Religion Pell Guilty!

[Sainteric]

Punishment doesn't quite fit the crime here.

It's lefty Victoria sentencing is very soft. He more or less got 6 out of a possible 10 years

 

[NSWCROW]

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/hea...obably-in-protection-too-the-mutt-****en-dog/

Cardinal Pell Sentenced To Get The Lot The Dog, Probably In Protection Too The Mutt, ****en Dog

Much to the dismay of Former Prime Minister John Howard, Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, News Corp columnist’s Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine – Cardinal Pell has today been sentenced to six years in prison by Judge Peter Kidd in the Melbourne Country Court toda

 

[Del191229]

Hope he carks it before the appeal.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Honestly thought he would get a longer sentence than that, seems light for crimes of this nature.

 

[Del191229]

Honestly thought he would get a longer sentence than that, seems light for crimes of this nature.

If he'd done them last year he'd be getting longer.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[rdhopkins2]

Lucky to only get 6yrs. Not surprised though.

 

[Benny78]

Evidence wise there isn't enough of it to convict him harshly. One witnesses testimony, and the other is dead.

There are so many people who can cry like a sociopath and convince a jury who are simply lying. Whether being crossed examined for 2 days or 2 years. Their motivation is financial compensation and many have gone to any length and convinced everyone to achieve it.

I just wish we had more evidence but the guy was too clever. He'll probably die in prison unless his appeal is successful

 

[Benny78]

Honestly thought he would get a longer sentence than that, seems light for crimes of this nature.

Nah just a plain vanilla act that lasted no more than 5 minutes apparently!

 

[kickazz]

Nah just a plain vanilla act that lasted no more than 5 minutes apparently!

That notion was rejected by the judge.

 

[Benny78]

That notion was rejected by the judge.

Apparently not!

 

[kickazz]

I highly recommend anyone actually interested in this watch the whole video if the sentencing Peter Kidd gave.

Explains it all pretty well and it makes sense, unlike most of the public who wish to chip in on the matter unfortunately.

It's over an hour but worthwhile.

 

[Bombermania]

Honestly thought he would get a longer sentence than that, seems light for crimes of this nature.

The judge stated that he would have given longer if he thought there was a risk of reoffending and he took into account that there doesn't appear to have been any other offending in the 22 years since. The Judge has also noted that at 77, each year in jail would be substantial against what Pell may be expected to live for. The other thing that needs to remember is that the Judge has acting in a way that reduces the chances of an appeal against the sentence.

 

[kickazz]

Apparently not!

It was, clearly you didn't listen to our read what he said.

He said that the offending was on the worse end of the spectrumn if anything. (My words not his)

 

[Bombermania]

It was, clearly you didn't listen to our read what he said.

He said that the offending was on the worse end of the spectrumn if anything. (My words not his)

He did say that but he then went on to explain the mitigating factors that reduced the sentence as is the usual sentencing process.

 

[kickazz]

I was expecting Pell to get a fair whacking here but instead, he has ended up getting off too lightly.

The judge initially sounded like he was going to lay a big smackdown but he gave Pell a discount on the sentence due to his age which in my opinion is totally wrong.

3 years & 8 months non-parole period is just not enough for a sex offender who held such a high position of trust.

Agreed it is not enough.

The part I found most interesting in sentencing was the condemning of the "witch hunt" type of treatment he has been receiving and will continue to receive, and that that in itself becomes a form of punishment, and that that was a factor taken into account in sentencing.

Our legal fraternity tends to rightly or wrongly get its back up when mob justice is attempted, and reading between the lines in this case, all those who have been hurt in the past, who campaigned for Pell to be vicariously punished for that, actually ended up ironically helping to reduce his sentence.

In sentencing you today Cardinal Pell, I am not sitting in judgement of the Catholic religion or the Catholic Church.​

It is George Pell who falls to be sentenced.​

We have witnessed outside of this court and within our community examples of a witch hunt [or] lynch mob mentality in relation to you, Cardinal Pell.​

I utterly condemn such behaviour, that has nothing to do with justice of civilised society. The courts stand as a bulwark against such irresponsible behaviour.​

To other victims of clerical or institutional sexual abuse, who may be present in court today or watching or listening elsewhere, this sentence is not and cannot be a vindication of your trauma.​

Cardinal Pell has not been convicted of any wrongs convicted against you.​

Cardinal Pell does not fall to be punished for any such wrongs.​

I recognise that you seek justice, but it can only be justice if it is done in accordance to law.​

For me to punish Cardinal Pell for the wrongs committed against you would be contrary to the rule of law and it would not be justice at all.​

 

[sideswipe]

Evidence wise there isn't enough of it to convict him harshly. One witnesses testimony, and the other is dead.

There are so many people who can cry like a sociopath and convince a jury who are simply lying. Whether being crossed examined for 2 days or 2 years. Their motivation is financial compensation and many have gone to any length and convinced everyone to achieve it.

