Channel 7 and Jordan De Goey

[BF Tiger]

Agreed but clearly, when the other poster was speaking about age he meant in light of any sentencing, not towards guilt or otherwise.

I don't think so.

Here are the two posts where NoobPie refers to DeGoey's age at the time of the alleged incident. Nothing about sentencing, nothing implied about sentencing. The inly implication I'm getting from these two posts is that the poster thinks DeGoey's age is a factor in his guilt.

But maybe that's just me.

Whaaat?

That is just a nonsense leap in logic

A teacher charged with sexual assault would be stood down.......so a footballer charged with sexual assault 5 years ago as an 18 year old should also be stood down

Jaaaarst nonsense

This is an appalling post

Two "I believes" and a "as far as I am aware" to imply that a 23 year old DeGoey has been charged with rape as a 19 year old. And you were dead wrong

Are you ashamed?

 

[Aramis]

I don't think so.

Here are the two posts where NoobPie refers to DeGoey's age at the time of the alleged incident. Nothing about sentencing, nothing implied about sentencing. The inly implication I'm getting from these two posts is that the poster thinks DeGoey's age is a factor in his guilt.

But maybe that's just me.

Don't think you can draw the inference that the poster was suggesting he is or isn't guilty because of his age. Thats an incorrect interpretation of those posts in my opinion. He actually wasn't really referring to sentencing either, he is just mentioning his age and pointing out the time between alleged events and his current age. Also, might be useful to contextualise based on what those posts were in reply to, he was, in a way, comparing Taylor's situation with de Goey's. in my opinion, there is no distinction between the 2 cases, so I disagree with the notion that based on the effluxion of time between events and charges that that should somehow have an effect on whether they are stood down or not.

In any event, if he was found guilty, clearly being 18/19 would be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but we already agree on that point.

To be clear when I say 'there is no distinction between the 2 cases', I mean in the sense of how far the reach of the AFL/clubs should go; that is, they shouldn't be making merits decisions based on the facts/circumstances or casting judgment. It's either any criminal charge and you're stood down until resolved or the AFL/clubs stridently adopt the mantra of 'innocent until proven guilty' (as I think they should).

 

[queensberryrules]

Beware Dunning–Kruger, myself included.

 

[BF Tiger]

Don't think you can draw the inference that the poster was suggesting he is or isnt guilty because of his age. Thats an incorrect interpretation of those posts in my opinion. He actually wasn't really referring to sentencing either, he is just mentioning his age and pointing out the time between alleged events and his current age... Also may be useful to contextualise based on what those posts were in reply to, he was comparing Taylor's situation with de Goey's. in my opinion there is no distinction between the 2 cases, so I disagree with the premise that based on the effluxion of time between events and charges that should somehow have an effect on whether they are stood down or not.

In any event, if he was found guilty, clearly being 18/19 would be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but we already agree on that point.

To be clear when I say 'there is no distinction between the 2 cases', I mean in the sense of how far the reach of the AFL/clubs should go; that is, they shouldn't be making merits decisions based on the facts/circumstances or casting judgment. It's either any criminal charge and you're stood down until resolved or the AFL/clubs stridently adopt the mantra of 'innocent until proven guilty' (as I think they should).

But the poster has clearly stated that he does think age is a mitigating factor.

Why do you keep bringing up DeGoey's age? Do you think it mitigates whatever he is accused of?

Yes

 

[Aramis]

But the poster has clearly stated that he does think age is a mitigating factor.

Seems like he didn't read the post he was replying to properly. Still don't think you can say from that that the poster was saying his age was determinative of guilt or otherwise.

I think your choice of terms created the confusion, 'mitigation' of 'accusation' is not a thing. An accusation is blunt, it doesn't have some discretionary quality to it that can be offset by factors such as age... unless under sentencing or on a bail application.

 

[stormskye]

All these people going crazy, even IF degoey is found guilty, at worst he will
get a fine! People accusing him of rape just wow....

 

[Aramis]

All these people going crazy, even IF degoey is found guilty, at worst he will
get a fine! People accusing him of rape just wow....

Regardless of that, you can appreciate the outcomes for de Goey and Taylor stinks of double standards right?

