Cardinal Pell's appeal has been dismissed.

[creslaw]

Weren't you saying earlier we should trust in the judgement of the courts?

Either way justice was served for an innocent man not guilty of the accusation against him.

There is a tendency to say just believe the courts ... until it comes up with a verdict one does not like.

There is also a tendency to say always believe the victim ... until it is sacrificed on the altar of electing a Left wing Australian PM.

 

[Paidiske]

Weren't you saying earlier we should trust in the judgement of the courts?

Either way justice was served for an innocent man not guilty of the accusation against him.

Yes, we have to accept the decision of the courts. But this reaffirms for me the reality that our court system is incapable of delivering justice in some cases, particularly those where the perpetrators are powerful enough to ensure the lack of evidence and isolation of their victims.

There will be so many victims who will take from this, the lesson that there is no point reporting because they won't be believed. And sadly, they are right.

 

[creslaw]

Our court system is incapable of delivering justice in some cases ... ain't that the
truth.

And how the tune has changed!

Justice is seems is a movable feast ... it was justice after the second jury trial, and it was justice after the appeal court decision ... but of course now it is no longer justice.


.

 

[creslaw]

It troubles me when religious support groups for sexually abused victims encourages those harmed to seek retribution & monetary compensation as a path to closure & healing. In many cases, as in the case of the complaint against Cardinal Pell, more harm is caused to the abused person when the legal redress does not succeed. The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides a better way to healing.

 

[Paidiske]

Justice is not retribution. Nor is there monetary compensation involved in criminal cases.

The harm is caused by the denial of justice, not by the pursuit of it.

And the gospel is not an alternative to justice, but a proclamation of it. The gospel does not silence those who speak out after abuse.

 

[creslaw]

Retribution is seeking to have someone punished for a perceived wrong doing ... and that is what victims of sexual abuse are encouraged to do. And that is what all supporters of sexual abuse victims are hoping will be the outcome.

Criminal compensation is available to victims of crime in criminal cases. And monetary compensation is certainly a major feature of civil action.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not promote punishing your enemies.

 

[Paidiske]

Retribution is seeking to have someone punished for a perceived wrong doing ... and that is what victims of sexual abuse are encouraged to do. And that is what all supporters of sexual abuse victims are hoping will be the outcome.

No! Punishment is not the point.

The point is acknowledging honestly what happened. It is about lifting the burden - of shame, of guilt, of blame, of despair, and so on - from victims, and as a community acknowledging that responsibility lies with the perpetrators.

It is about creating communities, social systems and institutions in which abuse is not tolerated and victims are not made to be the ones who carry the cost of it, silently, through their whole lives.

It is about holding people who destroy the minds and lives of others for their own gratification accountable for their actions.

Punishment? I couldn't care less about punishment. I care about human flourishing, (which is also exactly the point of the gospel) and we cannot have that as long as we allow cultures of abuse and cover up to fester unchecked.

 

[creslaw]

When an accused person is given a lighter sentence than expected there is outrage ... so we know that punishment of a level seen as appropriate is certainly a significant part of the process.

Healing in the Gospel is not about holding people accountable. That only gives people a false sense of what to expect from pursuing legal retribution.

 

[Paidiske]

Healing in the Gospel is not about holding people accountable.

Each of us is accountable to God. Our accountability to one another flows out of that.

 

[Philip_B]

Let me begin by saying I am not a Pell fan at all.

Justice has many characteristics. The equitable distribution of opportunity. The fair suck of the saveloi. And Justice, to be justice must be blind. That is to say it must be exercised without fear or favour.

We generally acknowledge that much has happened that should not have happened, and it has happened in many Churches, and perhaps it has been highlighted in the Catholic Church. Pell, as a senior catholic may well have been seen as a big target. Societies desire to set things to right can not be waged on a single person for any more than they deserve. We can't put Pell in jail because catholic clerics have offended, we can only put him in jail for what he has done. Sadly a level of media coverage has both demonised and dehumanised Pell, which does not help in good and just judgement.

The case in point is that the verdict needed to accord with the evidence, not simply the context. Cardinal Pell's public demeanor give the impression of an arrogant and disengaged Prelate, which in general does not go down well in Australia. BUT we don't send people to jail for being unattractive, arrogant or stupid, (we probably don't have the space).

It is not about how many people think he should or should not be in jail, it is about the proper review of the evidence, in a dispassionate way, not taking into account who the person is or what we think of them, but about the evidence.

