George Pell sentenced

[creslaw]

I think we all know quite well where you stand - Michael Jackson and Rolf Harris also have their legions of fans as well.

Now YOU bear in mind that having a conviction overturned is not a statement of innocence, but rather a statement that were was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. I say this repeatedly because an overturned conviction is NOT a statement that the victims were lying. It is not a statement that this was all a banner-waving concoction to attack your RCC.

You may call it banner waving and laud those walking away - Others state they have been vicims of the chronic abuses of Catholic priests and I feel for the justice they did not get.

You want to defend the church - you want to defend those priests - I'm not going to join your defilement of these victims claims - Its a case that you have chosen to side with the priests - I side with those who were brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse.

You invest substantial energy in seeking apologies for anything you perceive has offended you - Just once I'd like to see you invest as much energy in discussing the abuses of these victims and trials they have undergone and how they must feel when ultimately no justice was served to them.

You are obviously young so I can forgive your misrepresentation of my views. The young are inclined to see things in black and white rather than understand a nuanced position.

I am not a Catholic. I am the father of a child who was sexually abused and I was the colleague of a man who committed suicide after a false accusation of sexual abuse.

A person who has been abused has the legal right to be heard, they do not have a legal right to be believed - that must be tested by the full process of the law. A person who has been accused has the right to the presumption of innocence.

Now if you can absorb all that you might not be so quick to misrepresent me in the future. And I would very much appreciate in future if your posts address the topic and not indulge in personal remarks.

 

[brinny]

This is quite the conundrum. Child sexual predators don't tend to fair well in prison.

Should we pray for his safety?

Yes.

He's elderly?

 

[Paidiske]

The question of believing the victim operates on a number of different levels.

When you're trained in the helping professionals as a person to whom people might disclose abuse for the first time, it's drilled into you; believe them. If you're their priest or nurse or social worker (or whatever) and they tell you they've been abused, you don't second-guess or interrogate; you act as if what they have told you is absolutely the truth. And you care for them and advocate for them with that stance of belief.

The reason for this is that being disbelieved, at that vulnerable and critical time of first disclosure, compounds trauma and is profoundly damaging. You actually make things worse for people who've been abused if you disbelieve them, especially at that time.

That is a separate question to how the claims should be handled by courts of law. Here victims can't be unequivocally believed without question, because the guilt or innocence (and punishment) of another person stands to be determined.

Part of what has happened in the public discourse, I think, is that there is enough awareness of the first point I made that people mostly now know that false claims are almost never made, and that the harm done by disbelieving victims is profound. So there is a default to believe the victim in all situations (not just in that situation of being a professional caring for that person).

On the whole, I think that's a pretty healthy thing, but we do need to hold it separate from the legal process, which necessarily must operate on a more complex set of principles.

That said, Cardinal Pell has been found guilty. Advocating for his innocence now comes perilously close to looking as if one is more invested in the institution or the power he represents, than in justice for the people he harmed.

 

[creslaw]

Advocating for justice to prevail through the accused receiving all of his legal rights is not the same as advocating for his innocence.

 

[Paidiske]

Nobody's saying he shouldn't have the right to appeal.

But right now, he's been found guilty, and it's not wrong for people to speak about him as such.

 

[creslaw]

Nor is it wrong for people to raise valid questions about the process by which a person is found guilty. We all know the Lindy Chamberlain case, and as a West Australian I am aware of at least 4 different cases where convictions have been quashed recently: Mallard, Button, Beamish & Mickleberg.

It is naïve to believe that there are never miscarriages of justice in our legal system. The Pell case is one that rests on belief not on substantial evidence, and it contains questions of probability. It is the type of case that needs review by legal judges, and that will happen in due course.

It is unfortunate that raising questions about the process leaves one open to accusations of bias of many different kinds in an attempt to discredit the questions.

 

[Paidiske]

Part of the problem here, though, is that you're questioning what you can't know. You don't have access to the victim's testimony, because it hasn't been made public.

 

[creslaw]

That makes raising questions even more important, not less.

 

[Paidiske]

In my view it makes raising questions

a) fruitless, since you legally cannot have answers, and
b) problematic, because it automatically calls the victim's (unknown) testimony into question.

Leave it to the appellate judges, but in the meantime, can we stop treating the victim publicly as a liar?

 

[Zoii]

The young are inclined to see things in black and white rather than understand a nuanced position.