Also, yes, obviously the people accusing him of rape are neanderthals.

 

[RiskingHead]

It was fine just the way it was thank you very much. Easy to be a sanctimonious prat and sit in judgement when your team is not involved. Bet those doing the pious moralising (you included ) would do a 540 degree turnaround if their own teams player was involved.

Well you'd lose the bet, because I believe there are some moral values that don't get compromised by the need to win.

 

[BF Tiger]

Seems like he didn't read the post he was replying to properly. Still don't think you can say from that that the poster was saying his age was determinative of guilt or otherwise.

I think your choice of terms created the confusion, 'mitigation' of 'accusation' is not a thing. An accusation is blunt, it doesn't have some discretionary quality to it that can be offset by factors such as age... unless under sentencing or on a bail application.

OK, I take on board what you are saying about mitigation of accusation, maybe could have been worded better, but as he has only been accused (and charged) at this point in time so I didn't want to say it mitigates his guilt (because that has yet to be proven/disproven). I didn't think the poster was saying that age was a determinative, but was a mitigator. And I asked that plainly and directly and he said thinks age is a mitigator, which I do find astounding.

 

[Aramis]

OK, I take on board what you are saying about mitigation of accusation, maybe could have been worded better, but as he has only been accused (and charged) at this point in time so I didn't want to say it mitigates his guilt (because that has yet to be proven/disproven). I didn't think the poster was saying that age was a determinative, but was a mitigator. And I asked that plainly and directly and he said thinks age is a mitigator, which I do find astounding.

Yep, we agree as best I think we can. Thanks for the discussion

 

[Kangapirate]

All these people going crazy, even IF degoey is found guilty, at worst he will
get a fine! People accusing him of rape just wow....

If he is found guilty he will get a conviction, but he obviously isn’t going to Jail and that’s why the media is talking about his contract and his future worth. Basically guilty or not De Goey is playing footy next season.

My memory isn’t great but Majak was accused of worse and I don’t remember such a media storm over it, although that may have been just prior to #metoo.

 

[NoobPie]

OK, I take on board what you are saying about mitigation of accusation, maybe could have been worded better, but as he has only been accused (and charged) at this point in time so I didn't want to say it mitigates his guilt (because that has yet to be proven/disproven). I didn't think the poster was saying that age was a determinative, but was a mitigator. And I asked that plainly and directly and he said thinks age is a mitigator, which I do find astounding.

Sorry dude you are now saying what I responded to "could have been worded better" yet you are still "astounded" at my response even though it took you two pages and a day to convince Aramis of what you actually meant .

The context with which you worded what you have admitted was a poorly worded question was a discussion around whether the AFL / Collingwood should have stood down De Goey

You asked in that context "why do you keep bringing up De Goey's age" followed with your poorly worded question

1) His age at the time and the historicism of the alleged incident both (but particularly the former) mitigate whatever subjective threshold the AFL / Collingwood should appropriately use to determine whether he should be stood down pending the investigation.

2) Morally, his age is a mitigating factor of whatever he is accused of relative to how I would judge an older man accused of the same act

3) In law, the potential to mitigate sentencing is a validation of (1) and (2)

 

[Kappa]

Regardless of that, you can appreciate the outcomes for de Goey and Taylor stinks of double standards right?

Also, yes, obviously the people accusing him of rape are neanderthals.

If Taylor is accused of bashing his GF and De Goey is accused of lightly touching someone's breast, do you think they should both receive the same punishment from the AFL? Even in the NRL De Goey wouldn't of been stood down..

 

[Aramis]

If Taylor is accused of bashing his GF and De Goey is accused of lightly touching someone's breast, do you think they should both receive the same punishment from the AFL? Even in the NRL De Goey wouldn't of been stood down..

That calls for a judgment call by a non-judicial body. I don't think the AFL/clubs, in light of the current inadequate policies (see; link here), should be making those calls on the hop and definitely shouldn't be 'weighing the merits' of the facts and circumstances of a given case to determine whether someone should be stood down or not, that's completely arbitrary and we're seeing the issues with that presently. I am still bemused how one was stood down while the other wasn't, there is just no consistency, either they both should have been or neither.

