Historic Crimes

[Jamie123]

This is going to be a very long post, but its something that worries me deeply for so many different reasons. I thought about adding this to the thread Eowyn started about people trafficking. However, though this is connected with the things discussed already there, its wide enough to deserve its own thread.

It really started a few years ago when Jimmy Savile died. No one who lived in Britain during the 70s and 80s will need any introduction to Jimmy Savile: he was a rather eccentric but much admired DJ, TV personality and philanthropist. People nowadays say they felt him "a bit creepy". I believe I've even said so myself, but I think we really only really feel this way in retrospect; to be perfectly honest I certainly always thought him "a little odd", but you could have knocked me down with a feather when the when the revelations about him emerged after his death.

To put it bluntly, Savile was, for the last 30 or 40 years of his life, one of the UK's worse ever sex offenders - and that's if you believe only a tenth of the claims that have been made about him. At first his family tried to defend him, but as the sheer mass of accusations rolled in even they caved. The huge marble monument which had been set up in his honour was turn down, ground up and used to grit drives.

The thing was that Savile had been a sacred cow. Almost no one had dared accuse him during his lifetime, and the few who had found the courage were laughed at or subjected to censure. But now after his death, with the accusations presented en masse, the matter had to be taken seriously. Public hackles were up (always a dangerous thing) and the authorities had to be seen to act - and act they did. Many (maybe even most) police forces announced they would henceforth "believe" all complainants; and in doing so they've created something as dangerous as what they had sought to combat.

Take for example David Bryant, a retired fire chief from Dorset. He was accused by another slightly younger man whom I'll call Ernie Knight (he waived his anonymity so there is no problem mentioning his real name, but I'll be cautions all the same) - of raping him on a pool table in the fire station rec roon, on some unspecified day in the 1970s. Bryant was of course unable to provide an alibi (not knowing what year - let alone what day or time - the alleged rape occurred) or any reason why Day should have lied about it. It probably didn't help that another firefighter, whom Knight also accused, was later convicted of an unconnected sex crime, but that ought not to have been a factor. (This alleged accomplice was dead by this time anyway.) Dorset Police claim they carried out "a very thorough and detailed investigation" but considering the amount of information they missed (and was later uncovered by private investigators) it is hard to see how this can be true; it seems far more likely they were carrying out their pledge to "believe the victim" and leaving it at that.

It seems that "believe the victim" was also the guiding policy of the CPS, who having received the "evidence" (such as it was) from the police, took the case to trial. The only real evidence presented to the jury (aside from glowing character references for Bryant who was well respected in his community) was Knight's accusations and Bryant's denials. The jury chose to convict.

It's from here onwards that Bryant's luck began to change, though it can't have felt like it to him at the time. Bryant was sentenced to 6.5 years imprisonment, but Knight lobbied to have it increased. The Court of Appeal, while rejecting Bryant's original appeal upped it to 8.5. Knight was awarded £50,000 in victim compensation but demanded more. He sued the county (as Bryant's employers) for £80,000, claiming that he had been a champion boxer (with a record better than Muhammed Ali, if you please) who had missed out on the 1984 Olympics because of his post traumatic stress. This was discredited. Worse still, investigations by Mrs. Bryant, helped by a group of ex-cop PI's who offered to work for nothing showed that the fire station had been remodelled in the 1990s and all Knight's descriptions were based on the new layout. The pool table that he had claimed to have been raped on was not bought until the 1990s. As if that was not enough, Knight had been receiving psychiatric treatment for what an appeal judge later called (his words not mine) "chronic lying".

Well once that lot came out, Bryant's conviction was pretty quickly overturned and he was released from jail. In fact he was released even before the formal appeal was held, with neither the police or the CPS objecting.

Of course the prosecutors will tell you "Oh, we didn't know all that at the time. His credibility may no longer stand, but it did at the time."

Really? At the time you had one story from Bryant and another Knight. Neither story was corroborated. You had no way of knowing which one was telling the truth and which was lying. You didn't know either way...

...and neither did the jury!

In convicting Bryant, the jury had turned its back on "Innocent until proven guilty". They had chosen to go with "who was most convincing"  and replaced proof with gut feeling.

Also...and this is most worrying of all...with memories of Savile fresh in their minds they probably thought it was their duty to "believe the victim".

