Cardinal George Pell should be in prison
April 22, 2020
Everyone should know who Cardinal George Pell is. The former Vatican treasurer and Archbishop of Melbourne made history in 2018 when he was convicted by a jury on five charges of child sex abuse. He made history again last week when he was acquitted by the Australian high court after serving only 13 months in prison. George Pell is the highest-ranking church official to be convicted of child sex abuse, and for many he represented some hope for accountability in the Catholic Church, an institution that has been the subject of sexual abuse scandals for decades.
His release prompts us to find a way forward in the quest for accountability and makes us ask serious questions about how these cases are prosecuted. Now, there is no way for me to know whether or not George Pell committed the crimes of which he was originally convicted. Personally, I think he’s as guilty as a fox in a hen house, with the words “I DID IT” written across his forehead in red paint. But I can’t prove it.
Pell’s incredibly high-profile case was opaque at best, featuring suppression orders that made it illegal for the press to give out certain information. The majority of the case and the acquittal happened exclusively behind closed doors. No transcripts were released, and reporters were not allowed to report on the case as it unfolded. These rules, which are common but often exploited in the Australian criminal justice system, are meant to protect the “fairness of the defendant’s trial,” but the extreme secrecy surrounding both Pell’s conviction and acquittal beg the question, “Can there ever really be accountability without transparency?”
The Australian government’s handling of Pell’s case mirrors the ways the Catholic Church has been dealing with allegations of sex abuse, which, to put it delicately, are inadequate. With gag orders and the refusal to release evidence, how are we supposed to trust that perpetrators are being held accountable? Appeals such as Pell’s rarely succeed once a jury has made a decision, so why was Pell let off? Is this a story about an innocent man finally finding justice, or is this a story of massive institutions leveraging power to fix their reputations? We may never know for sure without more transparency and an end to insular decision-making on high-profile assault charges.
“Witness J,” the man whose testimony was the base of Pell’s 2018 conviction, released a statement in which he expressed hope that Pell’s release will not stop other victims from coming forward. The fact that the Catholic Church is full of sexual predators has been public knowledge for a while now, and the fight for accountability is slow; but this is not the end. At the end of the day, George Pell is irrelevant. In or out of jail, his reputation is ruined. Now we have to fix the culture we live in so that more men like “Witness J” can step forward to put these monsters behind bars. Maybe one day they’ll stay there.
Wayne Harper • Jan 14, 2021 at 12:10 am
There is no doubt, that pell is guilty, ut being a very high member of the boys club,and a jesuit.Victims have come forward and testifyed against this monster and other perverted catholic grubs like him. But the day will come when him and perverts like him will be judged by the greatest judge of all,God himself,then all will be revealed.
Tom Hodgson • Apr 22, 2020 at 9:22 pm
This is a very poo, the concept of proven beyond reasonable doubt would be a farce. More factual information and less emotive biased opinion would make for more intelligent and substantive reading. Go read the High Court transcript. The Victorian police system is corrupt and a media lead witch hunt will not help those who really need it.
Colin Jory • Apr 22, 2020 at 3:16 pm
Nobody who has read the evidence adduced by the High Court justices in their joint Pell judgment — all seven justices, even though only five were needed to constitute a Full Bench — can doubt what has been evident all along to any who kept abreast of the prolonged prosecution saga, which is that it was flat impossible for Cardinal Pell to have committed the offences for which he was convicted. It is obvious that the jury which convicted him — the jury at the second trial — comprised a few psychopathically anti-Pell, anti-Catholic bigots, and for the rest creatures lacking moral fortitude who allowed themselves to be bullied by the bigots over the course of five days into pretending they believed Pell’s accuser when they could see perfectly well that the Cardinal was incontestably innocent. As for “Witness J”, much reliable information is circulating privately about his history of psychological treatment and of problems with the criminal law, the records of which Pell’s defence team was not permitted by the trial judge to access, and no hint of which was permitted to be given to the jury, but which is sure to leak into the public sphere before long.