An adequate no-fault policy that removes discretion (something that AFL hates because they can't manipulate it) is what is required; something like "any player charged with a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years or more will be stood down until resolution of the matter".

Get my drift?

 

[Kappa]

That calls for a judgment call by a non-judicial body. I don't think the AFL/clubs, in light of the current inadequate policies (see; link here), should be making those calls on the hop and definitely shouldn't be 'weighing the merits' of the facts and circumstances of a given case to determine whether someone should be stood down or not, that's completely arbitrary and we're seeing the issues with that presently. I am still bemused how one was stood down while the other wasn't, there is just no consistency, either they both should have been or neither.

An adequate no-fault policy that removes discretion (something that AFL hates because they can't manipulate it) is what is required; something like "any player charged with a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years or more will be stood down until resolution of the matter".

Get my drift?

One was stood down while the other wasn't because one is accused of doing something far worse than the other. Why do their punishments need to be the same?

 

[deanc]

Regardless of that, you can appreciate the outcomes for de Goey and Taylor stinks of double standards right?

Also, yes, obviously the people accusing him of rape are neanderthals.

However these so-called 'double standards' are purely based on the public's opinion and interpretation of both cases without knowing the relevant circumstances and details.

I'd be shocked if the respective clubs were not aware, via the legal representatives of DeGoey and Taylor, of the details related to their charges and accordingly have made decisions of their player/s future employment based on this.
Simply, the Swans would not have sacked Taylor without knowing these details and similarly DeGoey has not even been suspended from playing for the same reason...
BTW, I assume 'stood down' means 'delisted', can someone confirm...?

 

[Aramis]

Sorry dude you are now saying what I responded to "could have been worded better" yet you are still "astounded" at my response even though it took you two pages and a day to convince Aramis of what you actually meant .

The context with which you worded what you have admitted was a poorly worded question was a discussion around whether the AFL / Collingwood should have stood down De Goey

You asked in that context "why do you keep bringing up De Goey's age" followed with your poorly worded question

1) His age at the time and the historicism of the alleged incident both (but particularly the former) mitigate whatever subjective threshold the AFL / Collingwood should appropriately use to determine whether he should be stood down pending the investigation.

2) Morally, his age is a mitigating factor of whatever he is accused of relative to how I would judge an older man accused of the same act

3) In law, the potential to mitigate sentencing is a validation of (1) and (2)

1) I don't feel the effluxion of time should have any bearing on the determination of the AFL/club to stand down a player, see my post above in response to Kappa regarding inadequate policies.

2) You have basically just stated, in clear terms, what BF Tiger has claimed you were doing the entire time - something I defended against. Mitigation of accusation is not a thing. The distinction between De Goey and a hypothetical 'old man' has no substance and is borderline asinine.

3) Not sure how the use of mitigating factors in sentencing allows you to draw conclusions based on those same mitigating factors in judging guilt or otherwise - it shouldn't.

 

[Aramis]

One was stood down while the other wasn't because one is accused of doing something far worse than the other. Why do their punishments need to be the same?

We literally can't make that distinction based on the charges alone, I do not possess all the facts and circumstances and its almost certain that you do not either. See my discussion with RUNVS above.

 

[Kappa]

We literally can't make that distinction based on the charges alone, I do not possess all the facts and circumstances and its almost certain that you do not either. See my discussion with RUNVS above.

The AFL and the clubs know exactly what the charges are which is why there are different punishments. How can you argue they should be punished the same when you don't know what they did?

 

[Aramis]

The AFL and the clubs know exactly what the charges are which is why there are different punishments. How can you argue they should be punished the same when you don't know what they did?

I dont think its correct to say that the clubs have knowledge of the information contained in the briefs or the full set of circumstances/facts that form the basis of the charge.

If you were charged would you be handing the details/brief over to an employer while it was before the courts (any lawyer worth their salt would be advising strongly against doing so)? highly unlikely. Would you disclose the charge? depends on the role/any obligations you may have.