I think the Royal Commission in Australia suggested that numbers of people had been willfully blind to what was going on, and sought to protect the institution rather than those who had been abused. Perhaps some people should have been punished for that, and indeed I believe some have. However that was not why Pell was in jail, and that issue needs to be resolved on the evidence.

The point is acknowledging honestly what happened. It is about lifting the burden - of shame, of guilt, of blame, of despair, and so on - from victims, and as a community acknowledging that responsibility lies with the perpetrators.

I 110% agree with this point.

It is about creating communities, social systems and institutions in which abuse is not tolerated and victims are not made to be the ones who carry the cost of it, silently, through their whole lives.

I 120% agree with this point.

This in the end is not about the credibility of the complainant, though many will want to make it seem like that, but rather - The standard of justice for a criminal conviction requires the conclusion to be 'beyond reasonable doubt', where as the standard of justice for a civil matter may well be made on the balance of probability.

We must affirm the victims and realise that we can not always deliver the justice they seek, for we need to deliver justice justly.

From Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons."

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

 

[creslaw]

Each of us is accountable to God. Our accountability to one another flows out of that.

Accountability that is coerced by Caesar has nothing to do with our accountability to God ... or to each other.

 

[creslaw]

The case in point is that the verdict needed to accord with the evidence, not simply the context. Cardinal Pell's public demeanor give the impression of an arrogant and disengaged Prelate, which in general does not go down well in Australia. BUT we don't send people to jail for being unattractive, arrogant or stupid, (we probably don't have the space).

It is not about how many people think he should or should not be in jail, it is about the proper review of the evidence, in a dispassionate way, not taking into account who the person is or what we think of them, but about the evidence.

Those who support guilt by accusation rather than by tested evidence, will quickly cry 'injustice' when they, or their family, or their friends, are found guilty based on an accusation without substantial supporting evidence

 

[Paidiske]

Accountability that is coerced by Caesar has nothing to do with our accountability to God ... or to each other.

Romans 13:4 would apply; "Caesar" is the servant of God in this matter.

The problem with your position is that it simply leaves no possibility of justice for many of the most awful crimes, because by their nature they do not involve the kind of evidence you are calling for.

I understand that position, but I see it as an egregious failure, and not good enough at all in how we care for people who need to be heard and believed. Our system needs other possibilities than we are seeing here.

 

[creslaw]

Romans 13:4 would apply; "Caesar" is the servant of God in this matter.

The problem with your position is that it simply leaves no possibility of justice for many of the most awful crimes, because by their nature they do not involve the kind of evidence you are calling for.

I understand that position, but I see it as an egregious failure, and not good enough at all in how we care for people who need to be heard and believed. Our system needs other possibilities than we are seeing here.

Romans 13:4 is all about punishment & retribution, not personal accountability to God or to those we have harmed.

Most people do not get their sexual abuse heard in court. It would be very harmful to suggest to a victim that legal redress is somehow a better approach to healing than one can find through other means, especially when the process fails to meet expectations as in this case against Cardinal Pell. The complainant in the Pell case must be feeling devastated today ... and I sheet much of the blame for that to those who encouraged him to proceed.

 

[IceJad]

I really don't understand what the courts of law are for if people keep moving the goal post.

Let's not use God's justice in this argument. Because no one would agree if Pell is to be trialed by the Church. So people agree that secular court is the way to go. Now the secular court found him not guilty we bring God back into the picture and say true justice was not served. If that's the case drop all pretense of a legal lawful trail and just cuff him and lock him up for good.

He was trialed and based on the court's judgement overturned the verdict. The prosecutor should take legal steps to appeal if they believe justice was not served.

I'm not for or against Pell's verdict. Just a neutral observer.

 

[stevevw]

IMO the verdict from the high court should have been the verdict from the beginning. To find someone guilty in a criminal case the defender has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was doubt as Pell had witnesses that said he was greeting people at the front door after the Mass and only had a window of 5 to 6 minutes to abuse the boys. Considering that they said he had his full robe on this alone would take 5 minutes to undo let along escaping the congregation and making his way to the back of the church.

This adds doubt of whether he did it or not. Unfortunately, that is how the justice system works and I don't think there is a better justice system around. You cannot find someone guilty if there is some doubt and that would open the door to many innocent people being found guilty.

It could be possible that someone else was responsible and as the boys were young the witness has mistakenly ID Pell. Pell has maintained his innocence from the beginning. I think his case came at a bad time when there was a lot of hype about priests and child abuse from the Royal Commission and many people saw all priests and the church as bad. Some of that may have influenced people's judgments.

