Do you think the Cardinal has indeed led a blameless life, except perhaps for this one small lapse in judgment?
If so, what’s the basis for that conclusion? Simply that you’ve never heard anything to the contrary?
I wasn’t the judge, so it doesn’t matter what I think in the context of whether the judge erred in sentencing Pell.
In terms of the factors that the judge has to consider when sentencing, the judge could not conclude otherwise. A judge has to take into account the offender’s previous character, including prior criminal history, general reputation and any
contributions to the community. If literally the only submissions before the court are that Pell has no prior criminal history, has a good reputation and made significant contributions to the community, and those submissions are unchallenged by the prosecution, then the only conclusion the judge can reach on this issue is the one he did.
If you want to argue that factors such as character, prior offending, the victim’s circumstances and all of those other issues that judges take into account when sentencing should not be relevant you are starting to get very close to arguing for mandatory sentencing, which I suspect most on this board would be opposed to.
My argument has always been that the judge’s comments regarding Pell are not unusual or out of line in the context of sentencing. Lest you think that the judge went easy on Pell, you should read the entire sentence for context.
What’s wrong, then, with “a life that otherwise appears blameless”? Or “you have done much good in this world…”? For the prosecution not to challenge the “character references” does not imply that Pell never behaved in ways that were unethical or illegal. No one knows that. And people are complicated. Even cardinals.
Maybe it’s my journalistic background, which says you hedge your bets unless you have verification of a statement, but it seems bizarre to say “otherwise blameless” as if it is God’s own unvarnished truth when we have no idea whether this is the case. And when, as mentioned above, what we do know about child sexual abusers strongly suggests that they are seldom “blameless” beyond a single episode of abuse.
I’m not saying that the sentence was too harsh or too light; I don’t know nearly enough about how sentencing works in Australia, don’t know enough about what happened at the trial. I AM saying that the judge’s decision to say “otherwise blameless,” as though the abuse of these two boys was obviously the only blemish on Pell’s report card, was unwise and unfortunate.
Had the judge done any of the things you suggest he should have, he would have handed Pell a pretty good basis for an appeal. That would have been unwise and unfortunate.
For the record, I suggested two alternate ways of phrasing the comment. So we’re clear, I’m not suggesting that the judge should be saying “You’re probably guilty of other crimes…”
So: To say “a life that otherwise appears blameless” is grounds for appeal? Or “you have done much good in the world”–that increases the likelihood of an appeal and an overturned verdict? Seriously?
What if the judge hadn’t mentioned anything about Pell’s record beyond the event for which he was being tried? Is that grounds for appeal? I guess you’re saying that the judges have to say “otherwise blameless” about every defendant in an Australian courtroom who has character references. Is that the case? How much leeway does a judge have in this “script”? Could the judge say “otherwise exemplary,” or “otherwise beneficial,” or is “otherwise blameless” the only acceptable wording? And if so, why on earth…?
I’d really love to hear the reasoning here. I know nothing about Australian rules in court cases, so for all I know you’re exactly right; but speaking as an American I find it completely astonishing to think that the judge risks being overturned on appeal if s/he throws in an “apparent” or only talks about the good the defendant did without using words such as “blameless.” Can this really be true?
It’s not the use of apparent that I have a problem with. For the record, you also indicated that "what we do know about child sexual abusers strongly suggests that they are seldom “blameless” beyond a single episode of abuse.". This is not a matter that can be taken into account when sentencing in the absence of any evidence that suggest the offender has committed any other offences.
Absolutely. Section 5(2)(f) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) says that in sentencing an offender a court must have regard to the offender’s previous character.
Of course not. Plenty of offenders have committed offences previously, which is evidence of previous character.
A judge judges. A judge cannot and should not have regard to anything other than the material put before them. If the character material only points to otherwise good character (eg. no prior offences, character references from appropriate members of the public, evidence of good works) that is the only thing a judge should take into account when sentencing. I would be extremely surprised if the US process was substantially different.
