George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[Pies4shaw]

[Pies4shaw]

I just saw your further question, David. It's most unlikely that fresh evidence will be led on appeal. I am aware of that happening in one recent appeal in which the question was whether defence counsel's conduct of the trial was competent. As I understand it, in such cases, defence counsel at trial is entitled to be heard on that question on appeal (since, obviously, the person who is said to be have been incompetent will not be the person making that argument on behalf of the defendant/appellant on appeal). In that appeal, trial defence counsel gave evidence at the appeal and was cross-examined. That's very unusual.

[Culprit]

Giving a Pedophile a Character Reference, pretty much states that you condone Pedophilia. The debate will rage about Pell's guilt or innocence and that has to do with the power of the Vatican. The Church (all of them) need to be punished for their inaction, covering up and intimidation and the best way to punish them is to remove their tax free status. Make them pay tax like everyone else and that will show that they are not above the law.

[Pies4shaw]

No, I don’t accept that proposition about character references. The very purpose of a character reference is to mitigate sentence for something of which one has been convicted. I think we’d all start from the basic proposition that this fellow was of good character and repute, wouldn’t we?

[David]

Yeah, that's an absurd claim on many levels, Culprit.

[David]

[Culprit]

[David]

How far are you going to extend that, and what do you mean by support? One organisation that I have a lot of respect for (and have even considered volunteering for) is COSA, or Circles of Support and Accountability, which supports convicted sex offenders by providing them with companionship and assistance with basic daily tasks, as a means of aiding their transition back into society after release and helping to prevent reoffending. Obviously the people who volunteer for that service don't condone child abuse – indeed, they're doing more than the average person to help stop it.

Likewise, it is entirely possible (and, in my view, highly beneficial) for friends and family members to stick with perpetrators through hearings and after conviction, because civilised members of society understand that you can hate the sin but still love the sinner.

And lastly, in terms of legal process, just as we as a society accept that defendants are entitled to a lawyer who will argue their case, we accept that they are entitled to make a case for a less severe punishment after conviction. If that involves character references that, through describing the accused's positive attributes, indicate good chances of rehabilitation, then I think that's a legitimate part of the process, and that those who contribute such references shouldn't be attacked for doing so.

Where 'support' for child molesters becomes a problem is when friends or family members are involved in covering up crimes or shielding perpetrators from justice – that is, supporting the actual offending rather than the offender as a person. I would strongly argue that there is nothing wrong with the latter (and, indeed, that any rhetoric that supports or leads to further ostracisation of offenders is likely to increase the prevalence of sexual abuse).

[HAL]

You'll know when it happens.

[K]

[David]

It is fair to wonder whether expressions of support from friends in high places should really be permitted to mitigate sentencing, and whether we should even permit character references at all. But if so, that's on the system, not Howard et al.

[Culprit]

Until the appeal, he's a convicted pedophile. What will be the appeal grounds? "my lawyer said I will get off". The Church is another name for Pedophile support network. Even the Right Wing Shock Jock Hadley is ripping into his mates Howard and Abbott. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/ray-hadley-condemns-john-howard-and-tony-abbott-for-gross-errors-of-judgment-on-pell-20190228-p510t5.html

[K]

[David]

[K]

Yeah, that would be a "psychiatric/psychological diagnosis". And those are more unreliable than a jury's "criminal conviction". (You won't get even six psychiatrists to "diagnose" the same thing, let alone twelve. Of course, those twelve are in the same room. Maybe if the twelve were kept apart, it'd be the same.)