The Psycho & The Simpleton

Ahhh.. further folly from the shit-for-brains at AZU.

First, a truly disturbing post from The Psycho:



Holy crap.. I really hope this person doesn't have children as there's something seriously wrong with him/her and clearly any children in his/her care would be at very real risk. If Marina truly cares about the wellbeing of children, she will immediately contact the authorities and pass on this person's IP so he/she can be traced and investigated.

After that truly frightening post, some humour is needed to lighten things up and, as usual, it comes from AZU's resident court jester: Clay Keys.



ROFL!! Clay is still banging on about not being a paedophile as though his sexual orientation has any relevance at all. He may not be a paedophile but his criminal record proves he's a child abuser and that is far, far worse than being a paedophile. The majority of paedophiles (and hebephiles) never harm a child whereas Clay already has. And now he seeks to distract people from his true nature by banging on about not being a paedophile. The simple minded AZU bloggers may be beguiled by his distortions but I won't be.

CLAY, YOU'RE A CONVICTED CHILD ABUSER: STOP TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING YOU'RE NOT!!!

Dennis Ferguson - Interview

For those not in the know, Dennis Ferguson is a man who was convicted of child molestation in the late 1980s. Since his conviction, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. This refusal to admit to a crime he claims not to have committed led to his exclusion from sex offender treatment programmes in prison and thus also excluded him from the possibility of early parole. He served his full 14 year sentence and was eventually released from prison to an awaiting media frenzy. Since his release he's been hounded from house to house as successive communities have been whipped into a frenzy.

None of us will ever know for sure if he really did commit that vile crime or if he was indeed wrongly convicted as he claims. He's been exposed to massive media coverage yet few of us really know much about him besides the one dimensional caricature the media present. For this reason it was interesting to watch the progamme devoted to him on Four Corners tonight. He doesn't present well but that's largely to do with his physical characteristics and the facial expressions that come with his blindness.

My gut feeling is that he is indeed guilty of molesting those poor kids and deserved the sentence he received. Still, he's now paid his debt and should be able to get on with his life without being constantly hounded and harassed by the unwashed masses - in particular the media whore Sean Killgallon who he's been driven to apply for an Apprehended Violence Order against. Check out the interview and story and make up your own mind.

LINK TO FOUR CORNERS SITE

A Very Sad Case

LINK TO NEWS STORY

Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.

So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.

So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.

This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.

Accused Child Molester Seeks Compo

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.