I appreciate the thoughtful response here. You raise some interesting questions.
"In the eyes of most rational people, it is incomprehensible to go and murder another human being. Going by your theory, one could argue not to judge a murderer on the act of murder, due tot he fact that their brain could find a reasonable path to a point where the act of murder is nearly defined as acceptable... So therefore on the principal that you may be lenient on Stack, should all people found guilty of murder actually be let off under the definition of insanity because the normal brain would, not in any sane position, think murder is ok????"
I can tell by the paragraph above you are misunderstanding my position. Put simply my position would be consistent with how the law around murder works. I certainly wouldn’t hold the position that a murderer should be “let off” as you put it. That would be a recipe for certain disaster.
In terms of the law around murder as I understand it broadly….a person who has killed another, but not in self defence, can actually be found not guilty of murder due to the way their brain works(or malfunctions.) This could be achieved for example by successfully pleading not guilty on grounds of insanity. The law will rightly still try to act to remove the killer from a position where they are deemed a danger to society.
My main overriding point about Stack after considering a lot of posts on this thread is he is entitled to the principles of natural justice. In particular, that he should have the opportunity to explain himself before being judged. He appears to have made a fairly serious error. Before judging it would be preferable to hear his thought processes articulated clearly. This puts the courts and the footy club in a position to see at which point or points he has erred and in what ways, and therefore in a much better position to judge how to deal with it, hopefully in a way that is satisfactory for all parties. Any person charged with murder is entitled to this same right, to be heard.
To be clear again I am not arguing for leniency for Stack. Just for a fair process and appropriate measures to be taken. As for all people facing allegations of any type. Regarding the law, there is a likelihood he will be issued summary justice, unlike what would occur were he charged with murder, with a full trial before a jury etc.
I would hope the RFC would dig a little deeper in order to ensure any decision it makes is right, especially given the obvious talent of the player.
"There are REASONS and there are EXCUSES but reasons don't mean they ARE excuses.
SS may have had a reason, he may not have been mentally able to comprehend his actions, he may not have been able to 'reset' to the original decision/point of quarantining, but that does not excuse his actions... as it shouldn't excuse either of you or I if we were to break them."
In the unlikely event that [PLAYERCARD]Sydney Stack[/PLAYERCARD] provides(verifiable) reasons that excuse his actions then it is obvious what the outcome of any enquiry should be.
More likely is he could shed light on his thought processes so that his actions can be judged and dealt with accordingly.
"SS at some stage had a n easy choice, he made the wrong one, irrelevant of his ability to comprehend the outcome, and no must face the circumstances."
The bit that interests me here is your insertion of the word ‘easy’ to describe the choice he faced. I am pretty sure, for you and I, well, you at least, that choice would be easy. It doesn’t mean that is necessarily so easy for Stack. This is what I would be most interested to know that answer to, what is leading him to keep making similar errors.
"And (not directly aimed at you) this is what I believe is wrong with society to a point. We continually, look for excuses for people, "oh poor Johnny, it's not his fault...", parents look to blame teachers/coaches/etc for their kids behaviour or poor performance... and what's worse, not only are they enable bad behaviour/performance from their kids, they confront the teacher/coach/etc in front of the kid, reaffirming the bad behaviour is not the kids responsibility... hence starting the vicious cycle of bad behaviour, but blaming everyone else instead of taking responsibility."
First I would like to say Stack doesn’t strike me as the entitled type or one who would seek to shift blame. Not from anything I have seen or read from him.
I do get your point though, and yes, there may be those amongst us who find excuses for him, but this is not his fault.
I have coached/captained young players in sport and confronted this issue many times. My normal response to anyone saying I am too hard on a kid when I criticise him, is to ask that we let nature take its course. I normally say I will back the kid to go home feeling a bit sh1t(or not sometimes) have a sleep on it, and wake up stronger tomorrow for having thought over the criticism. Mostly I find parents or others accept this as a reasonable course of action and the kid comes back better. Sometimes it doesn’t work like this of course, but mostly it does. Times may have changed but the nature of people does not. I have found a lot of parents are interested in their kids getting good guidance, you sometimes just have to overcome a bit of initial resistance.
