Religion Pell Guilty!

[Snake_Baker]

Sentence was about where I thought it would be.

He'll start out at Ararat with all the other critters, then move on to Langi Kal Kal (where they locked up brave Derryn Hinch) to finish his sentence.

Parole date will come down to program requirements & availability. I wouldn't think he'd go over by too much considering his age.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Considering a number of states have introduced the no body no parole laws last couple of years that would imply that you don’t have to admit guilt to be eligible for parole.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Considering a number of states have introduced the no body no parole laws last couple of years that would imply that you don’t have to admit guilt to be eligible for parole.

He signed the sex offenders registry, so the "no guilt" aspect would not apply here.

 

[Present Not Past]

Not sure how accurate it is, but heard today he needs to admit guilt to get parole? Not sure how that works, but as I see it if the appeal fails he either admits guilt, gets out in three, and is presumably defrocked/cast out of the Catholic Church, or he does the full six, maintains innocence, and gets a pension.

Then again the 'admit guilt to get parole' kind of sounds like BS so who knows.

I don't think that's right. Didn't Ivan Milat appeal his conviction, and he has never admitted guilt to his crimes.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I don't think that's right. Didn't Ivan Milat appeal his conviction, and he has never admitted guilt to his crimes.

Appealing the conviction is different to applying for parole

 

[skilts]

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.

I'm not absolutely certain Pell's treatment outside the court affected the length of the sentence he received, though you might be right. I too found the daily exercise of him running the gauntlet to be unnecessary, and dangerous to Pell, and to the legal process in play. The cops were ineffectual in their pathetic attempts to shepherd him into and out of the court. The most unfortunate aspect of this was that it may have given succour to those who attest, falsely IMO, that this whole process was an act of vengeance by VicPol.

Nobody who finds the sentence inadequate has given any weight to these three things which had to be taken into account by Kidd: 1) It was a first offence. 2) he had been (allegedly) of good behaviour since the offences occurred twenty-two years ago. 3) The unlikelihood of Pell re-offending. For these, among other reasons, I found the sentence just about right.

As for those hoping Pell receives extra-judicial punishment in gaol, have a good look at yourselves. If the process shown in court this morning isn't indicative that we live in a civilised society, where such behaviour is not tolerated, your advocacy of violence says more about you than it does Pell.

 

[M Malice]

Nobody who finds the sentence inadequate has given any weight to these three things which had to be taken into account by Kidd: 1) It was a first offence. 2) he had been (allegedly) of good behaviour since the offences occurred twenty-two years ago. 3) The unlikelihood of Pell re-offending. For these, among other reasons, I found the sentence just about right.

As for those hoping Pell receives extra-judicial punishment in gaol, have a good look at yourselves. If the process shown in court this morning isn't indicative that we live in a civilised society, where such behaviour is not tolerated, your advocacy of violence says more about you than it does Pell.

I think you also need to add allegedly before the highlighted, commonsense and logic would dictate that there is no way in hell that George Pell or any pedophile has only ever committed the offence/s they were convicted for. No way Pell woke up one day in his 50s and decided to molest children for the first time, pedophiles are recidivists.

 

[chelseacarlton]

The difference is Rockerfeller had a heart in the first place. Pell has no heart, no conscience, an absolute fraud and freak of the highest nature.

Well, he did evolve from Neanderthals apparently!

 

[its free real estate]

I think you also need to add allegedly before the highlighted, commonsense and logic would dictate that there is no way in hell that George Pell or any pedophile has only ever committed the offence/s they were convicted for. No way Pell woke up one day in his 50s and decided to molest children for the first time, pedophiles are recidivists.

The court can’t and shouldn’t convict based on other crimes that may have happened.

As for paedophiles starting in their 50s, this does happen on occasion. Probably not in Pell’s case, but further charges, if they happen, should determine whether he gets a longer sentence.

 

[FredLeDeux]

No doubt not that I have stats but certainly it is not uncommon in sexual assualt cases

I don't have the actual stats to hand either, but Victoria's appeal courts definitely overturn juries' decisions in sexual assault cases at a significantly higher rate than in other cases, and at a higher rate than appeal courts elsewhere in Australia.

 

[its free real estate]

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.

Would be extraordinarily divisive. The average mug punter loathes crims getting off on a technicality, the conservative nitwit establishment would do victory laps.

 

[Craven Morehead]

You need to try to stop personally insulting everyone on this forum. It displays your inability to handle losing a debate with others of superior smarterness.

Simply dismissing things like mixomatosis and animal crulety/live export doesn't stop them being real issues. It's also not how you win an argument. I've also watched you basically tearing into everyone here defending Pell over the last 50 pages which has been pretty funny. Can't you just respond with your view in a non-facist style like most other people?

Myself, and 3-4 others in this thread, have been quite open in stating that we're survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
Any sane and moderately intelligent person would understand that this particular trial, verdict and sentencing has been especially taxing and emotional for us.
I believe that all of our responses, to some extremely grubby and offensive posts, have been measured or, at worst, mildly hostile.
However, when someone comes into a thread like this with the single intention to troll and be a smartarse that hostility can be be wound up a notch or two.
This is also the case when certain posters state that they simply KNOW Pell didn't commit the crimes and that the key witness was 100% lying because...well, just because they KNOW.
I have personally stated that I'm comfortable with the sentence and believe that Kidd did a fine job under trying circumstances.
Perhaps you should be spend a moment considering what the testifying survivor is going through right now instead of just being a dick?

