BishopAccountability.org

I'm no fan of organised religion but George Pell's trial by media has to stop

By Amanda Vanstone
Sydney Morning Herald
May 30, 2017

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/im-no-fan-of-organised-religion-but-george-pells-trial-by-media-has-to-stop-20170529-gwffft.html


Photo by Andrew Dyson

Treating Cardinal George Pell as guilty from the start won't right all the wrongs perpetrated on innocent children.
Photo by Alessandra Tarantino

The media frenzy surrounding Cardinal George Pell is the lowest point in civil discourse in my lifetime. I'm 64.

What we are seeing is no better than a lynch mob from the dark ages. Some in the media think they are above the law both overseas and at home. Deep pockets of your boss or lesser pockets on your victim, build bravado. If your assets aren't on the line you can trash a reputation with gay abandon.

The systemic abuse of predominantly young boys in churches, government institutions and schools and the cover up is a stain on our past. It did irreparable harm to many young people and the Catholic Church was a chief perpetrator. Even the Victorian Police joined in the cover up.The career of a good and decent policeman who didn't want to let sleeping dogs lie was ruined.

At least they've sought to right that wrong. Whether they have pursued everyone involved in ruining that career, and everyone who covered up, I don't know. Throwing out principle, treating Pell as guilty from the start won't right all the wrongs perpetrated on innocent children. It will simply perpetrate other evils.

What we are seeing now is far worse than a simple assessment of guilt. The public arena is being used to trash a reputation and probably prevent a fair trial. Perhaps the rule of law sounds as if it's too esoteric to worry about. Rephrase: how would you like to throw out your own right to a fair assessment of whether you should be charged in the first place together with the right to a fair trial if you are charged?

If there were a real prospect of Pell being charged one might have thought authorities would have sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a recently published book on him and certain allegations. Isn't it normal to try to ensure a person can get a fair trial by keeping prejudicial, untested material out of the public arena?

This saga has gone on and on. Civilised as we are we've discarded the death penalty. Oddly, we seem to condone death by a thousand cuts through public persecution. We allow a career and a reputation to be destroyed because a baying crowd thinks they can be the arbiter of guilt and innocence.

Where are the relevant authorities? Either by design or an uncontrolled leaker we have been treated to clickbait snippets of Victorian police activity somewhat akin to previews of a reality show. "Tune in for our next highlight, we're off to Rome" hasn't got much of a professional ring to it.

From the Director of Public Prosecution a second report. It reportedly says that the police "could" decide to prosecute. That's not a recommendation to prosecute and hardly an advice in terms of likely success in obtaining a conviction. Without a clear and reasonable prospect of conviction launching a prosecution might be seen as an abuse of process. It shouldn't happen.

The presumption of innocence carries with it the principle that unless there is that reasonable prospect of conviction no charges should be laid. That's because the mere laying of a charge destroys reputations and careers and to do so without that reasonable prospect seems to initiate a malicious prosecution.

What on earth is going on inside these two bodies? Certainly legal eagles, luminaries in their field, are concerned. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a verbal game for lawyers. Whatever you think privately, out in the public space it's meant to be hands off and let the legal eagles do their job. Discarding that rule of law simply because one might dislike Pell and what he stands for is plainly stupid.

As stupid as Thomas More's son-in-law, Roper, in A Man For All Seasons. More refused a course of action as being not within the law which he said was like a thicket of trees, there to protect us all. Roper replied with bravado that he would cut down every law in England to get at the devil. More's response was on the money. He asked, having cut down every law in England to get at the devil, what would Roper do when the devil turned on him?

It's a simple proposition. The rule of law is there to protect us all, not just the popular or the cognoscenti of the day. Just because you sit at a desk, your chosen weapon is the written word or a microphone and you enjoy a latte before lunch doesn't make you any better than the crowds of far right roughnecks rampaging through Europe. Smashing up some shops and cars, smashing a career and reputation, just because you feel angry, is the same thing.

History will care how everyone has conducted themselves in this. It has a way of looking back and judging who followed principle and who chucked it out the window for notoriety and popularity.

For the record I try to live by Christian values but do not regard myself as a believer. I have a deep distrust of organised religion. Cardinal Pell and I have widely and perhaps wildly divergent views on a number of matters. So what?

Having differing views isn't meant to be a social death warrant for the one with the least popular views. It's a meant to be one of the markers of a truly civilised society. If there's a prosecution simply to assuage public opinion that would be a travesty of justice. It would mean senior law enforcement can't tell the difference between the public interest and what might interest the public.

Using the media to persecute someone is not the moral equivalent of using the law to prosecute them. Still, bottom feeders often delude themselves.




.


Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.