(See why I'm not a fan of jury nullification?)

Bryant of course was lucky. He had a wife who supported him, He had the respect of retired police turned private investigators who were prepared to work for nothing. Plus his accuser got greedy and careless in his lying. How many are not so lucky? How many heartbroken wives and families endure the abuse of their neighbours while their innocent menfolk rot behind bars, and their lying accusers batten on huge taxpayer-funded "compensation" payouts?

So what should we do? Should we ignore the suffering of the genuine victims (and there are plenty of them) who cannot prove they were abused, for fear that a few innocents may get swept up with the guilty?

Well no, We should not ignore them. We should listen to them and treat them with respect.

But we must not allow the inability of a complainant to prove his or her allegations to become an excuse for removing the need for proof. We must accept that allegations of things that supposedly happened 30 years ago often cannot be proven, and invoke the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". If for any reason they can be proven then fine, the perpetrators should be punished. But if not...and if they are really guilty...we must trust to God the job of administering justice - not attempt to bodge the job ourselves.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

But we must not allow the inability of a complainant to prove his or her allegations to become an excuse for removing the need for proof. We must accept that allegations of things that supposedly happened 30 years ago often cannot be proven, and invoke the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". If for any reason they can be proven then fine, the perpetrators should be punished. But if not...and if they are really guilty...we must trust to God the job of administering justice - not attempt to bodge the job ourselves.

Fair enough, but consider: Even if a perpetrator does end up punished, we must still trust to God the job of administering absolute justice.  Human justice usually stinks.  We try hard - we really suck at it.  Sending someone to prison for 5 years doesn't hand someone their innocence back, and our prison system, although peopled with people who often try hard, doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of reforming people into productive members of society.  Especially sex offenders.  

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough, but consider: Even if a perpetrator does end up punished, we must still trust to God the job of administering absolute justice.  Human justice usually stinks.  We try hard - we really suck at it.  Sending someone to prison for 5 years doesn't hand someone their innocence back, and our prison system, although peopled with people who often try hard, doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of reforming people into productive members of society.  Especially sex offenders.  

Exactly - we need to remember that we are judged for our own actions and not for the actions of others. God will administer "absolute justice" - and that applies to us as well as to them. An obsession with "punishing the guilty" (which means in practice punishing other people we perceive to be guilty) can often be a way of distracting ourselves from our own wrongdoings.

And that can include ranting and raving (as I have been doing) about the justice system itself. Jean-Luc Picard once said (quoting someone else whose name I can't remember) "Eternal vigilance is the price we pay". That includes vigilance of our own motives.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Jamie123

[Just_A_Guy]

I would also note that victims are going to be poorly served looking to the judicial system for healing or a means of demonizing their perpetrators.  A penal system is primarily concerned with giving justice and due process to the defendant.  If a sex abuse victim isn't prepared to hear a judge acknowledge an offender's humanity and positive attributes before shlepping him off to prison for fifteen years (as Judge Low recently did here in Provo last week, leading the Salt Lake Tribune and a number of self-proclaimed "victim advocates" to pass a succession of kidney stones); the victim should probably seriously consider not attending the sentencing.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would also note that victims are going to be poorly served looking to the judicial system for healing or a means of demonizing their perpetrators.  A penal system is primarily concerned with giving justice and due process to the defendant.  If a sex abuse victim isn't prepared to hear a judge acknowledge an offender's humanity and positive attributes before shlepping him off to prison for fifteen years (as Judge Low recently did here in Provo last week, leading the Salt Lake Tribune and a number of self-proclaimed "victim advocates" to pass a succession of kidney stones); the victim should probably seriously consider not attending the sentencing.

I thought I agreed with you until that last part.  I saw that story and I found it disturbing.  No I don't think the man needed to be demonized, but I don't think he has lived a life worthy of praise either.  But the Lord will take care of it.  Knowing that helps me....all will be set right in the end.  Who knows, I could be wrong, maybe the judge was right--that's the beauty of it, I don't trust the judge, but I do trust the Lord.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough, but consider: Even if a perpetrator does end up punished, we must still trust to God the job of administering absolute justice.  Human justice usually stinks.  We try hard - we really suck at it.  Sending someone to prison for 5 years doesn't hand someone their innocence back, and our prison system, although peopled with people who often try hard, doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of reforming people into productive members of society.  Especially sex offenders.  

