PELL

[Bruce]

Incarceration costs about $300 a day, mainly for the shifts of guards needed for 24/7 surveillance.

 

If a criminal accountant had to pay restitution plus fines plus lose his license, that might be worse for him than a term in prison.

 

Personally, I would prefer a year or two in prison to being bankrupted.

 

So I would reserve incarceration for those who you have a reasonable fear for what they might do if free. There used to be a term " criminally insane " and I for one want them made harmless, by locking them up if other treatment is unreliable.

 

And Octave, you do have a good point about Pell being violent. And abusing his position.

 

Against that is the absurdity of expecting a physically healthy young man to be celibate, and the awful way in which society expects victims to feel shame. Both those things were heavy contributors to the sad crime and the suicide of one of the victims.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

He should be there till he dies he is a parasite he thought nothing about the abuse he inficted and is not contrite leave him there till he dies. Pedophile

 

 

[spacesailor]

THEY.

 

The wealthy & privileged Know the Lower class & poor should be locked away, Because they can't get money out of them ! .

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Litespeed]

Bruce,

 

How can you possibly think that naming, shaming and possible Loss of a job can be considered punishment?

 

They are merely the normal response of the public to those who are found to be unethical or immoral. It should never be considered the punishment.

 

Additionally he has no shame.

 

To rape anyone is a crime if extreme physical and mental violence and must be treated as such. To rape a child and one you have power over is the most henious crime bar murder. If not many in his case would simply keep offending and not care what society thinks.

 

The need for a priest to be celibate has absolutely no bearing at all nor the shame felt by a victim. They do not contribute to the crime at all to reduce his responsibility or the vile crimes he committed.

 

I fear given your comments and previously in the thread, you are blaming the victims and make excuses for the perpetrator.

 

You have repeatedly given the impression he is hard done by.

 

That I find abhorrent.

 

 

[octave]

The punishment for a crime should not be discounted because of the high position they held or the respect they may once have commanded. If you commit a serious crime you will go to jail and lose your job and the respect of society. The fact that because some occupy a higher position in society means they have further to fall but on the other hand have a greater responsibility to understand the consequences.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Our legal system makes it very hard to convict and very easy for the guilty to get off on a technicality.

 

Despite this and enormous efforts by his powerful mates, he was convicted; then lost an appeal.

 

Don't forget that this defective was complicit in covering up lots of other crimes. He's had the benefit of far more doubt than most people who get locked up.

 

Pell is in jail where he belongs, and culture warriors let fly their rage at the fall of their creature | First Dog on the Moon

 

But... I agree with Bruce that there are better ways to deal with our crooks than simply locking them up.

 

 

[octave]

But... I agree with Bruce that there are better ways to deal with our crooks than simply locking them up.

I agree that by and large prison does not work but I think this is not the right case to hang that argument on. I am not for jailing wrongdoers if other means of correction, punishment and rehabilitation are available. Some wrongdoers do however pose a risk to society and do need to be segregated from society until they no longer pose a risk or the least the risk is acceptable.

 

 

[old man emu]

In the good old days, rapists were did the Tyborn Two-step.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The Government "Stipulated" ten & twenty years.

 

How does it NOT apply to this Arrogant person.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Norfolk island perhaps? they did keep people there for a long time,some commenter,s here are forgetting pell is a convicted felon of one of the worst offences that a person of so called intellect can do, he should stay in till he dies, the surviving victim told the court some compelling evidence( this came from an informed source) may he rot in jail

 

 

[Litespeed]

Spacey I agree,

 

His sentence should be appealed as manifestly inadequate. He should get the max sentence and if that means he dies there, it is a good day.

 

He should also not be in protection in jail, with all his mates he protected. Let him stay in general down in a supermax and see him feel justice.

 

He has gods protections after all.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Norfolk island would definitely be too nice. A cage in the desert might suffice.

 

 

[spacesailor]

How about reopening St Helena Island, No prisoner escaped from there.

 

" History ".

 

I read somewhere they chopped up the dead prisoner's for shark feeding.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Litespeed]

Sharks are endangered for most species and though hardy animals should not be feed poison.

 

Even a croc would spit him out.

 

 

[Bruce]

Feels strange for me to be accused of siding with a bishop, what with me being a follower of Dawkins and a lapsed Anglican.

 

Here's where I stand: I would have found Pell guilty. My punishment would have included less jail time and more financial restitution to the victims. I would have awarded them $100,000 each, to be paid for by Pell.

 

And I would have recognised that nasty community attitudes, like we have seen displayed here, were in a small way to blame for the suicide of one boy. There have been societies where the outrage and consequent shame would have been a lot less.

 

A contributing factor is clearly the requirement for celibacy in the job that Pell did. This is a barbaric idea.

