Ex-Priest Convicted in Rape of Boy in Boston

[fbrdphreak]

Life in prison :thumbsup:

Link, requires free registration to NY Times Online

Paul R. Shanley, a defrocked priest who became a lightning rod for the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, was convicted on Monday of raping and assaulting a boy when he was a parish priest in suburban Boston in the 1980's.

Mr. Shanley, 74, was one of the few priests to face criminal charges in the scandal, and his conviction came in a case in which prosecutors relied almost solely on one accuser, who said he had repressed the memory of the abuse until reading a newspaper article about Mr. Shanley three years ago.

After deliberating for nearly 15 hours beginning last Thursday, the jury of seven men and five women pronounced Mr. Shanley guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault on a child. Judge Stephen A. Neel of Middlesex Superior Court revoked Mr. Shanley's bail and scheduled him to be sentenced on Feb. 15. He could face up to life in prison.

"It was very difficult," said one juror, Victoria Blier, 53, of Lexington. "There was no DNA, there was no direct corroboration, and that made it very difficult."

Ms. Blier, who owns a window treatment business, said the jury was persuaded by the prosecutor's argument that the accuser was credible because he had no selfish reason to pursue the criminal case since he had already received $500,000 in the settlement of a civil lawsuit against the church.

"I think the one central idea that seemed to be the most compelling to the most people was that the victim had nothing to gain by pursuing the criminal trial and everything to lose, because it was extremely painful," Ms. Blier said. "We tried to, but no one could come up with a convincing reason for why he would pursue this except for a sincere need for justice. He could walk, he could say, 'Listen, this is going to be too hard on my family,' and, 'Sorry, but I'm not going to pursue this' and no one would fault him."

As the verdict was read, Mr. Shanley stood straight and betrayed little emotion. His accuser, who spoke publicly about his accusations over the last three years but asked news organizations not to name him during the trial, stood in the first row, rocking back and forth with tears in his eyes and a smile on his face.

Now a 27-year-old firefighter, the accuser testified that Mr. Shanley would pull him out of Christian doctrine class beginning when he was 6 years old, and would orally and digitally rape him in the bathroom, the pews, the confessional and the rectory of St. Jean's Parish in Newton.

 

[Fausto]

I blame gay marriage.

 

[Brutuskend]

Life in prison

:thumbsup: Indeed!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Good, now he'll be raped and sexually assaulted in prison. :thumbsup:

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Good, now he'll be raped and sexually assaulted in prison. :thumbsup:

Eye for an eye. Wasn't that in bible? (I really don't know, so don't yell at me if its not )

 

[Brutuskend]

On a side note

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
On a side note

:laugh:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Good, now he'll be raped and sexually assaulted in prison. :thumbsup:

Eye for an eye. Wasn't that in bible? (I really don't know, so don't yell at me if its not )

Beats the hell out of me. I haven't opened a bible in 20 years.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
On a side note

ROFL, that's going in an e-mail :thumbsup:

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

I'm definitely not trying to defend the priest here, but doesn't a jury need a better reason than "we can't think of a reason to lie about it" to convict someone of a felony?

 

[Armitage]

You know, if he's really guilty, he deserves everything he gets.
But I gotta say, convicting him on the basis of a single victims 20 year old, formerly repressed memories of abuse from when he was six? No corroboration. No physical evidence of any kind?
That's very damn thin. The "repressed memory" stuff particularly.

 

[Pepsi90919]

i wish i could be digitally raped.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Good, now he'll be raped and sexually assaulted in prison. :thumbsup:

I doubt it, have you seen him? Old and ugly.

 

[aidanjm]

I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

the last priest that got put in jail for this was killed in prison

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Good, now he'll be raped and sexually assaulted in prison. :thumbsup:

I doubt it, have you seen him? Old and ugly.

Haven't you ever heard the stories about kiddie rapers and what they get in prison? C'mon, don't you watch TV?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
the last priest that got put in jail for this was killed in prison

Darn, that's okay; there's a bunch more pedoph--I mean priests where he came from.

 

[mrCide]

whats wrong with our judicial system? 'he must be guilty! he said so!'

 

[DougK62]

I read "digitally raped" completely wrong eheh

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

i guess "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

i guess "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past.

With all due respect, you were not in the courtroom and did not hear the evidence the jury did.

FWIW (and obviously I was not there either, though I have prosecuted and defended dozens of criminal cases), I was gratified by this conviction.

Those of us outside the deliberation room have the luxury of knowing there is a wealth of evidence (most of which was inadmissible in this trial) that Shanley not only molested many children, but was present at the founding conference that led to the formation of NAMBLA. He is an incredibly bad man, and ruined innumerable lives.

