I was effectively told by a rather prominent Professor of Politics. As I was not actually expressing an opinion at the time I found this a little unnerving.
What I had actually put to the Professor was whether I had the right to an opinion if I had read and listened to all the available evidence. Please note the word "available".
Courts and juries are supposed to work on the available evidence - the facts put before them. The presumption is made that the people giving that evidence are telling the truth.
The reality of course is different. The evidence given is the truth as it is remembered or the truth as it is known at the time - when people are telling the truth.
People lie under oath. They will lie for any number of reasons. They will also make statements which are not true because they have forgotten or they are confused or they believe something else.
"Evidence" is not an exact science.
Courts make mistakes. It is one of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to the death penalty. More than one innocent person has been put to death because of false evidence.
It is also why I support the appeals process. It presents an opportunity to right a wrong.
Now let it be said here that in the case of a certain very senior member of the Catholic church I was (a) not in court to hear the evidence presented and (b) have not read the transcripts. But, I still hold an opinion and it is this, he has the right to appeal. Yes, he has been convicted of an horrific crime but he still has the right to appeal. I have read the opinion pieces written by two people whose intellectual and academic integrity I trust - in so far as I trust anyone - and they are of the opinion that there are strong grounds for an appeal. My background in both psychology and law suggests to me that, on the evidence available to me, he is likely to appeal. His legal team has been instructed to appeal.
That appeal may or may not succeed. The important thing is that it must be allowed to go ahead.
It must be allowed to go ahead free of the immense pressure being placed upon the court of appeal by the court of public opinion and the media. Right now that is not happening - and that is wrong.
If I am wrong to hold that opinion then so be it - but I believe I have the right to hold it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I hope he does appeal and that the appeal is successful. Child sexual abuse is abhorrent but the "evidence" in this case was simply not plausible. The sacristy is never empty immediately after a service and forty years ago it would have been even busier than now. Pell would have been in demand immediately after a service - priests always are even if they haven't been the chief celebrant. That he could have abused not one but two boys in that clothing at that time is nonsense.
As you know I am a Catholic and I am well aware that there have been vile acts committed by members of the clergy within the church. On this occasion however I believe that the allegations made are false and should be dismissed. Roz
We all have the right to hold opinions, regardless of how right or wrong we are.
In this case, I cannot see how there was an opportunity for the accused to do anything in private, so he should appeal and hopefully justice might appear in the appeal hearing, though I have little faith left in our justice system.
Post a Comment