"I appreciate that the court has acknowledged what was inflicted upon me as a child.

"However, there is no rest for me."

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Would be extraordinarily divisive. The average mug punter loathes crims getting off on a technicality, the conservative nitwit establishment would do victory laps.

I’ve read the appeal will most likely be on the basis of unreasonableness most likely in front of three judges. They just need a majority decision.

University of Melbourne law school’s criminal appeals and procedure expert, Professor Jeremy Gans, said this was a commonly used grounds for appeal.
“Prosecutors would be completely prepared for an appeal based on this,” he said.
“And it’s not a rare grounds to succeed on. This is the defence’s best shot and carries a bonus for them in that if they win there can almost certainly be no new trial. Because once a court decides a guilty verdict is unreasonable it means they don’t think guilty should be the verdict in the next trial either. They would almost certainly acquit. Basically on this grounds of appeal, the court gets to decide if the jury got it right.”

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...inning-appeal-against-convictions-expert-says

 

[Royal Flush]

Pell should just do what Jesus did and accept his punishment as paying for sins of all men. Guilty or somewhat guilty.
In this case pay for the sins of all Catholics that ****ed young boys.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Del191229]

Would be extraordinarily divisive. The average mug punter loathes crims getting off on a technicality, the conservative nitwit establishment would do victory laps.

Especially if the reasoning is they essentially say the jury shouldn't have believed the victim.

 

[Del191229]

Pell should just do what Jesus did and accept his punishment as paying for sins of all men. Guilty or somewhat guilty.
In this case pay for the sins of all Catholics that ****** young boys.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I agree mate, but Pell parted ways from the teachings of Jesus a long while ago.

Specifically stuff about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles.

 

[M Malice]

The court can’t and shouldn’t convict based on other crimes that may have happened.

As for paedophiles starting in their 50s, this does happen on occasion. Probably not in Pell’s case, but further charges, if they happen, should determine whether he gets a longer sentence.

I didn't suggest he should have got a longer sentence or be convicted on what "may have happened" just saying IMO it is extremely unlikely that the incident he has been convicted for is the only time in his life he has committed a pedophile atrocity.

Also re the post I originally quoted.... as for the likely hood of re offence I'd contend that if Pell was presented with the opportunity he'd stick his dick in another young boys mouth. Pell and all pedophiles are an abomination.

 

[M Malice]

I agree mate, but Pell parted ways from the teachings of Jesus a long while ago.

Specifically stuff about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles.

That is true of most organized religions eg. the Vatican/catholic church is hardly an example of being frugal. It's more a classic example of a rampant ostentatious power and wealth.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Especially if the reasoning is they essentially say the jury shouldn't have believed the victim.

An interesting take on the process and an opinion on the chances of the appeal, (very slim), from high profile Perth QC Tom Percy.

11. What is your view of the future of the Pell case generally?

Whichever way you look at it, Pell and his legal team face a Herculean task to achieve any positive outcome for him. Although it is not impossible, the job is certainly a formidable one.

Like any appellant in a criminal case, once the jury’s verdict is in, there is no longer a presumption of innocence and the odds are very much stacked against you.



https://thewest.com.au/news/court-j...his-conviction-has-little-hope-ng-b881133885z

 

[M Malice]

Well, he did evolve from Neanderthals apparently!

Don't insult Neanderthals cc.

 

[Strange Cat]

I agree mate, but Pell parted ways from the teachings of Jesus a long while ago.

Specifically stuff about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles.

More apt with the entire Catholic Church that just Pell imo

Their whole system is hypocritcal compared to the teachings they preach, they all live in comfort and hoard thier assets and wealth.

The sooner they are taxed and stripped of their wealth over time the better for everyone.

 

[FredLeDeux]

More apt with the entire Catholic Church that just Pell imo

Their whole system is hypocritcal compared to the teachings they preach, they all live in comfort and hoard thier assets and wealth.

The sooner they are taxed and stripped of their wealth over time the better for everyone.

The next UK PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...g-historic-child-abuse-a-waste-of-money-video

 

[GuruJane]

That's your defence of the church?

Pedophilia happens in families?

Ffs [emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

It's not a defence, it's a reality - pedophilia in families and tribes is still covered up.

 

[Del191229]

That is true of most organized religions eg. the Vatican/catholic church is hardly an example of being frugal. It's more a classic example of a rampant ostentatious power and wealth.

Even among that lot, Pell stood out for his love of finery and wealth. Always flying first class, his pad in Rome:

Father Hodgens said the Domus Australia guest house in Rome - a beautifully refurbished old religious house with 33 rooms for paying visitors, a richly restored grand chapel and organ and a 150-seat auditorium opened by Pope Benedict XVI last month - cost between $30 million and $85 million, according to different estimates.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...shops-grand-house-in-rome-20111130-1o76m.html

 

[Colonial]

It's not a defence, it's a reality - pedophilia in families and tribes is still covered up.

So we should let it go in the church?
Wow.

Hammer these ****ers and any pedos.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk