Do you want this man living next door?
HOW would you feel if sexual monster Robert John Fardon was living three doors away from you and your family?
Forget the courts. Forget the prisons and rehabilitation orders. Forget the psychiatrists whose responsibility it is to make a judgment on how likely Fardon is to re-offend. The court of public opinion is the key test for what we as a society should do with Fardon.
And the verdict is in - nobody wants him anywhere near their wives, sisters, mothers or children. This is a man who has been on the wrong side of the law for most of his life, repeatedly, consistently carrying out violent sexual assaults against women.
When somebody carries out the aggressive, anti-social behaviour of Robert Fardon, they disqualify themselves from being part of normal life.
The civil libertarians will say "But where would you place him?" Who cares? Send him to Mars with Elon Musk. Just make sure he never gets the chance to hurt somebody again.
The major issue here is whether or not Fardon deserves a final opportunity to live a normal life, after undergoing years of rehabilitation. Some argue, quite rightly, that he's done the time after committing the crime and that he should live his final days out in peace. That, of course, assumes he will not commit another crime.
But if you take a close look at Supreme Court documents used for his release appeal, Fardon remains a complex, angry, difficult personality. Since he's been out of jail under partial supervision, Fardon has been satisfying his sexual desires, aged 70, at local "day spas''.
The court documents reveal a man who has convinced three psychiatrists that his risk of re-offending is low. A review of Fardon's psychiatric assessments shows Fardon has been diagnosed with an anti-social personality disorder, and "he is rated high on psychopathic trait assessments''.
He rates at least in the moderate range for static risk factors for violent sexual offending. The assessment says there have been a number of specific dynamic risk factors, notably his personality, his tendency to use physical coercion, his rejection of support and treatment, and substance use.
The court heard that Fardon's propensity to re-offend had gone down but was elevated again in 2011. The report said there were a number of dynamic risk domains that tend to predict reoffending. These were grouped around the presence of antisocial attitudes and behaviours, mental disorder and substance use, and sexual deviance.
One psychiatrist said these factors were in play in earlier years. "These days though, I think that the antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathy have significantly lessened over the years,'' the psychiatrist said. "To be sure, he continues to articulate an anti-authoritarian attitude, persecutory ideation, and hostility to supervision.''
The report said Fardon had been irritable and angry, frustrated and abusive, or alternatively isolated and withdrawn, but he had not shown any evidence of a specific hostility towards females or any proclivity to further sexual violence. Do those words from Fardon's psychiatric team give you comfort?
Nobody is suggesting the Fardon release is not emotive, subjective and incredibly challenging from a social justice and rehabilitation point of view. But this guy is bad to the bone. It's in his DNA to be anti-social and aggressive. He's been in and out of jail for rape and pedophilia for the past 50 years. Why would we run the risk of him raping or committing a more heinous crime before he dies? Surely his dirty deeds disqualify him from ever getting access to women again.
Police Commissioner Ian Stewart's comments on Fardon have come under fire. Mr Stewart said: "The person that we talk about is described in that judgement as someone who is more than 70 years of age whose health is not good. They are demonstrating that the system works, that there is hope for people who make reasoned decisions. I want to be very clear about this, I do not condone the actions of this person in the way that they have conducted themselves throughout their lifetime but the system that we run as a state is one that is designed to assist people to make better decisions to become members of our society that don't offend and that's what's occurring in this case.''
When did Fardon ever qualify to be part of any reasoned decision? He's a grub. There is not a reasonable bone in his body. Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington wants Fardon supervised for the rest of his life and GPS tracking technology aimed at ensuring his whereabouts are constantly monitored. The Palaszczuk Government must act quickly to protect Queenslanders from the Robert Fardon's of the world. The prospect of him re-offending is not worth thinking about.