Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Tas · Post by **Tas** » 11th Jul, '08, 11:16

There is a massive topic around the below article, and would only mean something to folk seeing it in the Aus news nightly. But the section I wanted to draw attention to was the particularly dumb f**k comment: " "It is very unfortunate, I am sorry that we have all of our best Task Force Argos officers on this case for over a week now, because they should be out there doing their job and catching more pedophiles."

What's the friggn' point of sending out there to "do their job" to catch them when the legal system, which clearly has nothing to do with being a justice system, is plain and simple just letting them go again!!!!!

Ferguson protection not cheap: Spence
Email Print Normal font Large font July 11, 2008 - 12:18PM

Advertisement
Police resources needed to guard convicted pedophile Dennis Ferguson are "not coming cheap", police minister Judy Spence says.

Ferguson, 60, is being cared for by a church group at the Carbrook property, on Brisbane's southern outskirts, at a cost to taxpayers of $1,000 a day.

He was freed on new child sex charges last week by a judge who said he would not get a fair trial - he has already been run out of a community at Miles, in the state's south.

The Queensland Government has lodged an appeal against District Court Judge Hugh Botting's decision. It is listed for hearing on July 22.

Ms Spence did not put a figure on the cost of monitoring Ferguson on Friday, but said it was a drain on police resources.

"Police do not cost out individual operations, but I can assure you that this is not coming cheap," she told reporters,

"It is very unfortunate, I am sorry that we have all of our best Task Force Argos officers on this case for over a week now, because they should be out there doing their job and catching more pedophiles."

Ms Spence said she's committed to keeping Ferguson in Carbrook until the appeal is complete, despite ongoing protest outside the property.

A government committee is meeting daily to decide on a location for Ferguson if the appeal fails.

"They are all coming up with possible solutions but we certainly haven't found one yet," she said,

"Obviously placing him in any community in Queensland is not going to be successful so we are working very hard in coming up with another solution.

Ferguson has expressed a desire not to be moved interstate, Ms Spence said.

© 2008 AAP

Lili Von Shtupp · Post by **Lili Von Shtupp** » 11th Jul, '08, 11:37

I'm sickened that they are protecting him. Why wouldn't he get a fair trial? Because a jury of his peers would love to see him rot in hell? Sounds fair to me.

Tas · Post by **Tas** » 11th Jul, '08, 11:48

he wouldn't get a fair trial because he is so notorius - go figure.

also combined with the fact that the evidence was apparently weak.

nature of the case aside, notoriety combined with weak case matches potential for unfair trial, ie conviction based on opinion and reputation, not fact.

makes you wonder what evidence is enough to arrest and hold until trial, yet not enough to convict on in a peodophile case like this ?

Kooky · Post by **Kooky** » 11th Jul, '08, 11:53

Couldn't they try him in another state? (I don't understand all the layers of govt, jurisdiction, etc., here so maybe not.)

Lili Von Shtupp · Post by **Lili Von Shtupp** » 11th Jul, '08, 12:01

Hmmm, how weak is the evidence? It says he was "convicted pedophile", so I just assumed that that means he's guilty. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If the evidence is truly weak, then I can see the problem. Maybe The Hague can come up with a "rental jury" service for cases like this!

Tas · Post by **Tas** » 11th Jul, '08, 12:26

he was convicted and served time on a separate case where he kidnapped 3 children and abused them. according to news reports, he was the reason the qld govt later changed laws that allowed justice department to extend sentences of dangerous and likely to re-offend cases. It was not a retrospective law and he was released. the current case is for an incident with 5yr (I think) old.

kooky - court cases are held in the state in which crime was committed. part of the complication of federation.

Lili Von Shtupp · Post by **Lili Von Shtupp** » 11th Jul, '08, 13:20

Oh that's terrible. I would chase him out of my neighbourhood too.

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 11th Jul, '08, 13:30

The real question is wether you lock someone up for life, let them go, or castrate them.

The real problem here is that the public have been told about the man, and therefore there's been an outcry, and so he can't be tried. If the public hadn't been told about him, there would be no outcry and he could be tried but then the public would be seething if they found out he was amongst them without their knowledge.

Catch 22.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 11th Jul, '08, 14:36

Just let him swing.

cromasaig · Post by **cromasaig** » 11th Jul, '08, 16:41

I'm a confirmed liberal, yet I keep coming to the conclusion that chemical castration is the way forward for convicted paedophiles who reoffend. It means we don't have to keep them locked up for life (or hang them, FB!). Unfortunately I don't get the impression that rehabilitation is often successful - am I right?

Burb, maybe your criminal psychologist ex-girlfriend can tell me: is chemical castration likely to be effective for many paedophiles, or is it not sexually driven?

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 11th Jul, '08, 16:55

As long as they take the chemicals. I wouldn't bother with that. If they are physically castrated their chance of re-offending are virtually zero. Let them put some sperm on ice if they feel their right to have children is being affected. In fact the idea that they might have children is a bit of a problem anyway.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 11th Jul, '08, 17:36

Have got an issue here: you are quite prepared to cause physical harm to them but still think they have a right to live: isn't that a bit contradictory?

And going off on another point: would castration work for rapists? Does that fly in the face about the power/in the mind thing? Or is it the chemicals the testicles release putting those thoughts there?

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 11th Jul, '08, 18:32

If you have a bad leg you think that amputation and lethal injection would be the same thing?

cromasaig · Post by **cromasaig** » 11th Jul, '08, 18:43

Fat Bob wrote:Have got an issue here: you are quite prepared to cause physical harm to them but still think they have a right to live: isn't that a bit contradictory?

Yes, I think it is contradictory to an extent, and I am uneasy about it - hence my question about the efficacy in the first place - but I think the balance of harm on both sides (cost versus benefit, if you like) makes it something that I'd consider, certainly before capital punishment.

But do I think it's a good thing to give any government the right to deliberately inflict permanent physical damage on its citizens? No.

Lili Von Shtupp · Post by **Lili Von Shtupp** » 11th Jul, '08, 19:21

Burbage wrote:If you have a bad leg you think that amputation and lethal injection would be the same thing?

For most men I think the question is, which leg?

The Singapore Forum

Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say

Re: Adding to the list of dumb things politicians say