Oh poor George (Cardinal Pell)...might have been easier to come home!

The BBQ Pit
441

From what I understand, at sentencing hearings making claims like “my client still says he didn’t do it” are absolutely forbidden. You can’t make the case the defendant is factually innocent - you’ve already lost that one. You’ve got to stick with “one time loss of judgement, he’s very, very, sorry, here’s a parade of people saying what an upstanding person he is” etc. claims.

And maybe “this is the low end of the type of crime”, but clearly not in this case. I think that’s more for “he stole $10,000, not $10,000,000” arguments.

From one of the articles, one of the defense witnesses walked over to the dock and shook Pell’s hand after his testimony. I can’t imagine that made a good impression on the jury as to the quality or veracity of his testimony.

442

The Washington Post is reporting that George Pell has been sentenced to 6 years for sexual assault.

He’ll be eligible for parole in about 3 years. Doesn’t really seem anything like enough.

443

For someone 77 years old that will probably be a significant fraction of the rest of his life.

444

Why? It was just a plain vanilla sexual penetration case.

445

In fact, the judge explicitly said that this was an element of his sentencing decision

446

Really? Well, fuck the judge then. They’ll even let him out if he’s dying and has weeks to live, I’m guessing.

447

What did the judge do wrong? He said:

“I am conscious that the term of imprisonment, which I am about to impose upon you, carries with it a real, as distinct from theoretical, possibility that you may not live to be released from prison. Facing jail at your age in these circumstances must be an awful state of affairs for you.”
…
“On the one hand I must punish and denounce you for this appalling offending. Yet on the other hand, I am conscious of the heavy reality that I am about to sentence you, a man of advanced years, who has led an otherwise blameless life, to a significant period of imprisonment, which will account for a good portion of the balance of your life”

448

Is that the same ‘blameless life’ that Manafort led? What’s a little little boy buggering and presumably covering up for other priests and bishops who did the same, weighed against whatever good he did (and I assume he did do good)?

449

That was the first thing that popped into my mind. Blameless in not a word that should be used when discussing convicted criminals.

450

“Other than raping little boys, you’re an OK dude”.

451

I was responding to Locrian who said ‘Fuck the judge’ in response to the judge stating that the effect of the sentence on Pell at his age was explicitly addressed by the Judge. The judge has to consider the various matters put before him by the prosecution and defence when sentencing. These will include

  • the offender’s previous character (including prior criminal history, general reputation and any contributions to the community);
  • the offender’s age;
  • whether prison will be particularly hard on the offender because of his circumstances.

I would imagine the submissions before the court about Pell’s prior criminal history, reputation and community contributions would have been uncontroversial and likely unchallenged by the prosecution.

On the flip side, in terms of aggravating factors, Pell’s position of trust and power would have, and did, come into account in the sentencing process.

Among other things the Judge said

*"To conclude on this issue, the authority you carried within the Cathedral setting in relation to the choir boys, carried with it a significant responsibility of trust, not to do anything to the detriment of the boys.

The argument of your counsel that this offending was committed by you George Pell — the man — and not by you George Pell — the Archbishop — must be roundly rejected. I do so without any hesitation.

Your obvious status as Archbishop cast a powerful shadow over this offending. Not only do I consider that you offended in breach of your relationship of trust, and in abuse of your power and authority, I would characterise these breaches and abuses as grave.

You were the Archbishop of St Patrick’s Cathedral — no less — and you sexually abused two choir boys within that Cathedral.

This connection and the depth of the breaches and abuses is self-evident.

I am conscious that the breaches of trust and abuse of power overlap here and that one informs the other. Trust may be abused by the misuse of a position of authority.

The conferral of authority and power can give rise to relationship of trust. They interrelate in this way in your case. I am mindful that I must not punish you twice"*

452

Right. I’m sure that Pell only buggered boys under his authority once only. In his whole life. Just the one time, your honour."

“Otherwise blameless life”??? Bullshit. Otherwise not caught in blame, maybe.

453

Do you think judges should take into account issues that aren’t before them when sentencing?

454

What profile would that be? The three points in common between all the men to whom my grandfather whored out my cousin and brother were: male, adult, and heavily involved in all-male environments.

455

Hmmmmm Let’s see. NO.

I do think you should read more carefully. I think judges should use caution, and perhaps not use words like

" who has led an otherwise blameless life,"

When referring to a convicted pedophile. It’s extremely unlikely, untested and unproven that the pedophile has " led an otherwise blameless life". According to research, the majority of pedophiles don’t just commit a single act of abuse.

So best if the judge does not use this unproven allegation as an excuse to let the pedophile off more lightly.

So how about if judges don’t make up shit about how the poor pedophile has led a blameless life? That would be good.

456

What evidence of prior convictions were put before the court?

457

So you want judges to ignore the submissions and evidence before them and rely on ‘research’ about what other pedophiles have done, but don’t think that judges should take into account matters that aren’t before them in sentencing.

This is what the judge said about the character matters before him (bolding mine)

Where has the judge erred?

458

Well, some that I’m aware of are:

Paedophiles often specifically target children who look vulnerable (shy, looking for adult attention, compliant). They often spend long amounts of time ‘grooming’ potential victims. They rarely ‘just stop’ - they keep offending. None of those apply in the current situation.

And none of this is to say that I don’t believe the surviving victim and *definitely *not that I’m buying the bill of goods that certain ex-PMs are trying to sell us - that he couldn’t have done it because he’s ‘such a good person’. Clearly Pell is not, in fact (what I would call) a ‘good person’ - he’s done some quite vile (but not illegal) abuse-victim-attacking things right out in public where everyone can see them.

But - the response to this verdict among supporters of victims has been generally along the lines of “this is so great for victims of child sex abusers - it means they can have confidence that perpetrators can be found guilty and punished, whoever they are.” (either that or “he didn’t get long enough”). It’s only a good thing for abuse victims if he stays convicted. A conviction just like this (single accuser, historical charges) got overturned just yesterday - Christian Brother John Tyrrell. And there really are just two pieces of evidence here - the word of the surviving victim, and the fact that it was physically possible.

If the conviction is overturned on appeal, that’s a worse result for absolutely everybody than if he was simply acquitted (which doesn’t mean “he’s innocent”, just “we can’t tell”)

459

He erred in calling him “blameless.” Nothing you quoted in any way establishes this. All it says is that the defense did not have any proof to contradict the defense’s claim. This would be true even if the guy had raped another kid at some point, and we just didn’t know about it.

Calling him “blameless” is making a judgement. Not calling him “blameless” is not. He may be blameless in all other aspects. But the judge doesn’t know that. The judge only knows what was stated in trial, but calling someone “otherwise blameless” is saying something far beyond what can possibly be proven at any trial.

No one knows what other crimes may have been committed that no one found out about. No one knows what bad things that aren’t crimes they may have committed.

It’s not rocket science. Judges should not make claims beyond that which has been proven in court. And you literally cannot prove someone is “otherwise blameless.”

460

It’s almost as if a judge’s job is to…make judgments. Who would have thought?

So judges should not do what they are literally required to do under sentencing guidelines and regulations.