http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24282278-3102,00.html
This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.
So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?
My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Yeah. People are getting more and more like that, and I think it's getting totally out of hand. Here's a question to get the ball rolling here. Do sex offenders deserve this treatment from the public?
Does any criminal deserve to be hounded by the public once they've served their time? I can understand the need for the authorities to be able to monitor people once they're freed in an unobtrusive manner but that's not a role for the public. Certainly the legal boundaries for the public to watch ex-crims are shady. Where does harmless awareness end and illegal stalking begin for example?
Post a Comment