 

Right now, Pell is the underdog and I admit to feeling sorry for his plight, as I feel sorry for those poor choir-boys. My mind will change if he wins his next appeal and becomes legally innocent. I will still think him guilty but will stop feeling sorry for him.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I disagree !, Strongly.

 

"And I would have recognised that nasty community attitudes, like we have seen displayed here, were in a small way to blame for the suicide of one boy."

 

NO Pell NO suicide.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Litespeed]

Bruce,

 

How is it possible you see a man who was the 3rd most powerful man in the richest church on the planet as the underdog?

 

How is getting him to pay $100 k and even smaller sentence fair?

 

Damages are a civil court matter and should never be a consideration of sentencing. That thinking of yours means the rich get to pay their way out of goal.

 

The damage is lifelong and worth millions. The church have spent millions defending the barstard. And he is the chief who covered up all the other priests crimes. They have spent hundreds of millions in lawyers hiding their crimes across the country.

 

Once again you are claiming that its society's fault for the shame felt by the child. No it is not. The shame and mental torment is from been abused by a church power that tells you no one will believe you. And a church that did everything to cover up the abuse and let the offenders go to another school and keep doing it. They even had cops in pockets.

 

That is not a function of society at large but the church and its leaders, which was him.

 

Where is this society that wouldn't make a big deal of raping a child?

 

How can you possibly say you feel sorry for Pell because he is convicted but you feel he is guilty?

 

I am having a great deal of trouble as a human, a father and a former Catholic understanding how you can think these things.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I would like to take a moment to thank Ian for allowing us this site.

 

We learn a lot about people by their comments.

 

 

[spacesailor]

This ONE ( if the conviction stands ) act of pells, could be the END of the Catholic religion in Australia.

 

A few of my own grandchildren are moving away from this religion.

 

AND I will Not attempt to dissuade them from having No religion at all.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Playing the celibacy card to explain why Pell and his like did what they did is not fair on the thousands of good men who were true to their vow of celibacy.

 

Remaining true to that vow is a very difficult thing, especially for those men who are going through the family raising stages of life that their contemporary lay-persons are. No Abrahamic religion other than Catholicism demands celibacy of its clergy. Does being married detract from these other clergy's pastoral care to their parishioners? I doubt it. They also have the back up of the Hand that Rocks the Cradle.

 

So, celibate or not, clergy who are also pedophiles are still just Rock Spiders.

 

 

[Yenn]

Celibacy is an idea thought up by the church, along with a lot of other wild ideas, such a female genital mutilation. I look forward to a time when people will look at religion and realise that it is a load of bunkum. We had problems with witch doctors in olden days and the clergy are just todays witch doctors.

 

 

[facthunter]

I had a problem with "Which" Doctor till recently; and now I have a good one..

 

I was deeply religious at one time and decided the question was "can one think clearly about all things, OR have religion". I decided Religion was too big a price to pay. and if some who think they are going there (heaven) do go, it would be hell putting up with THEM anyhow. All power to the self righteous for they believe they can fool God. Nev

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On the question of guilt - Pell's legal team have announced that they are going to be appealing to the High Court. My guess is they are doing this based on the fact there was a dissenting judgement on the basis of the conviction was not reasonable given the evidence provided (note, there were three grounds for applying for leave to appeal - only the reasonabless ground was granted - the other two couldn't be heard).

 

Of the 500-odd applications for appeal from state criminal courts that are submitted to the High Court, only about 10% are granted. My guess is that this will be granted on the fact there was a dissenting judgement and that the case is of special pubic interest.. So, while he is currently a convicted felon, his question of guilt is not over yet. On that basis, I am refraining from disparaging his integrity and reputation.. but only on that basis.

 

I find it interesting that the press came out and what appeared to mock the Supreme Court based on the fact that one of the grounds for dismissing the appeal was that the witness was credible. Let's not forget, Pell was convicted on circumstantial evidence - which is circumstantial corroboration of the complainant's testiomy. As far as I know, there is no foresnic or other physical evidence; nor independent witness testimony positively substantiating the offence was even commited, let alone by Pell. The conviction is based on the testimony of the complainant and circumstantial evidence that corroborates that testimony. By necessity, the witness credibility is a necessary part of the puzzle in these cases. BTW, circumstantial evidence convictions, due to the lack of physical or independent witnesses are usually require quite a high degree of certainty before a proesecution is made. My point is, the judges seem right in affirming the credibility of the complainant..

 

Just because Pell decides to appeal his conviction does not mean he is a man of no morals nor a true belief. There may be any manner of reasons why people falsely accuse others, particularly those of a certain stature in society.. The cicumstances of the Pell case do not lend it, but there were two separate prosecutions in the UK of rape that went to appeal (within a short period of time of each other); each dismissed because in the prosecution's zeal to obtain a conviction to the girls wronged, was found to overlook (in both cases) compelling evidence that exonerrated both defendants, resulting in both complainants being charged with perverting the course of justice and the Home Office directing a change in policy when investigating such offences. I am not saying it happened in the case of Pell, but it is a defendant's right to use all legal forms of appeal and they should not be disavowed that right.

