I’m so proud of you. Congrats.
Well, if his religious beliefs are true, there’s a higher judge waiting for him. (Spoiler alert: They aren’t and there isn’t.)
Pathetic.
Goddammit.
Just hope the victim(s) can finally put their past to rest sometime soon. I can’t imagine how they must be feeling now.
hmmm I guess that means really no Bricker now, er I mean ‘almost certainly not returning full time’ or something.
Pride in being technically sorta kinda right in a second hand way?
I expected no less from you.
It’s been interesting reading back on this thread since its inception app 4 years ago.
I mean ‘interesting’ as a combination of astonishment and absolute disgust at the lengths bricker and Princhester contorted themselves to absolve the RCC of any culpability in its crimes against children.
I’d sort of forgotten what scumbags they were. I remember now though.
I haven’t been following this case, so I won’t comment.
But here’s the full text of the court judgment.
I’d be interested for people who know the case - particularly people with a legal background - to read through it and say what points they agree or don’t agree with.
My prediction was based on the belief that Pell was not guilty.
Specifically: he didn’t abuse anyone, and the acts he took with regard to priests that WERE guilty were not illegal.
This thread had several types of arguments going on. Among them:
[ol]
[li]Pell is guilty of sexual abuse in his own right[/li][li]Pell is guilty of crimes for shielding priests[/li][li]Pell might not be legally guilty, but his moral guilt makes it perfectly fine for him to suffer legal consequences[/li][/ol]
Which of these do you endorse?
Your prediction was that he wouldn’t be convicted, and you don’t get to say after the fact that a conviction doesn’t count because sometime in the future there is a possibility it might finally be overturned.
I believe the term “travesty” and “miscarriage” are in order. It was as perverse a conviction as I have ever seen.
Conviction attains finality when it can no longer in the ordinary course be set aside by a competent Tribunal.
That’s not really true.
The point of legal systems in most Western democracies is that they contain mechanisms to undo error.
I might predict, confidently, that Representative Schiff can’t be convicted of treason for his role in the impeachment of Donald Trump.
The basis for that statement is both a confidence in the legal system not permitting such a grievous and unjustified error in the first place, and a confidence that if it did happen, the error would be quickly corrected by higher courts. That’s why we have higher courts.
I would have captured that sense better if I had predicted that Pell would never be fully and finally convicted, or used some other language to reach both tiers of the basis for my confidence. I didn’t, and I readily acknowledged that failure of my predictive prowess when it happened. I admit it again.
But at the same time, I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that there is now a final and unappealable judgement that the conviction was in error.
“I will eventually be vindicated somehow, someday, therefore I can never be proven wrong!”
What a fucking weasel.
This.
“Convicted, then overturned” is NOT the same thing as “never convicted”.
It is if the conviction was wrongly obtained. A successful appeal is not the same thing as a pardon.
So we cannot say that a person is convicted until…when?
Until their appeals are exhausted. Pell WAS convicted, now he is not.
I’ll bet you think we should all do jury duty when asked, right? Why should jurors bother, when, in reality, their decision only stands if it is a decision that is correct on review? Why waste a juror’s time if someone smarter than them will be reviewing their work?