There is no surer way to get an argument than to start a debate about Dennis Ferguson and people who sexually abuse children. The two recent items that Crikey has published on the topic quickly moved to the top of the most discussed list.
Before I mention a bit more about that, I wanted to draw attention to a national online survey being done by the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN). It is a key part of a campaign aimed at bringing the reality of child abuse further into the open, to gain more insight into public perceptions about the sensitive issue of child abuse and to provide an opportunity for people to contribute to the development of workable prevention strategies.
It only takes about ten minutes to fill in the survey, so if you’re concerned about the issue, click on the link — they’re trying to get to 50 000 people to do it. They’re up over 11 600 at the moment.
Given the media frenzy regarding Dennis Ferguson, it is ironic that there is still such a need to bring the reality of child abuse out into the open.
It is often pointed out that the vast majority of sexual offenses against children are carried out by family members. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the minority of other offenders, such as Ferguson. But it does mean we should make sure we’re not just picking on easy targets while ignoring the bigger problem — something spin-focused governments and law and order tub-thumpers are very adept at doing.
Queensland went through the same period of neighbourhood vigilante fervour towards Dennis Ferguson over 12 months ago. I wrote a few posts on the topic then. Very little has changed, except that in the interim Ferguson was found not guilty of the charges that he had been facing around that time.
The key point, as made in this Crikey piece is that it
is counter-productive in terms of the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. And most importantly it may also militate against progress towards reducing the future incidence and severity of sexual offending.
As virtually everyone quite rightly insists that it is the interests and rights of children that they are most concerned about in these situations, it would be preferable if we focused on what responses are most likely to reduce the risks of further harm to children, not what responses feed our sense of outrage and disgust. That goes double for political and other community leaders in the media.
Child protection work is amongst the most difficult of fields, but even with that caveat, the dismal state of the child safety systems in most states is a clear sign that perhaps our society doesn’t give as much priority to protecting children as we like to think we do.
Andrew
Whilst, as you say, it is often pointed out that the vast majority of s-xual offenses against children are carried out by family members, it is also true that the majority of abuse is carried out by a small number of very prolific offenders who may offend against up to 1000 children over their lifetime.
The biggest reduction in child sexual assault will therefore be effected by removing these very dangerous and prolific offenders from the community and putting them somewhere where they can’t gain trusted access to children.
Ferguson is an easy target. However, he made himself an easy target when he agreed to be housed in an area with children.
Pedophilia is most accruately understood as an addiction. If an alcoholic chose to live upstairs in a pub, he’d be placing himself at risk of going back to the drink. Similarly, if ferguson lives in a community where he sees children running about, he’s placing himself at risk of going back to offending. If Ferguson was truly rehabilitated, he would not agree to be housed in a community with a large number of young families.
If the authorities wanted to help ferguson, they would not house him in such an area but would provide him with accommodation that reduced as far as possible, his risk of re-offending.
The tub-thumpers are not just angry at Ferguson being housed in an area with children, they are cranky with a government system which talks loudly about child protection and then does something so stupid.
Andrew, just to clarify, Ferguson was not acquitted of the recent Queensland charges. He was granted a permanent stay of proceedings as the court ruled he could never get a fair trial in relation to those charges. No thanks to the media hysteria and general mob mentality of the community, as you point out.
Amanda does what so many others continue to do. She states that government (in general and specifically) “..talks loudly about child protection and then does something so stupid..”, ie allow an ex-con out of jail. Governments in Qld and NSW have done virtually everything legally possible to harrass Ferguson (and others like him) and drive them out of town, to some other town, to some other state. All of us know that the government cannot put the man back in jail. We agree that he has done his time and that he should be allowed to get on with his life. He has onerous reporting duties and everyone around him knows who he is. What more can a government do? Not one person has actually suggested any legally or socially appropriate action that could be taken. So, if you don’t have a constructive suggestion, get out of the debate. Just leave it. It’s no longer your business. Vigilantes are so boring and gutless. They are often more bent than their targets.
Hugh: “What more can a government do?”
They can figure out what could have been done better and apply it next time. And Premier Rees is willing to do so: http://www.smh.com.au/national/ferguson-case-prompts-government-review-of-sex-offenders-procedures-20090920-fwjs.html
Hugh, your claim that “Not one person has actually suggested any legally or socially appropriate action that could be taken” shows you’re not even reading what people have written. Anyone who won’t even listen to others is the one who should “get out of the debate. Just leave it. It’s no longer your business”