Amen!  

@Jamie123....you are right.  It's a tough situation all around.  As Neuro said, we just don't do justice very well.  My comfort is that the Lord will take care of it in the end.  

[Guest MormonGator]

39 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I thought I agreed with you until that last part.  I saw that story and I found it disturbing.  No I don't think the man needed to be demonized, but I don't think he has lived a life worthy of praise either.  But the Lord will take care of it.  Knowing that helps me....all will be set right in the end.  Who knows, I could be wrong, maybe the judge was right--that's the beauty of it, I don't trust the judge, but I do trust the Lord.  

If we are talking about the former bishop (are we?) then forgiveness is one thing but the man should be locked up for a very long time just so he doesn't do it to anyone else. Forgiveness is admirable but public safety (in particular when it comes to children) is far more important. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

If we are talking about the former bishop (are we?) then forgiveness is one thing but the man should be locked up for a very long time just so he doesn't do it to anyone else. Forgiveness is admirable but public safety (in particular when it comes to children) is far more important. 

Yes. Here's the story for anyone who hasn't heard it:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

The crimes occured while this man was serving as a Bishop, apparently.  According to the article, the church statement was that he was released immediately when the charges came to light.  

I wonder if the judge would have felt the same way if this were a Catholic Bishop.  Or if one of the victims (there was more than one) was HIS daughter.  

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes. Here's the story for anyone who hasn't heard it:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

The crimes occured while this man was serving as a Bishop, apparently.  According to the article, the church statement was that he was released immediately when the charges came to light.  

I wonder if the judge would have felt the same way if this were a Catholic Bishop.  Or if one of the victims (there was more than one) was HIS daughter.  

Remember Lit, I was Catholic and living in New England during the heart of the scandals. The punishments for former Catholic priests were generally more severe because they were held in positions of trust and authority. They also did huge astronomical damage to the reputation of the church. The bishop (bishop means something different in the Catholic world. Bishops are generally leaders of larger territories. Roughly equivalent to stake presidents. An LDS bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest.  Again, roughly) who got implicated in the scandals are disgraced and generally viewed as  laughingstocks. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Remember Lit, I was Catholic and living in New England during the heart of the scandals. The punishments for former Catholic priests were generally more severe because they were held in positions of trust and authority. They also did huge astronomical damage to the reputation of the church. The bishop (bishop means something different in the Catholic world. Bishops are generally leaders of larger territories. Roughly equivalent to stake presidents. Again, roughly) who got implicated in the scandals are disgraced and generally viewed as  laughingstocks. 

See that's the thing, I think this LDS Bishop disgraced the church too.  He, too, had a position of trust and authority---for the judge to excuse that calling him a great man who did something wrong is just appauling.  

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

See that's the thing, I think this LDS Bishop disgraced the church too.  He, too, had a position of trust and authority---for the judge to excuse that calling him a great man who did something wrong is just appauling.  

Correct. Agree totally. 

I get it, we (generic usage) want to circle the wagons and defend one of our own. We feel tribal loyalty, after all. But that loyalty blinds us sometimes. Wrong is wrong no matter if you are the bishop, a member of the seventy, or the prophet. 

And of course, I see no one on this forum really defending him. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And of course, I see no one on this forum really defending him. 

I hope not, but I suspect a few will. 

[Blackmarch]

I've always found it interesting that within mosaic law if all the judges in a trial judged a man guilty, he would then be acquitted of the accused crime instead.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I thought I agreed with you until that last part.  I saw that story and I found it disturbing.  No I don't think the man needed to be demonized, but I don't think he has lived a life worthy of praise either.  But the Lord will take care of it.  Knowing that helps me....all will be set right in the end.  Who knows, I could be wrong, maybe the judge was right--that's the beauty of it, I don't trust the judge, but I do trust the Lord.  

Well, here's my beef.  We have over two millennia of western/Judeo-Christian philosophy, and three centuries of post-Enlightenment crime-and-punishment theory, upon which to draw in determining whether terrible things can be done by "great" men; or whether people who do rotten things are themselves irredeemably rotten.  Among that tradition we can each find plenty of fodder to support conflicting positions.

