Vigilant vs vigilante
One of Victoria’s worst paedophiles has been released from prison, housed in an apartment block, given a new name, and given anti-androgen hormones which, while hopefully reducing his likelihood of re-offending, may also change his appearance somewhat. He is subject to an extended supervision order for a maximum of 15 years. An application by the Herald Sun last October to remove the suppression on publication of his (new) name has been refused, on the grounds that he might be subject to vigilante attacks (see article).
And therein lies the inherent problem of vigilantism. Vigilantes may think that their actions protect the community, but in reality, they actually decrease the amount of protection, by forcing such decisions as this one. The community would be far better protected if they simply knew where the man is, what name he’s living under, and could ensure that he doesn’t have unsupervised access to their children. Since his first known offence was at 17yo, and he has repeatedly re-offended after being released from previous prison terms, there is no reason to suppose that allowing him to blend into the community will enable his rehabilitation. His prior modus operandi was to befriend parents in order to obtain access to their children, who then became victims of his paedophile ring. So protecting his identity will make it easier for him to do the same thing again, and harder for parents to protect their children from him.
The likelihood of vigilante action ensures that he is given more protection than any future victims, and there’s no way that’s a positive outcome.
To vigilantes, knowledge is power. To vigilants, knowledge is safety.