But Pell is not off the hook yet as he has to face civil actions which do not rely on as high a burden of proof that is beyond reasonable doubt but rather based on the “Preponderance of evidence” or just convincing the judge or jury that the incident was likely to have happened based on the evidence. The unfortunate thing for Pell though is that if he is innocent he may still be found guilty in civil cases which won't help him trying to clear his name. The victims are left feeling the trauma of what happened all over again and that justice has not been served.

 

[zippy2006]

He'll face a slew of civil cases now (I believe there are eight in the pipeline), as well as the findings of the Royal Commission which have been redacted up until now being made public.

As for this decision, our system is broken. For some victims there is no possibility of justice.

So when the courts convicted him you played the tune that we have to respect the justice system, and now when the high courts acquits him you change face and say the system is broken. I'm glad that the charade of your arguments was brought to light.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, we have to accept the decision of the courts. But this reaffirms for me the reality that our court system is incapable of delivering justice in some cases, particularly those where the perpetrators are powerful enough to ensure the lack of evidence and isolation of their victims.

In other words you pretensions earlier of letting the courts make the decision because they have more access to relevant evidence were a farce. In reality you just want the cardinal convicted and are unable to argue why he should be found guilty because you believe he got rid of all the evidence. How, if there is no evidence to convict, was justice not done here?

Seems like it's just your bias, no? If someone said that ten years ago you abused someone by illicit use of your office should we believe the purported victim and have you imprisoned? No matter how unlikely the case might seem?

There will be so many victims who will take from this, the lesson that there is no point reporting because they won't be believed. And sadly, they are right.

Till you can provide compelling reasons for convicting Pell this is just emotional pleading. 'Please won't someone think of the victims!'

 

[Paidiske]

The complainant in the Pell case must be feeling devastated today ... and I sheet much of the blame for that to those who encouraged him to proceed.

The blame belongs to the person who abused him. No one else.

So when the courts convicted him you played the tune that we have to respect the justice system, and now when the high courts acquits him you change face and say the system is broken. I'm glad that the charade of your arguments was brought to light.

We do have to respect the justice system. That system has found there is not enough evidence to convict. I am not arguing that he should therefore remain in prison, nor am I calling him guilty.

My problem with this is that the outcome is that for this type of crime, when it does not get reported until years later and whatever evidence there might have been has been obscured by time, we have decided there can be no conviction. Even when it did occur. And that is a broken system.

 

[stevevw]

Some people cannot accept the High Courts' decision. When you look at the evidence it appears an innocent person was found guilty. Here are some of the facts of the case. The only evidence was from one witnesses testimony and there was no corroborating evidence. In fact, the way the witness described the events makes it impossible for it to have happened. The other boy who was supposed to have been abused has stated that he was not abused by Pell. Yet Pell was also found guilty of raping him in the first trial which is highly unusual as there was no evidence from him directly.

The only time the alleged incident could have occurred was a 5 or 6-minute window directly after Mass when ending prayers are said and the priest doing the Mass leaves the Mass and before the other people involved in the mass including other priests enter the room where the rape was supposed to occur to put away all the sacred ornaments from the mass and disrobe.

The normal format after the mass is for the priest to greet the congregation at the front as they are leaving directly after the mass. There were witnesses that stated they saw Pell at the front greeting the congregation. Another tradition is for the lead priest to be accompanied all the time and there were witnesses that stated the MC was with Pell.

So we are to believe that Pell was in two places at the same time. He was able to go to another room drink some alter wine, then go to the back of the church where the incident happened, disrobe out of a ceremonial robe that has many layers and takes time to undo, rape two boys and then gets dressed and avoid being seen with all the activity that usually happens in that area after the ceremony in 5 or 6 minutes.

I think that is why the original hearing should not have convicted based on reasonable doubt. But because this was not the case you have to ask why would this happen. Then you hear about the campaign to get Pell around that time and you begin to understand. Before there were any allegations against Pell the Police had advertised for any victims to come forward which is highly unusual and has been found to be prejudicial as it causes people to have false memories.

The ABC which didn't like Pell had run a campaign against him for some time. The left hated him because he opposed same-sex marriage and had stopped other policies coming in which the left was trying to introduce. They had also campaigned against him making all sorts of accusations. You begin to see how this could have influenced the judges in the first case at a time when the church and priest were being attacked and Pell was such a powerful figure in the church. Legal experts are now saying the Pell case is an international embarrassment in how the Appeals court got things so wrong in basic legal terms.

George Pell ‘witch hunt’ was ‘the greatest miscarriage of justice’: Andrew Bolt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMw-LaCX9Fk
Pell's initial guilty verdict 'an international embarrassment'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJYFKEmM1Dg