But with this case we see a group of individuals who are demanding we throw out all of that intellectual tradition--in a courtroom, of all places, where judges still don the robes of a scholar!!--and why?  Because such discussions make certain interest groups feel uncomfortable; and because those same individuals have shifted the emphasis of penal theory from the classical triad (punishment/rehabilitation/deterrence) to some kind of exercise in collective validation.

I respect the ordeal sex assault victims go through; but I object to their hijacking the judicial system (which is about balancing the liberties of free citizens versus a State that believes it necessary to revoke those liberties) for their own therapeutic ends.  What is being done to Judge Low amounts to bullying by people who don't want to hear ideas that clash with their own worldview.  Low broke the code--he must be silenced, end of story.

Would I be as charitable in a case involving a non-Mormon?  I hope so, given similar back stories (there is a LOT of backstory here that the public will not be hearing.  By the way, next time I am in office, just for kicks and giggles I'm going to check the court docket and see whether any reporters have bothered to order recordings of the hearings in question.  I'm betting they haven't--or at least, didn't do so before running the story).

Edited April 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So @Just_A_Guy if I understand you correctly, your main beef here is what you see as a misunderstanding, on the part of victim advocates" on how the court should work?  Is that right?    

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

self-proclaimed "victim advocates" to pass a succession of kidney stones)

You seem to have a lot of disdain for victim advocates.  Why is that?  Is it because they are "self-proclaimed" as opposed to . . . ?  Do you not feel they have a place?  Do you disdain all victim advocates are just the ones speaking out against this judge? 

What do you think about the judge's comments?  I don't know the backstory...I would like to at least read the judge's comment in context.  Have you had that opportunity?  What do you think the judge's intention was?

Edited April 17, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[zil]

What I took from JAG's post is that the courts are not intended or designed to function as therapy for the victim.  To try to use them as therapy aids for the victim hampers their ability to function as needed / intended.

To me, this makes sense, though I'd never considered it before.  It even fits with my understanding of the Gospel.  I've also always remembered a quote (from some chief justice, I think) that was used on a TV show, about our courts being courts of law, not courts of justice.  Their purpose is to apply the law, not to try to exact justice, which is pretty much impossible for mortals.

Should victims get help, therapy and otherwise?  Yes, of course.  But the court system isn't meant for doing that, so let's not try to force therapy into the judicial system.  IMO, trying to do both (impartial application of the law + therapy for victims) will lead to failing at both.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

What I took from JAG's post is that the courts are not intended or designed to function as therapy for the victim.  To try to use them as therapy aids for the victim hampers their ability to function as needed / intended.

Yeah... I am going to have to thank @Just_A_Guy for that insight.  I knew I had a problem with how things were going down... But I couldn't quite put it into words why.  That did it for me.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So @Just_A_Guy if I understand you correctly, your main beef here is what you see as a misunderstanding, on the part of victim advocates" on how the court should work?  Is that right?    

You seem to have a lot of disdain for victim advocates.  Why is that?  Is it because they are "self-proclaimed" as opposed to . . . ?  Do you not feel they have a place?  Do you disdain all victim advocates are just the ones speaking out against this judge? 

What do you think about the judge's comments?  I don't know the backstory...I would like to at least read the judge's comment in context.  Have you had that opportunity?  What do you think the judge's intention was?

1.  Yeah, that's my view.  The perp can go hang for all I care; so long as the decision to hang him is based on an even-handed evaluation of his life where the judge isn't bullied into reciting certain social shibboleths.

2.  I have tremendous respect for those who work with sex assault victims and help them to function in a world whose very nature, by virtue of the trauma they have experienced, seems to have taken a sinister turn.

I have less respect for those who seek to make the rest of us walk on eggshells in perpetuity so that victims don't have to ultimately confront and be reconciled with the world in all its messiness.

3.  I honestly don't know what to think about the judge's comments.  In the philosophical abstract, I think sometimes extraordinarily good people do commit atrocities.  (King David?). As it relates to this case--the focus is hinging on a passing, five-second remark during a sentencing that probably took at least half an hour; so I am curious to know what else he said and what other observations/admonitions/chastizements he may have made that the victims and/or the reporters haven't seen fit to tell us.  We know that the defendant here produced about fifty letters from individuals talking about how he had touched their lives for the better.  That is extraordinary--I've never seen a defendant produce more than two or there at sentencing; and for a sex offender--I've never even seen one.  People just don't sign their names to good-character letters for sex offenders.

