-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cardinal George Pell, The Catholic Church and Child Sex Abuse
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
E
easy_tiger
Guest
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Youre crazy.
Pedophiles generally ply their trade 1:1.
There are almost never witnesses.
What you are effectively saying is this
Pedophiles can never be convicted.
The judge instructs the jury that intangibles like believability can and must be used to convict or acquit. For the very reason stated above.
I think your grasp of the justice system is rudimentary L2, and while your opinion is noted, it carries very little weight in this instance.
Im saying this like a stuck record ..... 12 scrutinised members of society (no convictions no bankrupts) will contain at least 2 intelligent considered people, probably 6. They understand the gravity of the civic duty they are undertaking. They cry and dont sleep. They listen to the constant directions of law by the judge and clarifications on ambiguity.
2 to 4 members of the jury will listen to andrew bolt and read miranda devine. There may have been 1 vegan jedi, although unlikely.
Then they all agree, and deliver a guilty verdict.
easy said:
Bingo. The courts aren't harsh enough, then they get it wrong. Amazing stance behind the conservative so rooted in their beliefs that they cannot fathom the true north of their moral compass could do things so wrong.
It's been one of the saddest weeks in this nations history. Two former Prime Minsters come out in support of a man who hid behind the most holy of institutions to conduct sickening crimes against our most vulnerable and important resource. Leadership in the most vile of forms. John Howard has ruined his legacy with one foul letter while Tony Abbott to continues to show how far a idiot can progress. We truly are a banana republic.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
SCOOP said:
Well said scoop.
The conservatives criticising the juduciary either way hadnt occured to me.
Lock up the poor and powerless and free the rich and powerful, even if they committ a crime that not even the most violent, unrepentant rapists and murderers tolerate.
A few have dropped their guard and let the world see their putrid ideology, and like you say, it wont be forgotten.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
tigerman said:
Im surprised the defence didnt put an archbishop on the stand to testify that he had shat his pants on more than one occasion because he couldnt get the robes off quick enough.
The silk, who is supposed to be the best on the land, seems incompetant. He even issued a public apology for his choice of words FFS. His job is words, they dont misuse them.
I think he is likely very competant, but had been made to look incompetant by attempting to defending the indefensible.
easy said:
You're right, I don't know much about the law.
A child hasn't developed the artifice to invent a comprehensive lie. When they dob in a pedo, they are inherently believed. That's how you convict a pedo.
Yes, I understand the basics of how juries work. I also understand how groups sometimes work, and how one or two individuals can exert influence over the others, e.g. "If you don't agree we're going to be stuck here going back and forth for another week".
The shock in the courtroom when the verdict fell was palpable. It's an unusual case.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Yes and no.
Yes its not everyday an archbishop rapes a boy
No in that its generally just your vanilla priest.
SCOOP said:
Courts aren't harsh enough when sentencing. The judge should now go the whole hog and exhibit his faith in the process by giving Pell the full 50 years in jail.
I don't have an opinion as to Pell's guilt. Nothing to do with beliefs or religion or politics. I'm not offering any conspiracy theories. I just don't know. I'm open to being convinced, one way or the other.
And I don't have a problem with anyone who believes he's guilty. I just don't want you on the jury if I'm ever in the position of defendant.
easy said:
I'm amazed to say this but Ray Hadley has been the conservative voice of reason on this. Thoughts his words were spot on. Doesn't lessen him as a conservative nor weaken his position on other issues. These are common sense words and the perfect way to disagree with someone from your own world.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/28/commentators-doubting-pell-verdict-sends-damaging-message-to-survivors
easy said:
For Richter to say Pell's crime as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case" inclines me to think he was the wrong choice as defence lawyer.
His cross examinations are obviously very good in murder cases and the like, but that aggressive style may not be suited to this type of crime.
Not just conservative MPs either. I was flabbergasted when I heard Christopher Pyne commenting on it on the radio. Yes he is a Liberal MP, but a well known 'small-l' liberal. Certainly a long way from the religious conservative faction.SCOOP said:
He made comments along the lines of George Pell being entitled to appeal and he will reserve his judgement once the judicial process of appeal was able to run it's course. OK fair enough. But then he went on to add personal remarks, that he can only go by his own personal dealings with Pell and he came away from those dealings feeling nothing less than Pell being a man of integrity and great character.