Other things being equal, I tend to think society benefits from high-visibility convictions in rape and molestation cases, because IMO acquittals have a chilling effect on victim reporting. Obviously this is predicated on the person actually being guilty, as I'm confident Shanley is.

This asshole deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cold concrete cell, being victimized the same way he victimized children himself. To this point, justice has been served - now all that's needed is a sentence appropriate to the crime - one that ensures he is never again a free man.

FYI, there is a lot of Shanley info here.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

i guess "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past.

With all due respect, you were not in the courtroom and did not hear the evidence the jury did.

FWIW (and obviously I was not there either, though I have prosecuted and defended dozens of criminal cases), I was gratified by this conviction.

Those of us outside the deliberation room have the luxury of knowing there is a wealth of evidence (most of which was inadmissible in this trial) that Shanley not only molested many children, but was present at the founding conference that led to the formation of NAMBLA. He is an incredibly bad man, and ruined innumerable lives.

Other things being equal, I tend to think society benefits from high-visibility convictions in rape and molestation cases, because IMO acquittals have a chilling effect on victim reporting. Obviously this is predicated on the person actually being guilty, as I'm confident Shanley is.

This asshole deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cold concrete cell, being victimized the same way he victimized children himself. To this point, justice has been served - now all that's needed is a sentence appropriate to the crime - one that ensures he is never again a free man.

FYI, there is a lot of Shanley info here.

No one is defending Shanely or his actions. This was, without question, an atrocious and horrible crime to commit, and anyone found guilty of it deserves to be punished.

However, our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and the jurors openly said they had no physical or direct evidence. If all it takes it for a conviction is for someone to accuse you without a readily identifiable selfish motive, I don't think justice is really being upheld.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

i guess "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past.

With all due respect, you were not in the courtroom and did not hear the evidence the jury did.

FWIW (and obviously I was not there either, though I have prosecuted and defended dozens of criminal cases), I was gratified by this conviction.

Those of us outside the deliberation room have the luxury of knowing there is a wealth of evidence (most of which was inadmissible in this trial) that Shanley not only molested many children, but was present at the founding conference that led to the formation of NAMBLA. He is an incredibly bad man, and ruined innumerable lives.

Other things being equal, I tend to think society benefits from high-visibility convictions in rape and molestation cases, because IMO acquittals have a chilling effect on victim reporting. Obviously this is predicated on the person actually being guilty, as I'm confident Shanley is.

This asshole deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cold concrete cell, being victimized the same way he victimized children himself. To this point, justice has been served - now all that's needed is a sentence appropriate to the crime - one that ensures he is never again a free man.

FYI, there is a lot of Shanley info here.

:beer: for you, well said

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also think it is a bit weird convicting someone on the grounds the jury couldn't come up with any reason why the defendant might be lying. Wouldn't you want a bit more evidence that that?

i guess "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past.

With all due respect, you were not in the courtroom and did not hear the evidence the jury did.

FWIW (and obviously I was not there either, though I have prosecuted and defended dozens of criminal cases), I was gratified by this conviction.

Those of us outside the deliberation room have the luxury of knowing there is a wealth of evidence (most of which was inadmissible in this trial)

I tend to think a person should be convicted based on the evidence that is admissable. Afterall, the rules of evidence exist for a reason.

that Shanley not only molested many children, but was present at the founding conference that led to the formation of NAMBLA. He is an incredibly bad man, and ruined innumerable lives.

Other things being equal, I tend to think society benefits from high-visibility convictions in rape and molestation cases, because IMO acquittals have a chilling effect on victim reporting.

IMO, false convictions are even more disturbing.

Obviously this is predicated on the person actually being guilty, as I'm confident Shanley is.

Based on evidence that is inadmissable?

This asshole deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cold concrete cell, being victimized the same way he victimized children himself. To this point, justice has been served - now all that's needed is a sentence appropriate to the crime - one that ensures he is never again a free man.

FYI, there is a lot of Shanley info here.

I don't know much about this case beyond what I've heard and read about this particular trial. But based on what I've heard and read, it was damn thin. Either the coverage sucked, which I don't have a hard time believing, or jury was acting on some of that "inadmissable" evidence that they had heard beforehand, or the prosecutor just won the lotto.

Sometimes this stuff begins to take on the color of a witch hunt.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

No one is defending Shanely or his actions. This was, without question, an atrocious and horrible crime to commit, and anyone found guilty of it deserves to be punished.

However, our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and the jurors openly said they had no physical or direct evidence. If all it takes it for a conviction is for someone to accuse you without a readily identifiable selfish motive, I don't think justice is really being upheld.

What was the "readily identifiable selfish motive," when the accuser had already received a negotiated financial settlement?