I heard this on Radio National recently:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/thisamericanlife/2014-08-31/5689394

It resonates with the Harris case inasmuch as a jury and judge agreed on something, which everyone else then took as gospel.

But some years later due to the persistent research of one person, this was later found to be wrong, just as I feel that there is a very good chance that things will be seen somewhat differently regarding Harris in the years to come.

Vince Gilmer, a very well-respected doctor, murdered his father. He was deemed to have been lying and putting on an act all the way through his trial, and doing so in a really quite obvious and poorly constructed manner.

People just generally had entrenched preconceived notions of what a murderer would be like and how he would try to do anything other than admit his crime and show contrition.

He didn’t have a chance of being seen as anything other than a cold-blooded premeditated murderer.

In a very similar manner, many people have strongly preconceived notions about pedophilia, even pertaining to acts that are right at the light end of the scale.

Vince Gilmer is now known to be a sufferer of the horrible genetically transmitted Huntingtons Disease, as was his father in all probability.

This case is very different from that of Harris, except for the two things that I have mentioned.

1. The decisions of the jury and judge must not be taken as final and unquestionable.

2. Very strong preconceived notions played a critical part in the outcome of Gilmer's trial.

This is worth thinking about in relation to Harris.

Regarding 1. : the findings of the judge and indeed the guilty findings on all counts by the jury should absolutely not be taken as gospel, and should always be open to question and discussion and…

2. : We need to be very careful about preconceived notions, especially with highly emotive subjects such as murder and child molestation.

Very interesting post AdrianD.

Firstly, there was every indication in your first few posts that you were just another incarnation of Jay123. You were very condemning of me, in a grossly unreasonable manner, having come on to this thread very late in the piece, and presumably not having understood all the rank criticism that I had copped, before I responded with strong words.

So I am guessing that you are not Jay, although obviously I can’t be sure. You do indeed seem to be considerably more intelligent than he, and hopefully you will prove to be someone worth debating this subject with in a reasonable manner. So I’ll give it a go.

You wrote:

<< I think the difference with Harris is that most people (except Ludwig) have a deep revulsion towards the act of a grown man sexually touching underage girls; a revulsion that goes very deep into our souls… >>

<< …it's a very "personal" thing. >>

<< …and his music just makes them want to vomit. This is because of the deep, "personal" nature of pedophilia crimes. >>

Well.. it is not a personal thing for me. I’ve never experienced anything of the sort, either as victim or perpetrator, I don’t know of anything like this to have occurred in my family and I don’t know anyone who has ever been involved in it. So I am looking at it all from a dispassionate or neutral point of view, if you like.

continued

I see an enormous spectrum of crimes or misdemeanours that can fall under the banner of pedophilia or child molestation. I see that serious crimes should be very seriously dealt with, but it seems that the big difference with my views and those of everyone else left on this thread is that actions at the light end of the spectrum should not be treated as being particularly heinous.

It would seem that just about everyone can appreciate that there is a spectrum in relation to all manner of other crimes, and that acts at the minor end should receive small penalties. However, it is just so different with pedophilia / child molestation / child touching in the minds of many people. There is a huge tendency for any act that could possibly fall under this banner to be deemed extremely heinous, end of story.

I heard ‘Conversations’ on ABC radio a couple of weeks ago. I was about a woman who had got herself embroiled in drug smuggling, and had served a jail sentence as result of it. She then went to uni and became a lawyer, and is now considered to be a fine upstanding citizen.

But drugs ruin peoples’ lives. They can be every bit as bad as child molestation. So, why did she have the chance to totally redeem herself over illegal actions, while Harris will have NO chance, when he has conducted considerably less serious crimes?

That’s the nature of child sex offences. They do indeed strike so deep into the psyche of many people, because they are seen as personal or putrid or just utterly unacceptable.

And yet there are many other crimes that can be every bit as bad, or a whole lot worse, which most people just simply don’t view in the same sort of manner, nor anything remotely like it.

Ludwig wrote: "I heard ...about a woman who had got herself embroiled in drug smuggling, and had served a jail sentence as result of it. She then went to uni and became a lawyer, and is now considered to be a fine upstanding citizen. But drugs ruin peoples’ lives. They can be every bit as bad as child molestation. So, why did she have the chance to totally redeem herself over illegal actions, while Harris will have NO chance, when he has conducted considerably less serious crimes?'

The woman served a jail sentence (1), then went to uni and turned her life around (2). Fair enough, she served time and redeemed herself. We don't know whether she suffered remorse (3) though the fact that she turned her life around suggests this.

Why do you consider Harris has NO chance to redeem himself? He is serving a jail sentence (1), he perhaps is too old to have a career change, so we'll let him off the hook for (2), but I have yet to hear that he has shown any remorse (3).

There is another factor: the 'women got herself embroiled in drug smuggling' - maybe she was an addict herself (one of those whose life was being ruined) as many people who get embroiled in drug smuggling are, if so there could be extenuating circumstances, even though the crime was serious.

I can see no extenuating circumstances for Harris' behaviour. He appears to have no understanding of why his behaviour was wrong and illegal. And pedophilia ruins people's lives (see my previous posts).

All very good questions, AdrianD.

Ludwig's "moral high ground" was asserted pretty much as an afterthought, once he realized that the mood of the thread was to condemn Harris' actions for what they were. Introducing cases where injustice may have occurred is simply an extension of the thesis that "we can never know everything", which dominated his previous defence stance. Neither has been particularly persuasive, in my view.

My own crime in this, and the reason Ludwig has sent me to Coventry, is that I asked him some difficult questions about his own motivations, which he has refused to answer. Until he does so, I find it impossible to take him seriously.

<< Why do you consider Harris has NO chance to redeem himself? >>

Well there’s a question I did not expect, Cossomby.

I would have thought that you, and everyone else on this thread, would have totally agreed that he has no chance of redeeming himself, and that no one who is ever branded as a pedophile has any possible chance of redemption.

So, do you think that he does have a chance of doing this?

<< I can see no extenuating circumstances for Harris' behaviour. He appears to have no understanding of why his behaviour was wrong and illegal. And pedophilia ruins people's lives >>

Firstly, we don’t know whether there were any extenuating circumstances or not for the woman in my previous example, but from listening to the interview with Richard Fidler, she seemed to be very forthright about it and not making any excuses nor indicating that she was pulled into drug-trafficking against her will. And no she was not an addict. My feeling is that any extenuating circumstances or the lack thereof didn’t play a significant part in her case.

I think that at the time of his child-touching activies, Harris quite possibly didn’t see it as being of any particular consequence, and once he realised that it could potentially be legally seriously bad for him, he stopped doing it… some 25 years ago. I don’t know – I’m just surmising.

If this is true, then it could amount to extenuating circumstances.

And as I elucidated early in this thread; I think that there could possibly be considerable extenuating circumstances pertaining to girl ‘C’. I don’t know. But judging purely from Judge Sweeney’s sentencing remarks, there could well be…IMHO.

Thanks for the good response Cossomby. If this standard of could be upheld by all, then we could have a very good and useful discussion here.