Severity of the offence, damage caused, wider community impact. Why doesn’t punching in the stomach someone carry an automatic life sentence in jail? Same thing.
Ideally, yes. It can take many years for a child to grow into adulthood, realize the truth of what happened, and overcome a lifetime of indoctrination against reporting such things. A lengthy delay in beginning the process of justice works *against *the victim, please note.
If there is a backlash, where is it?
Let’s be clear; you don’t have the evidence against Pell, so you are at best providing a speculation, a hypothesis that only applies to one anecdote. There is no evidence at all that there is a mass “backlash” resulting in unjustified charges against priests, either in the Land of Dingoes or anywhere else. Nowhere are priests being arrested en masse on dubious grounds, not in Spideria and not here and not anywhere. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence is that priests, to a statistical approximation, pretty much always get away with rape. But now you are claiming a backlash that is clearly, unambiguously not happening anywhere, except in the case of George Pell… if, in fact, Pell is being vexatiously charged, which you don’t actually know.
Normally you’re the SDMB poster who is the huge stickler for absolute adherence to known fact, and yet in this one case you’re talking in conspiratorial tones about a political backlash against clergy based on one guy being charged and you don’t even know what the evidence is. I mean I could read lots of guilt into Pell’s decision to flee his country and refuse to go back for vague “health” reasons, but I am going to admit that’s not actually evidence he is a rapist, and there’s lots of plausible reasons he would remain in the Vatican. I could also question how it was Pell was a roommate of George Ridsdale, a serial child rapist who was committing horrific crimes on quite a regular basis and honestly claim that he had no idea anything was up with Ridsdale. But that’s not proof of anything, and it’s entirely possible Pell is telling the truth.
Perhaps you could reflect on why your position on this matter is so oddly different from your usual position.
My position is: he’s innocent until such time as a court says different and the verdict is upheld on final appeal.
I invite you to show any time in the past 17 years I’ve said something different about someone criminally accused.
On this very page, you said Pell was arrested as part of a “backlash” against Catholic clergy. That is quite a separate position from the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
I have therefore met your invitation to show you a time in the last 17 years you said something different from “he’s innocent until such time as a court says different and the verdict is upheld on final appeal” about someone criminally accused. Those two things are not contradictory, but they are different, and I’d like to know what you’re basing the “backlash” claim on.
Then we as a society need to work to break down the indoctrination against reporting such abuse in a timely fashion.
Better yet, how about we work to break down the institutional defenses of abusers too? Yanno, to prevent the abuses from happening? Even if it means breaking free of the psychological indoctrination that leads so many of us to revere those institutions.
Place the responsibility where it belongs, friend.
How about we do that and put in place strong statutes of limitations to prevent people from being charged over decades old non-murder crimes? That seems like an even better idea to me.
How about we stop blaming the victims? That work for ya?
No, not really, since I haven’t been blaming the victims. My point remains: I’m not comfortable with the situation where people are able to come out decades after an alleged non-murder crime and say “That person did something bad! Haul them before the courts and possibly throw them in jail too!”
Why should a rapist be absolved of a crime because he got away with it for a long time?
Australia is a free country and people can say what they please. It remains the case that for a person to be imprisoned for a crime, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone saying they’re “bad” is not enough.
That’s what your objection that they should have said something at the time is, friend. Your expressed sympathies are all with the alleged child rapist and the organization that has enabled so many child rapists for so long, and none at all for the raped children.
That makes statements like this:
and similar resorts to legalisms amount to moral complicity. Is that really so hard to see?
Because we live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty and it’s extremely hard to defend oneself against decade old crime allegations. Better to let a guilty person go free than convict an innocent one, and all that.
Just the accusation can be enough to cause serious damage to someone’s livelihood, then you add the financial and emotional cost of defending the accusation - it’s a pretty serious thing to level at someone, even if it never gets anywhere near a court.
I see no evidence that’s true, nor does it even make sense at a glance. All evidence I have seen suggests exactly the opposite; that the longer the time between the alleged crime and the bringing of charges, the easier it is to defend against them, and the harder they are to prosecute.
Those things would be just as true of a rape that is alleged to have happened six months ago as 40 years ago, so this has nothing at all to do with statutes of limitations.
Coupla points:
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a rule of legal procedure, not a moral standard. One might also expect an institution that claims moral authority to be able to withstand moral scrutiny without resorting to legalisms instead.
If the crime didn’t really happen, one can only wonder why someone would make the accusation so many years later. What could the alleged victim gain from it?
In theory, a financial payout; the RCC has paid a lot of people off. I’m sure, at some point, at least one ne’er-do-well had tried to get a niuce payday by joining in the accusation. In any situation where there are many people victimized, some asshole will falsely claim to be a part of that group in the hopes of money, attention, or both.
Of course, the reason the Church has had to pay so many people off is that they raped so many children, so I’m inclined to say these accusations were probably not made lightly. It isn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt yet, but only a truly dedicated ostrich could pretend to be shocked that a Catholic priest might be a child molester. Accusations against Pell personally date back at least 15 years. Are they all lies? Sure, it’s possible. It’s also possible that if you draw a random card from a deck, it’ll be an eight. Would you bet even money on it?
Of course, your really important point is why a supposed moral authority has to hide behind legalism, rather than doing the moral thing and cleaning house - which would include sending the rapists straight to the local authorities, defrocking everyone involved in covering things up and looking the other way, and getting really serious about this. And THAT we could discuss all day; why has the RCC so long kicked this can down the road while children suffered and even died?
It’s both.
[QUOTE=Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11]
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
[/QUOTE]
There are numerous faster and more reliable methods, if that is the goal. Not that there aren’t con artists in the world, but if they’re working this approach, the target of their actions wouldn’t be running from them.
I’m actually even more interested in why so many people continue to support that organization. Their actions are largely explainable as protecting fellow insiders, in a working environment that is already based on an archaic and perverted sense of the world.
I think it’s mainly because their source of income, their very existence, is based on a claim to be the true representatives of Christ on earth. If they admit an endemic moral failing of any kind, the entire house of cards collapses. So they don’t admit it; they just keep paying off the victims of all of these “separate and unrelated” incidents.
Wait, who are you talking about; just the clergy, or the laity? Because that’s two different answers, really.
The clergy. Just like even “good” police officers will often form the Blue Line and protect even psycho murderers among them, with group identity overcoming even basic morality, it seems the priesthood will do the same, albeit with some liturgical mumbo jumbo covering it. They’re human too, ceremonies and vestments notwithstanding.
The responses of laity seem more the result of a lifetime of indoctrination into believing their own church is the One True Way, but there’s some group-identity psychology involved too.