I appreciate a judge who can recognize unique cases.  I appreciate a judge who understands the gravity of the State's committing a citizen to prison for decades.  I appreciate a judge who understands, not only the plight of the victim; but the sheer tragedy of a prosperous and largely benevolent person who had accomplished a lot of good and then threw it all away because of a fatal character flaw.  I don't think it's a signal of judicial unfitness to be visibly moved by that tragedy even as one sends the man off to prison for the next 10-15 years.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks for clarifying @Just_A_Guy. That's fair, enough.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would also note that victims are going to be poorly served looking to the judicial system for healing or a means of demonizing their perpetrators.

IMO, this is significant. I have said elsewhere that I think some of improving our response to sexual assault victims is to separate "help the victim" from "punish the alleged perp".

This past weekend, my kids watched Big Hero 6. One of the aspects of that story that has always stood out to me are those times when Baymax would ask Hero something about "will apprehending the man in the mask improve your emotional health?" to which Hero would usually reply with an adamant "yes". Of course, part of the story is watching Hero realize that there is more to doing the right thing than destroying Callahan. It is interesting to compare Callahan's actions as he is trying to gain solace for the loss of his daughter through revenge. I know it's fiction and fiction doesn't always correlate exactly to real life, but I see something in these kinds of stories to contribute to a discussion like this.

Speaking from way outside of the justice and victim advocate systems, I don't know how best to balance "help the victim" and "punish the perp". In some respects, they must overlap (evidence is needed from the victim in order to convict the perp, for example). But I also see value in keeping those concepts separate, and I can see potential problems when the two become conflated.

[Jamie123]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think sometimes extraordinarily good people do commit atrocities.  (King David?).

Or Anakin Skywalker

(Sorry to be irreverent - I still have Star Wars on the brain from this past weekend!)

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Or Anakin Skywalker

(Sorry to be irreverent - I still have Star Wars on the brain from this past weekend!)

There was nothing remotely great or likeable about Anakin.

[anatess2]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:54 AM, zil said:

What I took from JAG's post is that the courts are not intended or designed to function as therapy for the victim. 

This is what I feel is what's going on with... ok, I'm not interested in pulling a Google on it, but there's a state (Arkansas?) whose governor is speedying up their death row executions because of a death drug that is about to expire.  Some of the guys still have unresolved cases so the Supreme Court stayed their executions which brought a furor because the governor said they have to be executed on Monday for the family of the victims....

Okay, disclaimer, I'm anti-capital punishment in general.  But the governor's statement to me reads:  "They have to be executed so the family can complete exacting their vengeance and be at peace."

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

A recording of the pertinent part of the sentencing, via the Deseret News:

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-592916436/judge-thomas-low-statement

And, thoughts via Dan Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/04/utah-judge-rape-sentencing-ex-mormon-bishop-good-man.html

[Jamie123]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A recording of the pertinent part of the sentencing, via the Deseret News:

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-592916436/judge-thomas-low-statement

And, thoughts via Dan Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/04/utah-judge-rape-sentencing-ex-mormon-bishop-good-man.html

This is exactly the debate that was going on at the time of David Bryant's original conviction and jailing. The judge had noted, just as this judge has done, the "glowing testimonials" of heroic service. There was public outrage at this (that whatever self-sacrificing service he had given to his community for 3 decades did not excuse what he "did") and Bryant's sentence was accordingly increased.

If you look at message boards from that period you'll find anyone who dared to say "I doubt he did it" heavily down-voted and flamed as rape apologists, often with a subtle (or not-so-subtle) suggestion that they must themselves have "something to hide".

I know nothing about this Vallejo case except for what I've read in these links, but I would like to know how strong the evidence was against him before making any good-man/bad-man assessments. Yes I know the jury convicted him and the judge accepted the verdict, but this has happened many times when the evidence was very flimsy indeed. I'm afraid I don't trust this "infallible crystal ball" that supposedly exists in jury rooms - I like to decide for myself.

Sadly there are a lot of people who apparently do believe in this crystal ball, and who will reply to "I'm not convinced he did it" with "So he should get away with it? I wonder what skeletons are in your closet!" These people's opinions sadly carry weight.

P.S. I'm not saying I think Vallejo is innocent - I don't know anything like enough to have any opinion - I merely note that juries have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Jamie123