Well firstly i think the person who interviewed that sick individual deserves some kudos.
I don't. I think the interviewer and the whole research team deserve a slap for a monumentally naff piece of journalism. Leonard's attitude may well be indefensible, but goading him in the way that the reporter does throughout achieves absolutely nothing and is crass journalism.
It's obvious throughout that the sole intention of the reporter is to provoke exactly the sort of reaction that they
want to see... there is no better example of this than the bit at 2:26 when the reporter asks about his book and says "Is it about molesting young boys?" and Leonard replies "It's about molesting young boys!!!", almost sarcastically... This begs the question, what else do they expect from this sort of approach?? The guy is clearly a nut-job, and as one commenter on YouTube says, "People with problems like that are best left alone-- it's like laughing at someone who killed their family. It'll only make their illness worse." I agree with that. The reporter here shows a complete lack of understanding of what he's dealing with here. The reporter also shows a complete disregard for the fact that Leonard has served his sentence and is actually a free man,
whether we like it or not.
The only points to that piece that I can see are these: Channel 9 are seeking to do their civic duty by outing this man as a paedophile. Fair enough, he clearly should be on the Sex Offenders register, but the fact that he isn't is not actually his fault! It is the fault of the people who passed the legislation for not making it retrospective. What Channel 9 are doing here is akin to vigilantism, and is cheap skapegoating to say the least... the article fails to dwell on two key points - firstly the fact (as I mentioned already) that he has already served his sentence for past offenses, and secondly that somebody somewhere was responsible for assessing whether or not this guy still poses a risk to children now and in the future... Leonard himself cannot, by definition, be responsible for this (assessment), since he is clearly incapable. I fail to see how goading Leonard himself is productive in this situation at all.
If Leonard does indeed still pose a risk to children (which looks fairly certain), then surely Channel 9 should be hounding the people who failed to assess that risk properly and chose not to monitor him at all (if that is the case, which the article also fails to establish...)
...and 2) Channel 9 seek the law to be changed so that people like Leonard don't slip through the net. This is a worthy reason, but all the more important in that case to address the problem responsibly rather than resorting to shabby tabloid journalism tactics.
