harm this bloke, what if?
What if the crowds had never formed it was not known he was there?
What if he offended again?
What if he does?
Are his human rights more than his neighbors?
Or his victims?
He has a right to live his life without fear but so do we the idea of isolation and lifetime control may well be the answer.
A poster highlights minor criminals are in prison.
And will get far less than we give this bloke.

"What ifs" are fun, aren't they?

What if the sky was green?

What if the moon was made of cheese?

What if all unionists were assumed to be enemies of the State?

While I generally agree with your comments, belly, I've been the victim of a "what if" from a magistrate and I didn't see my kids for 7 months because he wouldn't think about the application to include my kids in my ex-wife's spurious DVO, but instead said "we can't take the chance that the allegation may be proven" and granted the application, with no evidence presented and no opposing case heard.

Our society is now in a situation in which a mere allegation is enough to get the "what if" brigade frothing at the mouth, with the result that a no-doubt serious offender is running free at enormous cost to the State. You should be ashamed of your "what ifs".

There wouldn't be any what ifs, if it weren't for the pathetic ruling by the judge.

This piece of garbage, Ferguson, should take the responsibility of the publicity because he is a recidivist. If he was a first time offender no one would know his name.

The only reason people know who he is, is because he has reoffended after being let out. So he should have to live with the fact that it might be more difficult for him to find jurors who don't know him or his background.

It a monumentally stupid decision by the judge.

Belly, those are worthwhile what if's but there are others.

- What if the reaction to Ferguson makes it more difficult to deal with child abusers?
- What if the reaction to Ferguson ensures that we don't get to know when a known child abuser is in our neighbourhood?
-What if the reaction to Ferguson cements the idea that some people are beyond the reach of the law because they can't be tried fairly?

There will be others. I'd hate to have him in my neighbourhood but assuming that he can't currently be kept in jail the location he is in makes some sense. It's close enough to a built up area so that police and other resources are available - a lot of remote areas will have a small police presence. It seems to be away from concentrations of children (schools, child care centers, parks etc). It's accessable but not densly populated. Government owned land so private landlords don't have to deal with the flow on.

Horrible for those who live nearby but it would be hard to find a location with ready access to resources and where the neighbours would like him in the area.

R0bert

GrahamY, recidivism rates overall are not overly helpful insofar as they disguise the problem. It is true that a person who offends once is only at a minimal risk of recidivism, that is true with paedophiles as with most other criminals, with paedophiles this is normally associated primarily with those who have a one-off 'relationship' with a family member and/or someone they know. When a paedophile reoffends, especially when they start to lie and/or trick their way into the confidence of others in order to reoffend, then they are far more likely to reoffend repeatedly.

Here is an interesting paper on this type of person:

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/paedophilia/glaser.pdf

My other question is, if it is so very safe for the public to live around them, why aren't they housed in the same area as Senior Public Servants/Ministers? I mean, such areas (given their known socio-economic makeup) would seem to be far less likely to give rise to lynch mobs, wouldn't they? Thus, despite the higher rent, the lesser need for police protection should ensure a lower overall expenditure? Or is this just a political stunt to put pressure on the judidiciary to try the man, by upsetting as much of the community as possible? Especially low-income, semi-rural Queenslanders, who are noted for having extremely low tolerance for a lot of things? Whose response is utterly predictable? Whose votes rarely favour the ALP anyway?

I mean, it hardly makes sense otherwise (any more than putting him in low income, predominantly Aboriginal areas did other times). I mean, an area whose people have a well known dislike of paedophiles, high incidence of sociopathy and little to no respect for the rule of law with a marked antipathy toward police... Who could predict the outcome of adding a high-profile paedophile to that mix, hmmm?

Cui bono?

I am always prepared to listen to others views.
I learn much that way, sometimes change my mind and view.
But not this time.
I do not want the bloke dead.
But I do not want him free to commit these crimes either.
Close to the bone for me, I know victims.
Too many victims, too many destroyed lives.
From a different generation than most posters, and from a poor background I have seen too much.
Strange as it may seem my job keeps me seeing things that never should have happened.
I have no answers but a few ideas.
Our elderly sometimes live in villages we call retirement homes.
Could we have an open but guarded remote place like this?
My what ifs worry me, my past story of a little girl raped by her father are true.
That kid is now 18 has 3 children and never again a life, it hurts.
Ten times ten times my WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD warned DOCS she was in danger.
No action took place until after the crime.
Take Dennis Ferguson's freedom not another child's life.