Will Pell be defrocked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me put it this way. I’m not saying that the jury was definitely out for blood or on a power trip. I’m just saying it’s a possibility, which gives us a reason to doubt the conviction.

Or even that they were so consumed by the fear of letting a guilty man possibly go free that they became willing to stretch the evidence. It doesn’t have to be deliberate malice. There’s lots of ways that a jury can draw the wrong conclusion
 
Last edited:
Flopfoot said:
Let me put it this way. I’m not saying that the jury was definitely out for blood or on a power trip.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. And not ONLY on a power trip:
Flopfoot said:
Except for ripping the church to shreds - not only a power trip, but revenge on a hated institution. For context, a jury of 12 Victorians is like a jury of 12 Californians
Click to expand...
I think that requires a retraction or an apology.
 
Flopfoot said:
Or even that they were so consumed by the fear of letting a guilty man possibly go free that they became willing to stretch the evidence. It doesn’t have to be deliberate malice. There’s lots of ways that a jury can draw the wrong conclusion
Click to expand...
Juries are constituted by and of fallible people. They make mistakes all the time. The idea that to suggest they might’ve made one here too is somehow horrific is nonsense. Don’t let people trap you with that silly ‘gotcha’. Juries are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church and this is not a matter of faith and morals. Know what that means? Yep! They can be dead wrong. The end. If people want to argue they’re not wrong, that’s one thing. But the idea of “How can you suggest they might’ve got it wrong-Gasp!” is silly or naive at best.
 
Last edited:
I will pray for him, and I share your sentiments about his trial. Things are definitely not adding up.
 
According to the news reports, Pell abused one of the boys again, one month after the sacristy assault, by holding him up against a wall and fondling his genitals.

That’s paedophilia, if true, and it’s also serial.

We shall see how the appeal process transpires.
 
Last edited:
I agree, too late and has led to damage. Primary is the impact that statement has on a person subject to sexual assault. It is heartening to read the judge condemned that statement in reply.
 
Go and read the hard evidence. His conviction really defies belief, IF you look at the evidence,
 
On the contrary, the main reason most people give for not wanting to serve on a jury is that they are terrified of the risk that they will wrongly convict an innocent person. Also, it is a principle of the legal system, with which the jury will be familiar, that it is preferable that a guilty person be acquitted than that an innocent person be convicted. The only possible instance in which a juror may wish to err on the side of conviction would be if they misguidedly believed that a conviction would serve to protect the public, even if they had a doubt about the defendant’s guilt. In Pell’s case he is an old man with a pacemaker and a double knee replacement and no access to children anyway, so re-offending is probably not a big risk.
 
Londoner said:
The only possible instance in which a juror may wish to err on the side of conviction would be if they misguidedly believed that a conviction would serve to protect the public, even if they had a doubt about the defendant’s guilt.
Click to expand...
That’s quite an assertion, with due respect. How do you know that it’s “the only possible instance in which a juror may wish to err on the side of conviction”? Jurors are ordinary people, no? It’s interesting that people are trying hard to establish some kind of informal charism against error on a group of 12 ordinary human beings sitting down to hear testimony. You cannot credibly state what you’ve stated here about the motives of 12 strangers you don’t know. You. Just. Don’t. Know.
 
Last edited:
It’s not an unreasonable assumption to make.

The jury was carefully selected to ensure that nobody on the jury would have a reason to be biased for or against Cardinal Pell or the Church. So we can assume that they tried to reach their decision as fairly as possible.

Next, they would have been made aware that they are required to find the defendant guilty with certainty, usually expressed as being beyond reasonable doubt. They will have understood that in the event of their being in any way uncertain about the correct verdict they must find the defendant not guilty. The whole criminal justice system is, quite rightly, weighted in favour of the defendant. If they think that the defendant is probably guilty but they’re not sure, they must acquit him. It is better that somebody who is probably guilty is acquitted than that somebody who is possibly innocent is convicted.

Somebody suggested that it was possible ‘that they were so consumed by the fear of letting a guilty man possibly go free that they became willing to stretch the evidence.’ Now, that is not the way that jury trials work. But I was suggesting that one could consider this kind of scenario: a dozen children in the local area have been kidnapped, raped, and murdered. Everyone is terrified that there is a dangerous maniac on the loose. Their own children could be next. A suspect is caught and is put on trial. The evidence against him is compelling, but there are one or two doubts: a fingerprint that was only a partial match, an alibi that just about holds water. The jury is fairly certain they’ve got the right man, but the strict letter of the law says that they must acquit. Then somebody says, ‘But what if we let him go and the very next day another child goes missing?’ And so, reluctantly, they convict. If the killings stop there, they assume they got the right man, albeit on flimsy evidence; if the killings resume, the police will reopen the investigation, and in time the wrongful conviction should be quashed. In the case of Cardinal Pell, this consideration does not pertain. He is an old man in poor health who will never be allowed near a child again, even if acquitted. Therefore ‘the fear of letting a guilty man possibly go free’ does not pertain. There is no ‘fear of letting a guilty man possibly go free’ unless you think that he could offend again. The law says that if there is a chance that a guilty man is in fact innocent he must be acquitted. The jury will have understood that.
 
I dunno. I think you need to read about biases and human beings. We are not that rational, I’m afraid.

And people who view the Catholic church abuse as some kind of demonic disease that needs curing and Catholic priests as highly likely to be abusive could see this case as one justifying conviction, whatever the evidence. They’d think they were doing the world and children a favour. Also, we can’t assume the jurors know he’d never be near children again. Too many assumptions about what might be going on in the hearts and minds of 12 perfect strangers.

The truth is, we have no idea. Jurors do wrongly convict, though. It’s not a small matter. They are merely ordinary humans. We just don’t know except that those 12 people apparently believed that Cardinal Pell was guilty. No more can be said beyond that.

Me? I refuse to condemn a man merely based on a verdict.
  1. I’m not a juror. My condemnation is neither required nor desirable.
  2. I don’t know.
  3. If Cardinal Pell is innocent of this offence, then what is happening would be a travesty and I’d hate to have a stone of mine among the pile on his head at the end of the day.
 
Bradskii said:
Does the Vatican have any option?
Click to expand...
The question is incomplete. Pope Francis has zero problem serving justice. The deeper question (and the one our Pope is addressing) is how did we as a Church and society enable the conditions to allow the accusations AND/OR crimes to occur?
 
Last edited:
As I said at the top of this thread, I trust in the fairness of the Australian justice system, including the appeal process. If the conviction is upheld I’d trust that some of Australia’s finest judges, having reviewed all the evidence, had reached the correct decision. Likewise, should the conviction be quashed, I’d trust that that was the correct decision too. I think we just need to wait and see what happens.
 
I have no idea if Cardinal Pell is guilty. But this conviction to my mind makes it probable that he is. His decision to not give evidence seems inexplicable to me. He said he came home ‘to clear his name’. That’s active. It means doing more than seeing if others can damn the name beyond reasonable doubt. His lawyer’s representations on his behalf were not on oath. If he had given evidence, Cardinal Pell would have been on oath.

The decision to not seek bail seems unusual if there is a good prospect of success at appeal. It seems to me to suggest that, innocent or not, his advice has been to start the sentence in the hope of getting out of prison while still alive and mentally well. The sentencing of old people is a very harsh thing. But Australia does not impose the absurdly long sentences that are typical of the US so there is some prospect of freedom if the appeal fails.

I imagine the Church will wait until the appeal and, if it fails, laicise the Cardinal. What else could it do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top