I get your point, but a convicted criminal who is rehabilitated could also be considered a good role model. Not saying he is, but not really a means to disqualify him.
Guntrigger
joined 1 year ago
Well on that same vein, the IOC unilaterally disqualifying a country's chosen athlete is likely to be even more politically problematic.
I mean that is the idea of rehabilitation, yeah. I don't know where you are getting "under a month" from. He was in prison for 13 months and was released on parole, which would probably also include some rehabilitation activities.
Nice slogan, but back in reality, there's a phenomenon documented in psychology literature called Projection. It's usually those who rabidly accuse others and calling for harsh punishments that are guilty of those same behaviours they are condemning.
Please point me to the words I posted in defence of his actions.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, but am getting downvoted because I apparently sound like a "child rape apologist".
I understand the crime is emotionally charged, but that doesn't mean anyone convicted of it should just be thrown in the oubliette.
I agree, it seems like a small amount on the face of it.
But at the same time, I'm more inclined to trust the judgement of the prison system (at least in The Netherlands) as to whether he is ready to return to society.
I'm pretty sure he would be free to drive across Schengen borders to France in a few hours anyway. Having a criminal conviction doesn't usually revoke the right to free travel.
What do you mean? He served 13 months and got out on parole. He's publicly expressed remorse, but that isn't exactly conclusive. I assume there would have been some genuine remorse inside, otherwise there would be no parole.
My point is, if you stop anyone who has been to jail returning to normal society at all, then why let them out at all? You might as well just put every criminal in jail for life, or just kill them straight away.
That's a very interesting piece of information actually, I didn't see that anywhere else. Implies they didn't agree with the UK verdict in the first place.