.

(Continued …)

.

As a final remark, you indicate that “no right to silence by either defendant or complainant … goes against basic human rights” and that “no one should be forced into doing something they do not want to”.

That may be so as a general rule, Nathan, but it seems to me indispensable to the revelation of the truth in a court of justice to hear both sides of the story from the protagonists themselves in a case where material evidence and a credible eyewitness are lacking, and it just boils down to a case of “my word against yours”.

Crimes are judged usually and, unfortunately, inevitably, long after the alleged events occurred. Sex crimes are even judged, all too often, many years after the event – as was the case under discussion of Pell v The Queen – and if, as is also often the case, there is neither material evidence, nor eyewitness, and one of the protagonists (George Pell) is allowed to remain silent throughout the procedure, the chance of eliciting the truth is, for all intents and purposes, null – which proved to be the case in Pell v The Queen.

I find it significant that the jury of twelve Australians selected randomly from the electoral roll had found George Pell guilty and was overruled by Chief Justice Kiefel and the six Justices of the High Court, all well-seasoned technicians of the law.

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Accordingly a jury of 12 Australians randomly selected
found Pell guilty. Accordingly the jury was supported
by a Court of Appeal majority of two judges, A majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.
Accordingly Pell's own record of abuse goes back to
his time as a priest in Ballarat. Accordingly Pell
continued to protect pedophile clergy. Accordingly the
"naughty" young lad took his own life.

There are too many "accordinglies."

Father Jim McKay led the congregation in prayer at the
Memorial Mass in Ballarat for the victims of child
molestation many of whom died by suicide in the decades after
they suffered at the hands of clergy. Almost 50 people
attended.

"We cannot change what has happened in the past. We can change
what happens in the future." Father McKay said.

With that thought in mind here's my take - before I leave this
discussion:

Australian Catholic Cardinal George Pell was a man obsessed
Protecting his Church and Clergy was what he did best
Sexual abuse charges were by him brushed aside
Their events and stats Pell totally denied

"I have no knowledge," was his claim
"It's of no interest to me," he exclaimed
"Don't be ridiculous," he proclaimed
While the victim numbers grew in Ballarat

The Cardinal died in Rome last week
Leaving behind a Church legacy that's bleak
The Catholic Church now needs to understand
That there's much to heal to save their brand

Having a Mass for the repose of Pell's soul
Won't make up for the childhoods that the Church stole
Pell allowed the damage to be done
Something the Church now must not shun

The Church needs to correct its past mistakes
Admit its faults and not erase
Only then with restitution
Can this legacy be brought to a just conclusion
Only then can the Cardinal Rest In Peace
Once the abuse he protected - has been forced to cease.

My comment,

Archy Pell is dead, ho hum.

Wait for more exciting revelations about the dear cardinal over the next few years. The CC wont be able to buy the silence of victims of this bloke, as they have done for so long now.

Banjo,

One of the major protections against tyranny is that the state is not allowed to incarcerate anyone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime.

Neither the complainant nor the defendant is compelled to testify, and the basic laws of evidence are applied by a competent judge (clearly not in Victoria)

There are already a huge number of people falsely convicted and having their convictions overturned later. The last thing that is needed is an assumption of guilt where defendants have to prove their innocence.

Foxy,

Banjo Patterson described the situation as per the High Court ruling, correctly. This is the right and responsible thing to do here, not go down the 'he hasn't been found innocent' line and then want to go against a high court of ruling 7-0.

Banjo Patterson,

You say:

<<Reforming every aspect of our response to criminal activity is a vast and never-ending project.>>

Then that's it.

I've looked through some ABS crime figures of recent years, the figures vary, and the crimes (allegedly) committed are horrible. Are we going to say murder and homicide aren't terrible and deserve less attention here than say sexual assault?

I'm not providing any links either here to prove a point. You shouldn't have to poke yourself in the eye to know that it hurts.

<<I understand your concerns regarding the exposure of the members of a jury to outside influence from social media etc. Well-seasoned professional judges/magistrates are undoubtedly less influenceable in that respect.>>

Well clearly you don't understand my concerns or you wouldn't advocate for juries. They can take outside influences like social media, this particular website (with all of the comments included) etc and be emotionally manipulated in a courtroom. Not good, let alone, their lack of understanding of the legal system and how it works.

<<Judgment by one’s peers randomly selected from the electoral role seems more democratic to me.>>

Justice isn't about democracy, or some people randomly selected to make a decision as per a jury. We are talking about other people's lives.

<<The human aspect of justice is also important from my point of view.>>

Yes. These matters can be better dealt with by the people in various formats, like voting, protests, letter writing, campaigns etc. and via legislation in parliament.

<<A professional judge is essentially a technician of the law.>>

As the system should be. I respect the decision of the high court. I don't want society to become some sort of mob rule, via the actions of politicians or juries. Laws are in place and let the judges assess as appropriate.