I just wish we had more evidence but the guy was too clever. He'll probably die in prison unless his appeal is successful

This is completely wrong. Sentencing doesn't work on concepts such as "convict him harshly" - conviction is binary - guilty or not guilty. The jury found Pell guilty.

The judge receives the verdict, accepting the charges upheld as fact. The judge then determines sentence based on all the factors raised today - none of which include a "wish for more evidence".

 

[kickazz]

The one aspect of the sentence that I vehemently disagree with is that the judge pointed out that the maximum sentence at the time of the offences was 10-years but has since been lifted to 15-years but he would only apply the maximum sentence for the time of the offence.

Pell has had 22-years of "freedom" since the offence so in my opinion, he should have been subjected to the penalty scheme of today, not two decades ago.

If the judge had ratcheted up the sentencing by 5-years in line with the changes, then I would expect the majority of the community to accept an 11-year sentence with a non-parole period of 8-years & 8-months as fair.

It would be a big call (possibly illegal) to not apply the punishments and law of the time though.

I use the following example not to trivialise the matter but to illustrate my point more simply: Imagine that tomorrow they increased the fine for not voting to $5000. Then they went back and said, "hey you didn't vote in 1993 or 2007, you owe $10000.”

 

[Demosthenes]

The one aspect of the sentence that I vehemently disagree with is that the judge pointed out that the maximum sentence at the time of the offences was 10-years but has since been lifted to 15-years but he would only apply the maximum sentence for the time of the offence.

Pell has had 22-years of "freedom" since the offence so in my opinion, he should have been subjected to the penalty scheme of today, not two decades ago.

If the judge had ratcheted up the sentencing by 5-years in line with the changes, then I would expect the majority of the community to accept an 11-year sentence with a non-parole period of 8-years & 8-months as fair.

That would be a violation of Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Hope he carks it before the appeal.

I don't see how that helps anyone. If you have faith in the conviction, the best result is for ambiguity to be eliminated by any points of legal contention being quashed on appeal.

 

[Black Stripe]

Slap on the wrist but not surprising after remembering Rolf Harris got a slap on the wrist too.

The politicians who have been defending George Pell should be made to stand down.

Too bad we have no one to make the politicians accountable though eg Barnaby Joyce being allowed to continue his political career after having an affair with and knocking up one of his staff members.

Anyone in a normal job eg accountant or lawyer does what Joyce did they'd have been sacked on the spot with zero hope of getting a job with another firm ever again.

 

[Milang_Panthers]

Hope he carks it before the appeal.

Na I'd rather he have to suffer for as long as possible. Him carking it would be the worst outcome.

 

[Del191229]

Slap on the wrist but not surprising after remembering Rolf Harris got a slap on the wrist too.

The politicians who have been defending George Pell should be made to stand down.

Too bad we have no one to make the politicians accountable though eg Barnaby Joyce being allowed to continue his political career after having an affair with and knocking up one of his staff members.

Anyone in a normal job eg accountant or lawyer does what Joyce did they'd have been sacked on the spot with zero hope of getting a job with another firm ever again.

Ummmm, yes there is, there'll be a chance in a few months.

 

[Del191229]

Na I'd rather he have to suffer for as long as possible. Him carking it would be the worst outcome.

Nah, the Court of Appeal getting all wig and gown and letting him go on a technicality - with all the posturing and shouting from Bolt and co that would entail - would be the worst outcome.

Pell doesn't care about much except his legacy. Knowing he'd die a convicted sex offender would be hell to him.

 

[Bombermania]

Slap on the wrist but not surprising after remembering Rolf Harris got a slap on the wrist too.

The politicians who have been defending George Pell should be made to stand down.

Too bad we have no one to make the politicians accountable though eg Barnaby Joyce being allowed to continue his political career after having an affair with and knocking up one of his staff members.

Anyone in a normal job eg accountant or lawyer does what Joyce did they'd have been sacked on the spot with zero hope of getting a job with another firm ever again.

Its not a slap on the wrist for a man that saw himself in contention for the top job of becoming pope to now being a convicted child rapist.

Joyce will need to explain himself to the voters of New England.

Unlikely most workplaces would sack Joyce if it happened in their workplace as long as no complaint was made and they are together.

 

[Sainteric]

It would be a big call (possibly illegal) to not apply the punishments and law of the time though.

I use the following example not to trivialise the matter but to illustrate my point more simply: Imagine that tomorrow they increased the fine for not voting to $5000. Then they went back and said, "hey you didn't vote in 1993 or 2007, you owe $10000.”

When sentencing they try to fit within a range that is reasonable and not likely to be successfullly appealed as too harsh or light. You can't have a 'Hanging judge' who deals out the maximum all the time here as they would be after a process looking for a new job.