You're right, I don't know what they did, nor will I be drawn into discussing whether they are guilty or not. However, i can argue the treatment (not punishment, that infers guilt) they should both be given because im advocating for a no-fault policy that draws a blunt distinction for offences carrying certain maximum penalties (I said 5 years+ which is the limit I would set if I had the reins, e.g, if an offence carried a maximum 4 years sentence that would not be grounds to stand down)... both charges in this circumstance carry a penalty that falls within my proposed policy;

De Goey - Indecent assault carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment Section 39 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) repealed 29 June 2015, offence alleged to have occurred prior to the repeal of the offence.
Taylor - Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm - the offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment which may increase to 7 years imprisonment if the offence occurs in circumstances of aggravation. Section 317(1)(a) Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA)

 

[NoobPie]

1) I don't feel the effluxion of time should have any bearing on the determination of the AFL/club to stand down a player, see my post above in response to Kappa regarding inadequate policies.

Which was why i qualified in brackets "particularly the former".

2) You have basically just stated, in clear terms, what BF Tiger has claimed you were doing the entire time - something I defended against. Mitigation of accusation is not a thing. The distinction between De Goey and a hypothetical 'old man' has no substance and is borderline asinine.

I have very clearly, with the first word of the sentence, qualified this as referring to a "moral" judgement not a legal one.

3) Not sure how the use of mitigating factors in sentencing allows you to draw conclusions based on those same mitigating factors in judging guilt or otherwise - it shouldn't.

It doesn't, I made no such claim it did.

 

[NoobPie]

I dont think its correct to say that the clubs have knowledge of the information contained in the briefs or the full set of circumstances/facts that form the basis of the charge.

If you were charged would you be handing the details/brief over to an employer while it was before the courts (any lawyer worth their salt would be advising strongly against doing so)? highly unlikely. Would you disclose the charge? depends on the role/any obligations you may have.

I can argue it because im advocating for a no-fault policy that draws a blunt distinction for offences carrying certain maximum penalties (I said 5 years+ which is the limit I would set if I had the reins, e.g, if an offence carried a maximum 4 years sentence that would not be grounds to stand down)... both charges in this circumstance carry a penalty that falls within my proposed policy;

De Goey - Indecent assault carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment Section 323 Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA)
Taylor - Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm - the offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment which may increase to 7 years imprisonment if the offence occurs in circumstances of aggravation.

Indecent Assault – Section 39 of the Crimes Act 1958

 

[Aramis]

Indecent Assault – Section 39 of the Crimes Act 1958

Apologies, I thought he was charged in WA for some reason... I will edit my initial post.

It actually carries a larger potential penalty than Taylor's offence.

 

[NoobPie]

Apologies, I thought he was charged in WA for some reason... I will edit my initial post.

It actually carries a larger potential penalty than Taylor's offence.

Which apparently is why the NRL went with 11 years.

It covers a broad spectrum of offences in terms of gravity

 

[BF Tiger]

Sorry dude you are now saying what I responded to "could have been worded better" yet you are still "astounded" at my response even though it took you two pages and a day to convince Aramis of what you actually meant .

The context with which you worded what you have admitted was a poorly worded question was a discussion around whether the AFL / Collingwood should have stood down De Goey

You asked in that context "why do you keep bringing up De Goey's age" followed with your poorly worded question

1) His age at the time and the historicism of the alleged incident both (but particularly the former) mitigate whatever subjective threshold the AFL / Collingwood should appropriately use to determine whether he should be stood down pending the investigation.

2) Morally, his age is a mitigating factor of whatever he is accused of relative to how I would judge an older man accused of the same act

3) In law, the potential to mitigate sentencing is a validation of (1) and (2)

You are talking rubbish here.

You said this...

Whaaat?

That is just a nonsense leap in logic

A teacher charged with sexual assault would be stood down.......so a footballer charged with sexual assault 5 years ago as an 18 year old should also be stood down

Jaaaarst nonsense

...and this...

This is an appalling post

Two "I believes" and a "as far as I am aware" to imply that a 23 year old DeGoey has been charged with rape as a 19 year old. And you were dead wrong

Are you ashamed?

And then I asked...

Why do you keep bringing up DeGoey's age? Do you think it mitigates whatever he is accused of?

... to which you responded...

Yes

What was poorly worded occurred after all of this and only in my exchanges with Aramis, and was cleared up quite quickly.