POLICE are investigating whether radio personality Derryn Hinch should be charged with contempt of court after he publicly identified two sex offenders whose names have been suppressed by the County Court...
At a public rally on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne on Sunday afternoon, Hinch told about 1000 people the name of a notorious serial pedophile who was released into the community after his parole period.
The man spent almost 20 years in jail for abusing children as young as four as part of a child sex ring, but his name is suppressed in the interests of his rehabilitation.
Hinch also named him on his website.
During the victims of crime rally, Hinch also named a rapist who reoffended within six weeks of being released from prison.
Doesn't it make you sick? These courts seem to think they're the best arbiters of justice, merely because they fairly and impartially must consider the law and precedent, listen to evidence and consider expert reports and the interests of the community in having criminals rehabilitate and reform! Just because that's their job.
But they're not the one-man Justice System that is Derryn Hinch. You don't need courtrooms and judges and appeals processes and constitutional restraint - they just confuse things with "logic" and "reason". Instead, we should just rely on whatever comes out of Derryn's head! I think it's an outright travesty that Derryn doesn't have an official squad of goons he can send to "punish" (to within an inch of their lives and beyond!) those who he arbitrarily feels deserve it - both now and forever.
Of course, I've written before on when Hinch's paedophile vigilantism goes horribly wrong - on the last occasion he managed to send thugs in utes to a random street to abuse complete innocents on the basis of an erroneous tip-off.
But that was only a problem because he got the street wrong. If he'd got the street right, those unemployable thugs throwing eggs at paedophiles' (and innocent neighbours') houses would have really been a wonderful thing. Self-righteous dickheads hooning up and down suburban streets yelling abuse at houses that may or may not contain paedophiles - now that's a justice plan I can support!
Sadly, some people, clearly great admirers of paedophiles and their sick perverted assaults on innocent people, think this is wrong. You and I know that anyone who criticises Hinch's flagrant flouting of the law and encouragement of vigilantism is clearly soft on sex offenders and probably loves them and wants to marry them and have their babies. If someone thinks that what Hinch has done is despicable and wrong - not as despicable and wrong as what the sex offenders did before they served their many subsequent years in jail, of course, but still wrong - then obviously they hate innocent children and want them raped.
And these people (the sex offender supporting perverts we should ignore) say that it's about justice, and rehabilitating and reforming former criminals.
But who wants criminals to rehabilitate and reform? I want sex offenders to be unemployable eternal burdens to society, having grudges built up further and further as they continue to be punished long after they've done their time, so that they definitely don't ever consider doing anything bad ever again. Why should punishment be limited to the impartial prison system applied to all prisoners? Why can't we outsource that punishment to the inconsistent whims of violent sickos? As long as they're only assaulting and harassing other long-previously violent sickos, how can that possibly go wrong?
The thing that bothers me is how unsafe NOT listing released paedophiles' addresses is for the children. FOR THE CHILDREN. If we knew where these people are, we could make sure we live somewhere else where there definitely aren't any paedophiles whatsoever, that we know of. Then we could let our kids roam the streets, happy in the knowledge that there's a slightly smaller chance that there's a paedophile in the next street, in that if there is one the police don't know about him or her yet.
Our kids could be infinitesimally more safe for a brief period. And we parents could breathe a sigh of relief and stop worrying about them so much. Sure, that false sense of security might help the other uncaught and unpunished paedophiles who could conceivably be around, but what else are we supposed to do? Be cautious in any situation where our kids could be at risk of potential predators? Sounds too much like hard work to me.
No, I'd much rather distract myself from all the ills of the world and difficult problems I have no idea how we're going to fix, and work on encouraging vigilantes to take over from the sadly rule-based and rational legal system.
Also, I don't hate children or want them raped by sex offenders like the "law-first" types do. That's why I say - bravo Derryn Hinch! You're an inspiration to irrational easily-led nutbags everywhere!
