A house for Dennis

The question of where to house Dennis Ferguson is a vexed and almost insoluble question whilst ever the focus remains on Dennis and his needs.

If however, the focus is placed on the many victims of Dennis Ferguson’s crimes, their wellbeing and their desire that no other children are subjected to being sexually assaulted and sodomised as they were, then the question becomes clearer.

Four Corners provided an excellent background study on Ferguson, outlining his long list of criminal offences including crimes of fraud, stealing, indecent assault and indecent dealing with children before he embarked, with his co-offender, on the 1987 offences of carnal knowledge and sodomy of three children then aged six, seven and eight.

Ferguson pleaded earnestly with reporter Liz Jackson for the public to forget his history of crimes committed “so long ago”, first admitting them, then denying them, then admitting them, all with a few minutes.

Ferguson’s victims however, now aged about 28, 29 and 30 are likely to be married and have children possibly the same age they were when Dennis Ferguson befriended their parents, gained their trust and took the children to a motel in company with another offender, where the two men committed heinous sex crimes against the children.

While I do not know these victims, I would be fairly confident that their sense of trust in other people has been damaged, that their development into adulthood has been affected, that their education may have suffered and that their life prospects for stable relationships and rewarding careers are not as rosy as they would have been, had Ferguson not committed horrible crimes against them.

For the victims, the offences are probably not “so long ago” but rather remain as traumatic memories triggered all too often and that the offences are revisited as if they happened yesterday.

For these victims, to now be aware that criminals of Ferguson’s ilk are abroad in the community would likely be traumatic to them - realising that other children are at risk of similar offences which have affected their lives so deeply but which the authorities seem unable to prevent.

Viewed from this perspective, Dennis Ferguson’s self-proclaimed claimed “right” to live in an environment where he is free to sit on a public beach among young children at play by the water’s edge is ridiculous. For Ferguson to claim he has never “touched” a child he didn’t know is not relevant.

What is relevant is that our society places a very high value on the innocence of children and the protection of children. We do not allow children to be forced to work from the age of four down coal mines, or to beg for food or money on street corners.

Children are protected also by the criminal code which hands out penalties for sexual offences against children, equivalent to the punishments for murder or armed robbery. The reason for these high penalties is that the sexual assault of a child “kills” the innocence of the child and the innocence can never be regained.

In the case of armed robbery, a criminal with a weapon is far more powerful than their victim who cannot refuse the robber’s demands without risking their life or safety.

Similarly, adults who sexually assault children are in a position of extreme power over the child - a power which the offender abuses for their own gratification with no care for the long term and severe damage to the child.

Any discussion about Ferguson’s rights to live in peace must be balanced with the rights of his victims and the general community to live in peace.

In my view, it is the victims and the wider community who have a far higher right to live in peace and safety than Ferguson, who has flouted the laws of the land repeatedly and with devastating consequences for innocent children.

While Ferguson rightly says he’s “served his time” the penalty for breaking criminal laws often outlasts the time spent in jail.

People convicted of some classes of criminal offences such as crimes of dishonesty can never gain employment in some sectors of the workforce. Although they have served their time, the consequence of crime is not merely a prison term, it is also the loss of trust that the community will be willing to ever place in them again.

Communities where Ferguson has been settled have been making this point to authorities sometimes loudly and with vehemence. But they have made their point that Ferguson’s rights should be a long way further down the list compared with the rights of innocent children to live in a world where they are relatively safe from convicted sexual predators.

While there are some offenders within homes, by far the most dangerous predators are those who target large numbers of children over a long period of time. And therefore the most effective way to reduce the number of children who fall victim to sex offenders is to remove the most dangerous criminals from the community.

If Ferguson were truly reformed as he claims, then he would be more than willing to be housed away from communities where there are children. He would not have sought employment selling toys to children or visited schools. He also would not have made contact with his co-offender after his release from jail.

Pedophilia is best understood as an addiction to a specific type of criminal behaviour.

Every alcoholic knows that while they might control their alcoholism, they will always remain an alcoholic. A truly reformed alcoholic would not work in a pub. Similarly, a reformed pedophile would not allow himself to be placed in a community surrounded by children.

So, where to find a house for Dennis - and the thousands of repeat offending pedophiles who have been released into the community?

For those repeat offenders in the worst category, separation from regular society is, in my view justified. Outback or isolated rural prison farms or island prisons - with no internet connections - would be suitable, providing reasonable living conditions for repeat offenders, where they could live in reasonable surroundings without the risk of re-offence.

Any pedophile who could not stop offending but who wanted to stop offending, would welcome the opportunity to live in an environment which prevented them from the risk of being able to re-offend.