Well I am in my last year of law. But a friend of mine who has been to the trials has suggested the same thing, with legal experience.
One of the accusers in the second trial passed away last year which wouldn’t help. The charges dropped were dating back to the 1970s.
Hung jury, not that unusual.
No its not but proves how difficult it is to prove such cases. Guess we will see what happens in a few weeks when his appeal goes through. From what I have studied if a defendant takes the stand and denies the allegations there has to be good reason why you discredit or find his evidence not trustworthy. I believe a judge would come to a different conclusion to a jury.
Typical lawyers getting the date wrong. Unless it was sent out last night.
About four other cases were dropped over the past couple of years. It will be interesting what happens with the appeal.
Regardless of any appeal Pell’s professional and probably personal life has been destroyed so that’s punishment in itself… that can’t be undone.
Of course if he’s guilty and that’s the ruling of the courts at this moment then he deserves a lengthy jail term all the more so because because he was a figure of spiritual and moral authority in the community, as misplaced as that status has been revealed to be.
Less a comment on coverage, more on the event itself, but I hope that this conviction opens the floodgates for convicting more pedophile priests not only in the Catholic Church but all religious orders worldwide. This is an historic event and a great opportunity.
George Pell Convicted - Coverage Discussion
My guess is eighteen months. The maximum term is reportedly 30 years, but I can’t see Pell getting anywhere near that.
and so it should but I do hope that it doesn’t become a case of tarring all with the same brush. I can fully understand how people come to those conclusions with the way things get reported and the no distinguishing between the church and the Church (the Catholic Church have the capital C). The Catholics have made some terrible decisions with their governance and the hiding of things and the protection of people and they are still talking about hiding things meanwhile other churches have had various levels of protection in place for 20-30 years and long before the laws required them to do things.
I agree if he is guilty which is what the outcome currently is he deserves a lengthy jail term. If it turns out not guilty he doesn’t deserve the punishment you listed in your first paragraph. However, this will stick with him until he dies.
The Bible quotes Jesus as saying that what Pell has been convicted of is deserving of the harshest punishment. “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6. I’ve got no problem with Ten here.
So the death penalty then? I am glad our legal system doesn’t listen to jesus then. Not that I am saying he didn’t do it. But there are a lot of these cases that lead to false convictions. Look at maggie kirkpatrick a few years back. No way was that enough to lead to a conviction. Listen to jesus and we would have drowned her.
Anyway… Pell has withdrawn his bail application. Not sure why.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Pell’s barrister, Mr Richter, told the court that the cardinal maintains his innocence. But based on the convictions, Mr Richter classified the offending as spur of the moment and not premeditated, and conceded jail was appropriate given the need to deter others.
Mr Richter conceded the crimes involved a violent act, in that Pell grabbed each boy by the head before he sexually assaulted them, despite their protests. There was an abuse of power, the lawyer said, in that Pell was at the time a large, powerful man.
So in other words Pell believes, crimes like this deserve a jail sentence. Even though he maintains his innocence. Quite a strategic position. They will be counting on winning the appeal then. Because if they don’t he will likely spend the rest of his life in jail.
I’m surprised that he “conceded the crimes involved a violent act”. Doesn’t that hurt the chances of winning the appeal?
What an abhorrent “excuse”. Richter has said some bloody awful things today, I don’t see the appeal going in Pell’s favour
The judge was angry too.
Judge Kidd also disagreed with the lawyer’s submission that there was no time for Pell to reflect before he abused the boys.
Pell made a choice, the judge said, ‘‘and continued to make it for five minutes’’.
The judge said he considered the offending as serious.
‘‘I see this as callous, brazen offending. It did involve a breach of trust and a degree of impunity. How else did he think he was going to get away with it?’’ Judge Kidd said.