News George Pell is convicted! "Like many survivors I have experienced shame, loneliness, depression and struggle.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Six years is a slap in the face to every single survivor. But nothing surprises me. I guess we should be happy he got any time at all.
It really seems like the Catholic Church runs Australia, at least from where I sit here in the USA.
 
he will find plenty of "remorse" in time to get out in three years and eight months

..so he has to find more than just remorse to meet Parole conditions... a lot more. But you ought to know this since you are relying on your legal qualifications?

I don't have anywhere near the knowledge you both have

No, @bellbird it's not about knowledge etc., this isn't a thread about the law even though it would be good to keep it as accurate as possible. So please stay and have your say - I didn't mean to put you off. If I seem to be wanting an accurate reflection of today's events - it's so we don't get derailed into speculation and emotional interpretation (s).

Some of my family is so high up in the Catholic church that they have had meetings with the Pope/s.

Really? Are you saying the Pope knows something more about Pell's trial, conviction and sentence than all of us mere mortals?? lol

And he shared that knowledge with your relations... okay.. And they told you...

So even though you say you know something, that you are not prepared to write here ... you are still relying heavily on third hand information?

Anyway I thought you loathed the Catholic church - you have been very keen to dam the church whenever you can. But now, you say, you have the inside scoop. Wow.. how can you even bother talking to those relations especially if they are so cosy with the head of the institution you publicly criticise?

So are you saying you know more about the law than me? lol And that therefore makes you more qualified?? ..to have an opinion? lol not buying that one either :)

If you want to discuss those issues feel free to start your own thread on it.

But I'd rather stay here thanks :)

What are you suggesting? You started the discussion but you're now not interested in it? Or just the facts?
 
Six years is a slap in the face to every single survivor.

That's interesting because a lot of survivor groups have welcomed the sentence. Some are not happy but hey nobody can please everybody.

The Judge read a lengthy sentencing comment prior to handing down the term. He appears to have a pretty good grip on what might be appropriate for this bloke. And remember he's got to survive his prison term (and he's not in good health) and idk about this but as a registered sex offender I don't think he will be welcomed back at the Vatican's house in Italy too soon. If he is even allowed to leave Australia and live overseas under the terms of his Parole, if he applies for it and if he is given it.


t really seems like the Catholic Church runs Australia, at least from where I sit here in the USA.

Nah.. I run Australia... lol... :wacky: Didn't you know?? Geese you Americans - :sneaky: :cautious: :oops:
 

bellbird

Sponsor
So please stay and have your say - I didn't mean to put you off. If I seem to be wanting an accurate reflection of today's events - it's so we don't get derailed into speculation and emotional interpretation (s).
You didn't put me off :)
I just really feel that at this stage, I have nothing further to add. If I happen to see/read more about this, then I'll chime back in :)
 

Sideways

Sponsor
Six years is a slap in the face to every single survivor.
I absolutely agree.

But then, I also have some (increasingly small) remnants of respect for the legal process.

First conviction for this type of offence? Typically gets a sentence of 2-4 years. And the court has to consider “what would the law usually issue as a sentence for this crime?”, and treat Pell according to the same standards as other offenders. Which they’ve done.

Changing that? Requires legislation. Not just lengthening the possible sentence for crimes of this type (which is all the legislature usually does), but going one step further and introducing mandatory minimum sentences. So, making a law that might say “If you’re a convicted pedophile, you’ll spend at least 10 years in prison.”

Mandatory sentences. Urgh! Absolutely they have their benefits. Because in crimes like this, where the precedent the court is using is waaaaay outta line with public sentiment? Forces the court to catch up with what the public expects.

On the other hand? Mandatory sentencing always (always) catches people out who do have extenuating circumstances that really ought to be considered when issuing a sentence.

In this case, the sentencing remarks were pretty balanced. Pell was facing what was effectively a public lynch mob, and he did have considered character references from our former Prime Minister, and he is a pretty old guy to be in prison. And anyone else in his position? Those factors would be considered in sentencing.

The success of this case, from a legal perspective? Is the court’s ability to treat Pell exactly as it would any other accused.

The circumstances made that almost impossible, but they seem to have done a pretty reasonable job - the (appalling insufficient) sentence? Is a reflection of the legal system’s ability to treat all accused equally. And that’s a big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top