Van de Velde was booed and jeered while competing at the Games. Dutch Olympic officials went to lengths to protect him from the press during the event.
He has now opened up to Dutch publication NOS about his experience, admitting that while he anticipated backlash, the intensity of it took him by surprise. "I definitely had a moment of breaking down, both before the tournament and during it. But I thought ‘I’m not going to give others the power to bully me away or get me away’.
Alright… now I’m willing to bet that most people on here, if asked, believe strongly in criminal rehabilitation. But the comments here make me think ‘maybe not’.
Would someone please explain that?
Sure. He hasn’t taken any real responsibility nor faced adquete consequences for raping a child. He blames others for “bullying” rather than making any attempt to understand the outrage.
If his crime had been committed decades ago, and he faced appropriate sentencing, and made steps at reconciliation with the community this would be a more nuanced conversation.
He was arrested, prosecuted and convicted. He pled guilty. He served his prison sentence and underwent psychological treatment. He has taken extensive measures to avoid contact with children. This all happened over a decade ago. He repeatedly reflected on what happened and regrets it to this day.
The child in question only seems to regret he was arrested, and cut herself because of it. She doesn’t seem to think negatively about him at all, and because of that he was not convicted of grooming.
At this point, what the fuck more do you want from him? He’s fully rehabilitated. He knows what he did, why it’s bad and has done more than enough to prevent it from happening again. This “moral outrage” is just stupid and seems to be largely fuelled by right-wing British tabloids, because here in the Netherlands nobody seems to give a shit.
What’s your message here? “Rape a child, rape a dozen, we don’t care because we’re going to ostracize you from society forever?” Why would anyone bother to rehabilitate then?
Sounds fine to me. Put them all in a cage forever. We don’t need people in society that have to have “raping kids is a bad thing” explained to them. If I was confident the justice system wouldn’t falsely convict people I’d be arguing to execute them.
So lock them up forever, or kill them?
What do you do when innocent people end up getting convicted?
Why do we need people in society who need “raping adults is a bad thing” explained to them? Or “killing kids is a bad thing”? Or “killing adults is a bad thing”? Or “drinking and driving is a bad thing”? Or “robbery is a bad thing”?
I already covered this in my post. If we could determine guilt with 100% accuracy kill them. We can’t so settle for locking them up forever. If they’re found to be innocent later they can be released and compensated for their time. For raping adults and killing kids the same criteria as raping kids should be applied.
These are all very different from rape or harming children and there can be other factors to consider regarding motive that would have to be taken into account when doing the sentencing. For instance in the Gary Plauché case. He murdered the man who kidnapped and molested his son. If that’s his threshold for murder, it’s unlikely he would re-offend (and he didn’t for the rest of his life).
So we don’t need rapists (incl. of adults) or child murderers in society because they can’t be rehabilitated. But people who murder adults can serve their time and be welcomed back into society…am I following what you’re saying?
Are we counting it as the age of majority? Murder a 15/17 year old, imprisoned for life, murder a 16/18 year old, regular sentence?
Rape an adult, life imprisonment, murder an adult, regular sentence?
Apparently not. I said you have to look at the context of the murder to determine how to handle them appropriately. I even gave you an example of one where with mitigating circumstances. If it’s unlikely the murderer can be rehabilitated lock them up forever too. As for what’s considered a child I don’t have a good answer, I suppose again, it would have to be contextual.