George Pell has been charged

[watt price tully]

What's Abbott got to say about Pell?

http://www.news.com.au/national/politic ... 95d302da27

Then again what's Miranda Devine got to say about George Pell?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ll-charges

[David]

Pretty weird for a decade-old 'gotcha' tape of Abbott to be circulating when it's already patently obvious that he would admire a high-ranking figure of his church like Pell. Perhaps it's time for the old "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party" routine.

[watt price tully]

Pretty weird for a decade-old 'gotcha' tape of Abbott to be circulating when it's already patently obvious that he would admire a high-ranking figure of his church like Pell. Perhaps it's time for the old "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party" routine.

I think you're reading far too much into it.

It's amusing for its own sake, that is Abbott gets gets caught out lying, forget about the subject matter. Then his reaction of staring daggers at Tony Jones, words failing him... followed by the fun of the Chaser crew. It's funny not because of Pell but because of Abbott. In thius case it happens to be about Pell.

No go on & tell me about the communist party questions: nice theory but not the right fit here.

However Miranda Devine: that is about Pell.

[Culprit]

It's clear that everyone is lying except G Pell.

[Pies4shaw]

Personally I believe in a statute of limitations for all crimes outside murder and really believe people making the allegations had there chance many moons ago and to much time has now past.

There is a statute of limitations in play, the limitations of actions act 1958.

Without reading in detail, people who were "injured" as a child have basically until age 37 to make a complaint from what i can see, although it was amended in 2015 and It may have removed the limitations for cases like this.

That Act has no application to criminal cases - it deals only with civil wrongs.

[stui magpie]

^

Fairy nuff. ta for the distinction.

I had a look at the Crimes amendment (sexual offences) act 2016 and there's no reference to time limits. The general gist I can make out is there may be for non-serious matters but no limit for serious matters such as assault or armed robbery.

Cheers

[think positive]

Well, that's not strictly true, is it? Both physical and psychological damage can heal. Whether that should alter criminal justice decisions is another question to consider.

David go smash your favorite coffee cup and then glue it back together. You may be able to drink from it, but i promise you, it will never be the same.

you can heal from a bullet wound too, doesn't mean the shooter should ever get away with it.

[David]

Well, that's what healing is, isn't it? A gluing together of the pieces. It doesn't ever negate the act, erase it from your memory or change the way it shaped you as a person, but it does mean that one no longer suffers as a result of it.

Of course, not all people get the opportunity to heal, or their wounds are too deep. But it's wrong to say it can't happen.

If the victim has healed from a bullet wound and the shooter has long since returned to the right path, is there any use in throwing them in jail thirty years later? Some will say it's the principle that matters, and I think you can make a strong case for that. But I think it's a worthy discussion to have nonetheless.

[think positive]

Well, that's what healing is, isn't it? A gluing together of the pieces. It doesn't ever negate the act, erase it from your memory or change the way it shaped you as a person, but it does mean that one no longer suffers as a result of it.

Of course, not all people get the opportunity to heal, or their wounds are too deep. But it's wrong to say it can't happen.

If the victim has healed from a bullet wound and the shooter has long since returned to the right path, is there any use in throwing them in jail thirty years later? Some will say it's the principle that matters, and I think you can make a strong case for that. But I think it's a worthy discussion to have nonetheless.

honey i always admire your sweet forgiving streak, and for a lot of it a agree. But Personally, when i forgive a grievance, im doing it for my own well being, and i never ever forget.

as for that shooter, for me a part of returning to the right path is acknowledging the damage you caused, and trying to make amends to the person injured. At least have the courage to stand up, be honest, and apologize.

Nothing can ever be the same again: yes you can heal, but you wont ever be who you were. There is plenty of books out there with people saying "this "fill the blank"made me a better person" but really, is that reason enough to let it go?

Its not for me to care if, if hes found guilty, whether he gets locked up or not, but im guessing for all the victims out there, not just his victims, victims of the church, the fact that he is to be charged, and tried, would give them some peace. Is that right? should they be holding onto that all this time? who the hell gets to judge that?

not me.

[David]

as for that shooter, for me a part of returning to the right path is acknowledging the damage you caused, and trying to make amends to the person injured. At least have the courage to stand up, be honest, and apologize.

I think this is what makes restorative justice a compelling idea. All that many victims want is for what happened to them to be to be proven and for the person to acknowledge the harm they caused. Perhaps some want them also punished or locked away for good, but I think we could do better than the current alternatives, which is to either lock them away or let them get away with it. Why not find ways to make criminals make restitution to their victims? Unfortunately I'm not sure our current criminal justice system permits it.

[think positive]

as for that shooter, for me a part of returning to the right path is acknowledging the damage you caused, and trying to make amends to the person injured. At least have the courage to stand up, be honest, and apologize.

I think this is what makes restorative justice a compelling idea. All that many victims want is for what happened to them to be to be proven and for the person to acknowledge the harm they caused. Perhaps some want them also punished or locked away for good, but I think we could do better than the current alternatives, which is to either lock them away or let them get away with it. Why not find ways to make criminals make restitution to their victims? Unfortunately I'm not sure our current criminal justice system permits it.

In a perfect world that's the way it would be, I totally agree.

-but I still agree with the death penalty for the really bad one! The likes of Gacey!

[Mugwump]

^ actually what victims want is an abstract consideration, but a minor one. The point of justice is due punishment of responsible individuals as a mark of the boundaries of right. If criminals are to be punished in accordance with the desires of individuals, then the criminal gets pot luck depending on who he assaulted.

A statute of limitations reflects the fact that evidence after such a long time is almost certainly difficult to corroborate, and convictions more likely to be unreliable. If the evidence is strong enough, and the crime serious enough, and the rules of evidence and procedure are sound, however, I cannot see why (e.g.) murder or child molestation should go untried regardless of elapsed time. Whether those apply in this case, we shall see.

[HAL]

I am not sure I see your point.

[stui magpie]

^ actually what victims want is an abstract consideration, but a minor one. The point of justice is due punishment of responsible individuals as a mark of the boundaries of right. If criminals are to be punished in accordance with the desires of individuals, then the criminal gets pot luck depending on who he assaulted.

It would also open things up to coercement. Victims could be threatened into saying they forgive the person and let them go free.

On the other extreme, some crackpot could demand the death penalty for someone who ran over their cat.

Best that punishment not be in the hands of the victims.

[Mugwump]

^ actually what victims want is an abstract consideration, but a minor one. The point of justice is due punishment of responsible individuals as a mark of the boundaries of right. If criminals are to be punished in accordance with the desires of individuals, then the criminal gets pot luck depending on who he assaulted.

It would also open things up to coercement. Victims could be threatened into saying they forgive the person and let them go free.

On the other extreme, some crackpot could demand the death penalty for someone who ran over their cat.

Best that punishment not be in the hands of the victims.

Indeed. It is society that punishes, not the victim. The level of grievance an ordinary person would feel at suffering the crime should of course inform the severity of the punishment.