Dear Paul,

You present a secular worldview.

The secular worldview considers the world to be chaotic.
Yes there are the laws of physics, but according to this worldview they are the only laws in the universe and by Chaos Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
even the tiniest change anywhere in the world can upturn everything elsewhere (and quantum mechanics can introduce such uncontrollable tiny changes any time).

When living in a chaotic universe, fear makes sense because anything could happen at any time, no matter what we do. We can of course attempt to reduce the chances of pain and disasters, but all our attempts are only temporary and statistical.

While some succumb to fear, there are people who try to challenge it willfully. Attempting to create some justice and punishment (because one believes that there are no inherent such things already in nature), is presumed to bring some solace to "victims" because it sends them the message: "you are not alone, we care for you, we fight the darkness and chaos, Mom and Dad will always keep watching over you".

Well Mom and Dad can only keep watch over you that much and that long. Nature will continue to throw in bad experiences and it will be more and more difficult to explain how Mom and Dad failed to stop them (or do they not love me any more?), thus solace can be temporary at best and be followed by great disappointment.

I present the spiritual worldview, according to which nature has additional laws, beyond the observable laws of physics. According to which justice and punishment do exist inherently in nature so there is no need to try and re-introduce them, duplicating what is already here, according to which we live in an ordered cosmos, not in a chaos, so nothing happens "by chance" and no victims exist, according to which there are ways to find true, stable and lasting solace, according to which fear is not necessary!

Living in harmony with the all laws of nature, not just the physical ones, can bring an end to all fear and suffering.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'll get down to tin-tacks, and maybe you can explain it all from a higher astral plane than I'm on, in light of your previous assertions. When Ridsdale (I'll use him again, but he is one among many), time and time again, was pushing his filthy prick up the arse of a ten year old school boy, until the boy bled and screamed in agony, pray tell; what was God thinking, was he thinking; "My dear chosen servant Gerard is delivering true justice to a spiteful sinner, praise the Lord!"

Well mate if that's the case I certainly know who is perverted. Please, just a simple explanation will do, none of that hairy-fairy nonsense stuff, which I don't see of being any relevance at all.

Dear Paul,

Only humans can think, but let me say just one thing - that Ridsdale and his ilk would be spending a very very long time in one of the lowest hells for what they did, and there is nothing we need to willfully do about it because nature takes care of it anyway.

«Yuyutsu, that is an outrages statement that shifts guilt from the perpetrator to the victim.»

I am not shifting any guilt, I just describe things as they are.

The "victim" has basically two choices:
1) Use this opportunity constructively to be rid of older guilt; or
2) Blame and pursue the perpetrator, thereby acquiring fresh guilt.

The perpetrator gets no choice - he acquires fresh guilt in any case, for which he will have to pay dearly.

.

Dear SteeleRedux,

.

Yes, thanks. That pretty much explains and justifies the ruling of the judiciary on Pell v The Queen.

I agree with the findings of the four courts that were consulted which is why I indicated in my previous post that the professionalism and dedication of the members of our judiciary are by no means in cause.

The fact remains that there is very little doubt in my mind that in the case of Pell v The Queen, there has been a grave miscarriage of justice – which is the fate of most sex crimes (e.g., 97% of rapists never spend a single night in jail).

It was clearly not the fault of the police investigators. Nor was it the fault of the honourable members of the judiciary. They all did their job properly. They all respected the law and the rules and regulations of the judicial process.

But while the decision of acquittal was based on a question of “unreasonableness” (of what the court was asked to consider as the facts) – rather than a question of law – in the opinion of the majority of the judges of the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the weight of that “unreasonableness” was negligible compared to the overwhelming degree of credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

Did the prosecution commit an error in not challenging the third-party witnesses’ recollections of Pell’s routines and practices following the usual Sunday Mass 22 years previously? The three judges of the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria were split on that question.

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal, considered the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses" varied in quality and consistency, and in the degree of recall, both as between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses. Whereas they accepted the prosecution’s submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist, and was a witness of truth.

.

(Continued …

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The third judge, Justice Weinberg, dissented.

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell decided that there was nothing about the complainant’s evidence, or about the opportunity evidence, which meant that the jury ‘must have had a doubt about the truth of the complainant’s account. They stated that it is not enough that one or more jurors ‘might have had a doubt.’ Rather, the jury ‘must have had a doubt.’ The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell stated that they did not experience a doubt.

In its report the High Court indicates :

Page 35, paragraph 127 :

« The unchallenged evidence of the applicant's invariable practice of greeting congregants after Sunday solemn Mass, and the unchallenged evidence of the requirement under Catholic church practice that the applicant always be accompanied when in the Cathedral, were inconsistent with acceptance of A's evidence of the second incident. It was evidence which ought to have caused the jury, acting rationally, to entertain a doubt as to the applicant's guilt of the offence charged in the second incident. In relation to charge five, again making full allowance for the jury's advantage, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted. »
.

I doubt that Pell’s acquittal will do anything to improve the pitiful results of our justice in its offer of service for judging sex crimes.

The comment of Pauline Wright, president of the Law Council of Australia in the article on their website to which you posted a link expresses her preoccupation in this regard :

« … nothing in the Pell case has overturned or diminished the crucial and primary responsibility of juries, not judges, to determine whether an accused person is guilty of an offence.

It is our hope that the decision will not deter victims of sexual abuse from coming forward to tell their stories and seek justice for past wrongs they have suffered »

The problem is we have great laws and a fantastic judiciary but we have practically no sex offenders !

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Very few victims of these predatory monsters seek revenge, for if they did our streets would be littered with the corpses of dead old Catholic clergy, they are not. Justice is even more elusive, as it has been showen, our judicial system is inadequate when dealing with historic sex offences of this nature, the Paedophile Pell case is a prime example of that inadequacy.

"Use this opportunity constructively to be rid of older guilt"

That is where you are wrong, the victim (please stop using quotation marks trying to indicate there is no victim, there certainly is) a child in these cases HAS NO GUILT, old or otherwise. The notion that some unseen being in the form of a god is up there in his heaven willy-nilly metering out justice is a nonsense. Justice has to be served here on earth, nowhere else.