Here’s some preliminary comments by the judge that may help:
I again urge you to read the sentencing remarks in their entirety before attacking the judge for being unwise or unfortunate. They will give you a better understanding of how the sentencing process operates.
About the last sentence : I remember being surprised by how strict the rules regarding sentencing were in the UK, limiting a lot the freedom of appreciation of the judge, wrt what element should be taken into account and to what extent they should result in a more severe or lighter sentence. I don’t know about Australia, but it could be that the process is substantially different, in fact.
Besides that, I agree that the judge shouldn’t assume the existence of other offenses or even keep this possibility in mind, ideally, let alone use a language that would imply this. If he writes something even as seemingly innocuous as “appears” blameless, it implies that he suspects that he probably has committed other crimes hence isn’t ruling with the assumption that he didn’t (and in fact, it’s exactly for this reason that people here insist that he should use this wording : they don’t believe it’s the only crime he committed and they don’t want a wording that assumes innocence).
I of course wouldn’t know if it could be enough to justify an appeal, but if I were the defendant or his lawyer, it would make me suspect that the judge was in fact assuming the existence of other crimes, and probably gave a more severe sentence than he would have otherwise. If this kind of “passive-agressive” wording is repeated through the ruling, it wouldn’t bother me that the ruling would be overturned on appeal.
On top of it, I’m not convinced that :
-
It can be safely assumed that pedophiles in general are more likely to have committed other offenses than people who speed on the road, burglars or rapists. Should judges pronounce sentences systematically using a wording that implies the defendant is likely to be guilty of more offenses?
-
He, specifically, committed other crimes, in fact. In most similar cases during the recent years, when a first accusation surfaced, many other victims soon came out. The fact that it didn’t happen in this case, despite it having had so much coverage, let me suspect that there weren’t other victims. There has been also many cases when only one crime was prosecuted because the others were covered by a statute of limitations. Even though guilt can’t be assumed in these cases, either, it would be a situation where a more prudent wording could be warranted.
There actually have been other allegations and charges against Pell, however the charges were ultimately dropped.
That’s not “some”, that’s “one”: that he didn’t keep offending. The rest do apply to the case: two kids with full rides to an expensive school (vulnerable, well-behaved, eager to please) getting to spend extra time with Pell on several occasions before he attacked them (so, groomed). And that he did stop is not something we know for sure.
Some time ago, as the quoted post above highlights, I confidently predicted Cardinal George Pell would not be criminally charged in Australia.
My best recollection is that at the time, the discussion was whether Pell had vicarious criminal liability for aiding abusers by means various. I said, stridently, that Pell would NOT be charged, much less convicted.
Since then, I had for unrelated reasons left regular posting here.
I checked back to the SDMB today for yet other unrelated reasons and found a PM reminding me of my failed prediction.
So, to be clear: yes, I failed utterly to correctly predict that outcome, and I was completely wrong. Those that predicted Pell’s arrest and conviction were right.
Are you planning to stick around, Bricker?
Chin up, you’ll find some liberal hypocrisy somewhere to expose to the world.
I’m the escrow for a bet between two other posters that will resolve January 1, 2020. I stopped back in to check PMs that contained those details.
Almost certainly not returning full time, so to speak. Sorry.
Sorry to hear that; you are missed! Best wishes.
What iiandyiiii said.
Holy crap Bricker was back for a second!
Not to minimize it in any way, but it’s like drunk drivers. Or dope addicts.
They can do it hundreds of times before they finally get caught.
Pell may attempt to challenge today’s Court of Appeal decision in the High Court.
Freed as high court overturns convictions.
And yet another follow-up.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/australia/australia-cardinal-pell-high-court-hnk-intl/index.html
The High Court’s verdict ordering that Pell be acquitted cannot, as I understand Australian law, be further challenged.
So ultimately, the final decision of the legal system is that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish Pell’s guilt.
I was still wrong about my prediction, of course, that Pell would not be convicted. But now it appears that Pell’s conviction was not a result of a reasonable jury’s verdict. So, there’s that.