De-Belin

[PJ_]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

I understand that and in the court of law he is still considered as such. The NRL are not casting aspersions to his guilt, rather that he faces serious charges and they are standing him down with pay while he answers those.

I believe other forms of employment will stand people down with pay while investigation is pending, it's not exclusive to the NRL. Police are one example.

Yeah I'm with you, just don't agree with the rule.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

I understand that and in the court of law he is still considered as such. The NRL are not casting aspersions to his guilt, rather that he faces serious charges and they are standing him down with pay while he answers those.

I believe other forms of employment will stand people down with pay while investigation is pending, it's not exclusive to the NRL. Police are one example.

Yeah I'm with you, just don't agree with the rule.

That's fair enough. I understand your reasoning, and it makes sense.

 

[Cairnstigers]

Rape is one of the most serious crimes and i believe the punishment dished out is to soft for those convicted

And thats just it, Jack is not convicted of anything yet
I think they should introduce a time frame for a conviction in cases like this
If it takes to long or is deferred to a later date, say 12 months out of the game, maybe the player should be allowed to play. But only if there is a lengthy delay as there appears to be now
With that said, the player in question should only be taking home minimum wage for an NRL player. Everything over and above minimum wage should go to a trust fund which is held until the trial concludes.
If found not guilt the player receives all of the money being held
If guilty the funds can go towards damages for the victim

It could be agreed to by both parties
The player gets to play
The victim may get a compensation payment from the funds if the player is found guilty

Now if you think that an alleged victim will take advantage of this to try and obtain money by fabricating a story, there would need to be serious consequences for that person should it be proven to be false and misleading information
And I am sure there are laws in place to deal with these kinds of things

The key thing in all of this is that no one should get themselves in this situation to start with
In jacks case it does not look or sound good
And the legal system that requires 12 citizens of this country to come up with a 12 vote or 11 to 1 vote guilty is a big ask
Facts are facts but some people will still see things differently
So in some cases a guilty person goes free or an innocent person goes to jail
Why can't a panel of judges that can see all the evidence and who understand the law and interpretation of these cases make a decision
Why leave it up to 12 ordinary citizens like you and me
We all have our differing views on trials like this
And we are determining the future of two different lives here
There will be no winners in a case like this
Guilty or not the damage has been done and lives have changed

 

[hank37w]

Why can’t a panel of judges that can see all the evidence and who understand the law and interpretation of these cases make a decision
Why leave it up to 12 ordinary citizens like you and me

Unfortunately the courts are so congested, which is one of the reasons that a decision in this case is going into a third NRL season.

If you went to a system where you used judges or magistrates instead of ordinary citizens you would be stretching resources to the point that there would be even greater delays, it would be like trying to take something to the high court.

You would also have the situation where it would be viewed very poorly by many as there would be claims of no longer being judged by your peers.

We already have a situation where people are claiming that our judiciary are out of touch constantly complaining about decisions made by judges and magistrates that are not in line with community expectations.

I understand what you are saying with your point about the juries but unfortunately there is not an easy fix.

 

[rustycage]

He's in a mess of his own doing. The way things have panned out for him to date is just the system doing it's thing. Seems about right.

 

[jirskyr]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

Imagine the CFO of a company is accused of sexual harassment in the workplace; does anyone think that company is going to be happy with him continue his regular job, as if nothing has happened, whilst those accusations are assessed?

Especially if those claims cannot be rapidly dismissed, because the accusation does not make it to trial unless it is believed there is a genuine case.

You even had the ASIC and Australia Post bosses stand down / pay back monies recently due to the public backlash on the way they were spending taxpayer's money. None of them technically did anything illegal and yet their jobs were untenable.

That's the point of the no-fault stand-down, as others have said, to allow the employer to sideline the scandal whilst it is being investigated.

And specifically in respect to De Bellend, whilst I don't know if he's guilty or not, he's stupid enough to put himself in this position and it's all of his own making. Consensual or not, it is a fact that he was rooting a young lady WITH his mate whilst his pregnant partner was at home. Unbelievable - I mean, have all the group sex you want if you are 25, wealthy and built like a brick house, but don't get married and father a child at the same time mate.

Bringing a moral argument into a discussion about law ?

I never said the moral part was related to the legality of what was occurring.

I had two arguments: (1) the no-fault stand-down policy is reasonable; (2) morally speaking I don't feel particularly sorry for De Bellend because he basically got himself into this mess.