I'm thinking, WTF, have you lost your mind? Talk about lack of judgement. If you wanted to remain impartial in all of this, wouldn't you just make some comment that in the interest of respecting the separation of powers, you don't feel it's appropriate to comment at this time?
I agree, you can't put all conservatives in one basket. For example, I grew up close to my grandparents who were/are (working class) conservative people by most measures. Very much of the "paedophiles, rapists and murderers should be publicly hanged, or be sentenced to 50 years hard labour at Port Arthur" type of mentality.SCOOP said:
They had/have absolutely no time for "kiddy fiddling, p...ter priests" as they tend to word it. And have always tended to have a a suspicious/contemptuous attitude towards Catholics due to this phenomenon.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
SCOOP said:
Might be a new dichotomy to the far right?
pedophile sympathizers or condemners?
They love polarization. Howard, abbott and Bolt sit out on the right fork.
It could be the only good thing to come out of this case?
Panthera Tigris said:
It is really revelling of the rights ideology IMO.
Not that children should be abused,
But that the powerless enable the powerful, by weakness and that the powerful are entitled to advance their power (money, position, sex) by exploiting the inherant deficiencies of the weak.
It has been very revealling because there are those that extrapolate this core belief to
Powerful man *smile*s powerless child = OK BECAUSE, if the child wasnt weak, he wouldnt have got himself *smile*ed in the first place.
This is the deficiency model they make sense of the world through.
Its horrific, but we are all much better off if we understand and recognise it
Howard Abbott Bolt will be in a state of deep disbelief that the power structures that are established to serve THEM, have served the powerless.
They will be entirely certain that equilibrium will be restored and pells appeal will exonerate him.
But it wont, and they will really struggle to untangle their own exposed core values, public opinion and understanding and the fact that one of their team (its unusual that a working class catholic is on their team) will die in disgrace in prison. That their horse ran last.
Maybe its not idealogical? Maybe its entirely pragmatic and they woke upin bed thinking 'this could happen to me'
Though i doubt it.
fastin bulbous said:
They could preselect Pell for the seat of pentridge yet
tigerman said:
The guardian coverage makes that suggestion.
Commends the reserve and tact of the judge and prosecution.
There is a disproportionate number of very strange people amongst the barrister profession in my opinion. Them and shrinks.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
I agree with your postings LTRTR and I'm also not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No one knows what really occurred in that sacristy over 30 years ago except Pell and the two boys, one of whom is unfortunately dead and he always maintained that nothing happened. Those who condemn Pell should remember the Lindy Chamberlain case of 1982 where the voice of public opinion was probably responsible for her being found guilty by a jury and given a life sentence. She spent 6 years in jail before being released after a piece of the baby's jacket was found in a dingo lair and it was also proven that a dingo had the opportunity and the capability to take the baby out of the tent and carry it away. Juries can make mistakes.LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Both the surviving victim and Pell have vigorously stated opposing views of what happened and this is why the first trial had a hung jury, the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All child abuse cases are horrific and the Catholic Church has been derelict in it's duty of care toward victims. Perpetrators should have gone to jail long ago but lets make sure the evidence stacks up so individuals like Pell are not used as a scapegoat. I would ask how could the jury be impartial when Pell and cases like this have been in the headlines for the past 20 years? They are on a hiding to nothing...they convict him and they assist the victims of other sex-abuse crimes, or they let him go and risk letting down all those victims that Pell and other administrators did little to support. No wonder the first trial was a hung jury.
Like I inferred earlier, I grew up in a largely working-lower middle class conservative family. Not really religious conservatives either. Sure, from a tribal perspective we were notionally Protestant. But not what I'd call actively practicing. So I suppose my family fitted outside the cliched caricature of conservatives. And even then, it's hard to put this demographic into a box. Some issues, I'd consider them right to far right (immigration, law and order), other issues, centrist to even left of centre (right to die/Euthanasia being an example).easy said:
And the opinions I observed growing up are without doubt, the latter you describe. The school of thought in my family seemed to be that paedophiles should be castrated and/or publicly hanged! And like I say, there was very much a suspicious/contemptuous attitude towards Catholic Priests. Perhaps an element of sectarianism to this, but absolutely in no way is there any sympathy towards the likes of Pell, from my still living Grandmother, when we discuss the issues of the day.