I do understand nuances - we just take a different perspective on them - that said .... *this is me backing off on the accelerator*

I am the father of a child who was sexually abused

Gosh I'm sorry - I am very sensitive to those abused. I hope she/he is doing OK and you are too.

I was the colleague of a man who committed suicide after a false accusation of sexual abuse.

I know logically some are falsely accused - But I also want to make the point that those sexually assaulted go through such an ordeal to make their complaint. Mostly their ordeal achieves zero output with the predator walking free. So my heart always lies with those who put themselves out there and report their abuses.

A person who has been abused has the legal right to be heard, they do not have a legal right to be believed - that must be tested by the full process of the law. A person who has been accused has the right to the presumption of innocence.

I dont assert a legal right to believe victims - it's my choice based on what's known statistically about such crimes, and my personal experiences. But bear in mind with regards to this particular case - he is guilty under the law - albeit an appeal is pending.

As to writing in a manner personalising - that's a fair point and happy to be admonished when I do.

 

[creslaw]

I have never called the victim a liar (won't hold my breath for an apology) and I have said I do not know whether Pell is guilty or innocent ... nor do you. We only know that he was found guilty and that a panel of judges has the power to overturn the verdict.

You are now giving the appearance of wanting to shut down any discussion about whether there are grounds for reasonable doubt in Pell's case ...

 

[Paidiske]

Saying it might not have happened is saying the victim might have lied. There's no way around that.

I do actually want to shut down that discussion, to be honest. It is causing ongoing harm to people close the events. I'm in Melbourne. I've spent the last weeks listening to traumatised people who have had the reporting of this case stir up no end of distress for them. I've lost count of the number of disclosures of abuse I've heard in that time. Harping on about how Pell might be innocent only discourages those people, and reinforces to them that they're likely to be disbelieved and publicly vilified.

Let's leave it to the courts to do their work, and in the meantime support the healing of victims and work to make our churches safer and their cultures healthier. There's more than enough work for us to do there.

 

[Zoii]

I have never called the victim a liar (won't hold my breath for an apology) and I have said I do not know whether Pell is guilty or innocent ... nor do you. We only know that he was found guilty and that a panel of judges has the power to overturn the verdict.

You are now giving the appearance of wanting to shut down any discussion about whether there are grounds for reasonable doubt in Pell's case ...

*hmmm I thought no personalizing was the agreement*

My posts have said that if a statement is made as to Pells innocence, it necessitates a statement that therefore the victim is lying. I have chosen to believe the victims - I always do.

No Im happy to continue the discussion - but let's give a metaphorical hug and stick to the legal/moral arguments.

 

[creslaw]

*hmmm I thought no personalizing was the agreement*

My posts have said that if a statement is made as to Pells innocence, it necessitates a statement that therefore the victim is lying. I have chosen to believe the victims - I always do.

No Im happy to continue the discussion - but let's give a metaphorical hug and stick to the legal/moral arguments.

Trying to make capital about my question to a moderator is poor form.

Questioning Pell's guilt is not saying the victim is lying ... that aspect was well and truly highlighted in the coverage of the Kavanaugh-Ford case.

 

[creslaw]

Saying it might not have happened is saying the victim might have lied. There's no way around that.

That is not so at all. Memory is malleable over time ... any psychologist will tell you that.

The question is not whether the victim lied, but whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to incarcerate a man.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't see it that way. We know the case rests on the victim's testimony. While I might be able to see that perhaps the victim could get this or that detail wrong, to say that Pell might not be guilty for me pushes the malleability of memory argument too far.

 

[creslaw]

When there is a predisposed bias to believe the victim, by accepting the reliability & accuracy of his memory, the likelihood of justice for the accused is reduced.

Philip Wilson had his conviction quashed because there were good grounds for thinking the victim confused him with someone else.

 

[Paidiske]

Philip Wilson's case was different; it was a matter of failure to report. The question of who knew what, when would be much harder to establish.

But in this case, it's up to the jury - who saw the victim's testimony - to decide whether or not it was reliable. Neither you nor I are in a position to second-guess that in any informed way.

 

[SarahsKnight]

This is quite the conundrum. Child sexual predators don't tend to fair well in prison.

Should we pray for his safety?

I think it is only right to do so, because regardless of how heinous his crimes are, it is still wrong to actively wish harm upon someone, especially of a sexual nature. Unfortunately he himself apparently never saw how wrong it is.

 

[creslaw]

Knowing what we do about the unreliability of memory, and the impact of emotional arguments on juries, it is valid to ask questions about a verdict based on a single uncorroborated story.