 

[jirskyr]

To demonstrate how flawed the NRL system is,Josh Reynolds was probably within a bees of being stood down and fortunately for him it was revealed his "partner"had considerable form.Cld easily have gone the other way
Just goes to show innocent until proven guilty has stood the centuries old test of time for a reason..
Plus..to be pefectly honest...some of the" persons un-named" lassies who become the victim literally throw themselves at the players and ...
Careful road to tread for everybody

Well not exactly because JR's case was able to be developed and thrown out before it went to court and before NRL had to make a ruling.

De Bellend's case was fit for trial and he is being prosecuted as we speak.

Also JR wasn't accused of rape, he was accused of domestic violence. I'm not entirely sure NRL's stance on DV charges; I think there has to be some max penalty threshold for the charge for them to stand a player down.

There are a lot of NRL cases of this type that don't get as far as court, which tends to tell you that even in a bad situation the innocence is proven quickly enough. Very few footballers find themselves in drawn-out criminal proceedings.

Manase Fainu is probably the only other one?

 

[PJ_]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

Imagine the CFO of a company is accused of sexual harassment in the workplace; does anyone think that company is going to be happy with him continue his regular job, as if nothing has happened, whilst those accusations are assessed?

Especially if those claims cannot be rapidly dismissed, because the accusation does not make it to trial unless it is believed there is a genuine case.

You even had the ASIC and Australia Post bosses stand down / pay back monies recently due to the public backlash on the way they were spending taxpayer's money. None of them technically did anything illegal and yet their jobs were untenable.

That's the point of the no-fault stand-down, as others have said, to allow the employer to sideline the scandal whilst it is being investigated.

And specifically in respect to De Bellend, whilst I don't know if he's guilty or not, he's stupid enough to put himself in this position and it's all of his own making. Consensual or not, it is a fact that he was rooting a young lady WITH his mate whilst his pregnant partner was at home. Unbelievable - I mean, have all the group sex you want if you are 25, wealthy and built like a brick house, but don't get married and father a child at the same time mate.

Bringing a moral argument into a discussion about law ?

I never said the moral part was related to the legality of what was occurring.

I had two arguments: (1) the no-fault stand-down policy is reasonable; (2) morally speaking I don't feel particularly sorry for De Bellend because he basically got himself into this mess.

*Consensual or not, it is a fact that he was rooting a young lady WITH his mate whilst his pregnant partner was at home. Unbelievable - I mean, have all the group sex you want if you are 25, wealthy and built like a brick house, but don’t get married and father a child at the same time mate.*

I don't feel sorry for him either.
My argument was to do with the nrl and its legal practices, not the morality. In that regard I agree with you.

 

[sleeve]

I know people who think that oral sex is when people talk about it, anal sex is beyond their imagination.The details in this case unfortunately are swaying people away from what the case is all about,was it consentual ?Someones morals are not on trial here.If you think that these type of activeties do not happen,you have been in a cupboard for the last 50yrs .I find them unsavoury,but have an open mind about the case,WAS IT CONSENTUAL ?

 

[hank37w]

It is CONSENSUAL.
Not trying to be smart because I used to make the same spelling error.

 

[rustycage]

I was on a jury for sexual assault and one of the male jurors had already decided the defendant was innocent because he didnt look the type(clean cut business type).Fortunately we were discharged on the 2nd day because a female juror didnt turn up.The judge decided to **empannel** another 12 people to hear the case.

I like this word. Never heard it before, but it's a cool word. Yep, spelling/English word need here.

 

[sleeve]

Idon;t thats what the courts and the legal system decides.Not a forum of biased people who only read a small and sensational piece of the evidence,.If they are guilty they deserve the full force of the law.If not they go free,It is not to be determined by people like you and me .

 

[Guest]

Haven't given De Bellend a second thought..

More or less agree with you on that one mate.

 

[jadtiger]

,It is not to be determined by people like you and me .

Actually it is determined by people like you and i,it is just we are supposed to only make a decision on the evidence presented during the trial and not what the media report.

 

[Tigerbuck63]

He was acting like a grub regardless so couldn’t care less that he is being punished even if ended in jail.

I’ve been following the case closely which similar to Hayne case in that one person says there was consent and other states there is not.


To the legal eagles out there what are the element of Rape, do they look into the mind of the victim or defendant for consent?


If it’s the defendant it would be pretty difficult to prove, when the defendant saying I didn’t do it.


The injuries for Hayne Victim I guess would not help his case.


Any thoughts on where the cases may go?


I fully support the nrl policy why should nrl be put threw the mud when player made their bed.

The only winners are the solicitors.
It's really one person's word against the other?
If you were not a high profile person i wonder if there would be a nil decision?