 

On the assumption that the conviction is upheld (I am not saying it will be), the question of sentencing has to be addressed. There are two views here.. I think, though, we have to look at the purposes of sentencing - and this does not mean jail time - it can be various orders, etc; or in fact not even recording a conviction! There are two basic reasons for sentencing: to punish and to protect the public. There are different ways to protect the public; remove them from society so they cannot harm, rehabilitate so that they don't reoffend and therefore are no longer a threat to the public, etc.

 

I am not sure if it was on these forums or others, but there was a discussion where it became apparent through various studies, that paedophiles were generally un-rehabilitable as it was a wired in urge - much the same as homosexuality, etc. So, if the purpose of sentencing is to protect the public and the more reforming/rehabilitative options available won't make a difference in the character's threat profile, then regardless of age, it would appear to me the only way to be sure of protecting children from Mr Pell (should he be convicted) and other paeodophiles, given they can't be rehabilitated it to remove them from society until they can no longer be a physical threat to their potential victims.

 

The courts accept that jail is not a great way to rehabilitate and in fact makes more criminals (if we accept some are there because of a victim of circumstance rather than being chronic criminal). However, there are times where there is no choice... In my humble and non-qualified opinion, a minimum sentence of 2.5 years for any paedophile is "manifestly inadequate".

 

 

[Bruce]

Well said Jerry. I reckon an un-regulated paedophile would have had an on-going history of offending, and this does not appear to be so in this case.

 

Gosh its hard to ask for proof in a case like this. I am reminded of Sir William Slim, the governor-general of Australia and a decorated war hero. There is credible and supported evidence that he was a paedophile, yet he has not been outed yet. My wife wants all monuments to him removed and his estate fined millions, and I agree with her. How could you expect a ten year-old orphan to produce legal proof against the governor general?

 

Apparently the governor-general would visit an orphanage, and a good-looking boy would be led to the vice-regal limo, whereupon all the aides would retreat for an hour. This charge came from one of the boys, who subsequently became head of the ABC. The charge was then supported by other boys, but the official response says " unproven allegations".

 

Here's a challenge for Litespeed, how about doing something about this guy?

 

 

[Litespeed]

He has been convicted, twice, that makes him guilty, period. Until a high court decides otherwise he is guilty. That is the legal standing.

 

Please do not equate the wired in comment of a paedophile and that of homosexuals.

 

That is, even if unintended, offensive to homosexuals. And should never, ever be in the same sentence. There is no correlation with a persons gender preference sexually and this abhorrent crime.

 

Women can also be paedophiles.

 

To be a paedophile is a choice that they act on, it is not inherent in their makeup biologically. Even if they may have a preference, it is something they are fully aware of as immoral and illegal. It is no more baked in at birth than raping an adult of any sex. We don't accept that rapists have no choice but to act on their impulses, because they are born that way.

 

To rape is the ultimate of violence against a person whether a child or adult. It is a crime of at best sociopathy but often psychopathy, they just happen to choose the most vulnerable which are children.

 

As far as sentencing goes, you fail to see the other important reason why we goal criminals and that is the requirement of deterrence for the rest of society. It ensures others know it will be punished if they do the same. That has always been a fundamental part of the criminal justice system.

 

As far as ability to be rehabilitated, it is possible but only when it is for a person that truly accepts the ramifications of their actions and has genuine remorse. In cases like these that is generally when the age difference is not great- ie a older teen and a younger person who was consenting but because of the legal requirement to be 16 years and older, and therefore unable to legally consent. That used to be called statutory rape.

 

That is not relevant in this case at all and in particular because Pell was in a position of power over the child. No amount of perceived consent is any possible mitigating factor in such cases of inherent power imbalance. Not that any consent was given anyway.

 

I would be extremely surprised if the case is heard and even more so if he is successful on appeal. The jury found the victim a entirely credible witness. The appeal judges were not in the court so their ability to judge his credibility is very limited. The appeal of the jury's verdict is rare unless fundamental issues of fairness made the judgement unsound. This normally relates to mistakes by a judge not jury. No criticism of the judge was found warranted.

 

I would think the personal views and bias rather than legal ones led to the other justice dissenting in his judgement. Credibility is a subjective issue. The other Justices had no such concerns and were unequivocal in their view the victim was credible and truthful. The other grounds for appeal were thrown out by all three.

 

This is not a case that can win on a minor technicality.

 

Until proven otherwise he is guilty under the law and deserves no compassion or leniency merely because his legal team will not accept the verdict.

 

If Pell had been remorseful and plead guilty at the first opportunity, then he would have deserved a similar sentence. He did not and should be there for a very long time.