Dutch beach volleyball player convicted of rape is booed again, louder, in second match of Olympics
Dutch beach volleyball player convicted of rape is booed again, louder, in second match of Olympics
The Dutch beach volleyball player who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in England has won his second match at the Paris Olympics.
Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.
You're viewing a single thread.
People seem to find it terribly hard to find nuance when something awful like this happened. But losing sight of nuance doesn't help in any way. Can he participate? Of course he can. Do you need to cheer for him? Of course not, boo as you please, but you're not helping any one with it.
He was sentenced for his crime, first in England but ultimately he served a sentence according to the Dutch rule of Law, which found him guilty of sexual misconduct of a 12 year old, but not of rape, which in Dutch law is an important distinction. He served his time, he's had his punishment. You're more than free to disagree with the Dutch laws and the sentence that he got accordingly. But it's not up to you. One should be judged by a court, not by the media nor by the public.
I read many people claiming that he has no remorse, quoting all sorts of media coverage. If you think you can judge whether there is remorse based on media coverage you're awfully mistaken. I'm not claiming he has remorse, but obviously he'll respond negatively to journalists, and quotes can easily be taken out of context. English media is renowned for being total assholes with zero interest in nuance.
People do horrible things, and this surely is such a thing, but that shouldn't prevent people from ever participating in society ever again. If we would ban people, make them outcasts forever, that is not helping victims nor prevention in any way. What it will do is increase the taboo, people will refrain from testifying against suspects because even though they want them to be punished, they don't want media and public going after them and ruining the rest of their lifes. Despite it emotionally being very understandable, this type of shortsighted public outrage is very counter productive and people should use their brains before they rage.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Personally, I'm anti-rape.
So am I. Good luck with your self-righteousness.
That’s a lot of words to say “I agree that this dude who raped a 12 year old should be allowed to hang out at the Olympics where a bunch of young teens often compete and then all sleep in close proximity to one another.”
I understand he's isolated from the other athletes so that doesn't seem to be the case. The word rape is a misrepresentation of what happened. He hasn't forced himself on the girl, but it's misconduct because any sexual contact with a 12 year old is obviously a crime. Still that distinction is important in Dutch law, and rightfully so because obviously forcing yourself on a 12 year old is even worse than consensual sex, and it's rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is 'rape'. Again, not defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.
He got the child drunk and groomed her through facebook so calling it consensual is a misrepresentation. He is a pedophile who raped a child. It is your denial and hand wringing over the consequences for your poor rapist that discourages people from coming forward and testifying. You are telling victims to shut up.
I am not at all telling victims to shut up. You just made that up.
Dutch courts haven't found him guilty of rape, but did find him guilty of having sex with a 12 year old. That itself is more than terrible but calling it rape despite this fact is in fact a misrepresentation of what happened. Sure it was terrible thing that he did and I am not defending his actions at all. I am defending his right to participate in sports events and pleading against trial by media/public outrage.
His trial is over and he was found guilty. I am free to judge him as I please. There is no law that says the public must pretend crimes never happened once the sentence is done. The notion is absurd.
Never asserted that notion. Of course you're free to do so. I am just saying it's self righteous and not helping any one.
He
hasn't forced himself on the girlgroomed a child and convinced her that sex was her idea, but it's misconduct because any sexual contact with a 12 year old is obviously a crime. Still that distinction is important in Dutch law, and rightfully so because obviously forcing yourself on a 12 year old is even worse thanconsensual sexstatutory rape (because minors can’t consent), and it's rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is 'rape'. Again,notit sure sounds like I’m defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion regarding a man who groomed and raped a 12 year old. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.FTFY
Okay so firstly, use some paragraphs, that was a wall of text.
Secondly, there's a huge difference between releasing someone from prison after them serving their time and letting them go back to their normal life, and having that individual represent your country on the international world stage where they will gain a lot of fame. You see the problem there, he's being put in a position of power, or at least he would be if the general public weren't aware of who he is and what he did.
Fair point about the paragraphs. Other than that I disagree with you.
In the Netherlands you'll need a certificate of conduct for many positions and if your criminal record is relevant to a position you won't get the position. This is reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry of Justice and Security. So if he applied for a job as a coach for children then he would obviously be refused because of his criminal record, given that there's a direct link to his crime and logically a clear change for recidivism. But his criminal record is not relevant for his position as an athlete. There's nothing that would stop someone with a criminal record to become famous in such a way. This is not a flaw in the system, it's a choice that was consciously made. We choose to only limit peoples freedom where there would logically be a big chance of recidivism. We don't want to ban people to the shadows where they should keep there head down in shame.
Also you seem to be missing the crucial point here: all of it should be decided by rule of law, not by self righteous media-fueled public rage. The media and the public aren't properly informed nor equipped to weigh these things. The risk of misguided public hatred is immense. That's not something we should want in our society.
Feel free to disagree but I think we should be very happy that this is the way it is, because this means people actually get a second chance.
Hang on he committed a heinous horrible act of utter depravity and you're angry at me for being mad about it? How does that work how do you get off defending someone like that oh and by the way he didn't serve his time he was let out early.
And calling him a pedophile when he actually is a pedophile is acceptable.
I'm not angry, just sharing my thoughts. How does it work? Like I said, I am against media-fueled public rage in cases like these.
He did serve his time, according to the Dutch rule. His initial sentence was longer because it was in the UK and over there they consider every sexual activity with a minor rape, where as in the Netherlands they differentiate between actual rape and misconduct.
Won't somebody think of the rapist's feelings?
It's not at all about that and I never suggested it is.
Autocorrect strikes again. Your comment keeps using the word nuance instead of what I imagine must have been nonce.
Frankly, im fine with us all losing sight of this nonce when he gets tossed in some dark hole.
I'd probably accept the topic of nuance if alcohol hadn't been involved. Once he introduced that, he's pretty clearly a paedophile.
But yes - otherwise, I acknowledge there's danger in too quickly labeling anyone and everyone a predator. Just like there's furries that aren't hurting people with weird stuff, if someone has genuinely kept distance and lack of forcefulness in what they do with a minor, it's still BAD - it's just not on the same vein as people who stalk and violently assault people. When I hear the idea of an 18-year-old being forever called predators/rapists for consentually dating 15-year-olds, it just sounds weird and wrong. Again, I'd call alcohol a form of forcefulness since a 12-year-old won't be aware of its effects.
I agree with most of what you say, including what you say about the alcohol involved. Ultimately though the point is that he should be punished by courts, which has happened, and not by public outrage because media and public aren't well suited to judge people fairly.