Ex-Priest Convicted in Rape of Boy in Boston

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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?

How is the lack of a motive for lying proof of guilt?

Would you be conmfy with the same level of evidence and guilt applied if you were accused?

I'm not defending him, but we are a society of law, right?

 

[Hammer]

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.

i'm not defending the guy. i hope he dies in prision to be quite honest. my problem is that they can sentence someone to life in prison on such flimsy evidence. you're right, i don't know what went on in the jury room nor do i have all the evidence, but from the interview with members of the jury it sounds like they made the call based on their gut rather than the instructions the judge gave them.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

How is the lack of a motive for lying proof of guilt?

Would you be conmfy with the same level of evidence and guilt applied if you were accused?

I'm not defending him, but we are a society of law, right?

Obviously the lack of a motive to fabricate is not evidence of Shanley's guilt, but the victim's detailed testimony about his sexual abuse sure is.

As I'll say again, neither you nor I were in the courtroom to hear the evidence. There WAS corroborating evidence from classmates of the accuser's, and given the lapse in time it's hardly surprising there was a lack of corroborative physical evidence.

As I said, I've worked extensively as a prosecutor and defense attorney, and were I asked in advance of this trial whether Shanley would be convicted, I would probably have predicted an acquittal. Actually, I would've said the same thing for Scott Peterson. In both cases, I am quite confident the defendants are guilty as hell, so I have a hard time getting too exorcised about their respective plights.

Shanley cut a breathtaking swath as a serial pedophile, and as far as I'm concerned, I hope he burns in Hell. The fact that he'll spend the rest of his life in prison (hopefully being raped and beaten) is just icing on the cake.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

I don't think they "do you" in prision because they find you attractive.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
i wish i could be digitally raped.

Which digit did you want Shanley to use?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well hell, it'll be hard to come up with physical evidence decades after the fact. And you would SURPRISE (as you obviously are) by the convictions that are due to circumstantial evidence.

This guy wasn't innocent... he has a past history of abuse, including advocating that priests SHOULD be having sex with boys... which completely boggles my mind, since people who were hearing this argument didn't think this was abnormal?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: DonVito
As I'll say again, neither you nor I were in the courtroom to hear the evidence. There WAS corroborating evidence from classmates of the accuser's, and given the lapse in time it's hardly surprising there was a lack of corroborative physical evidence.

As I said, I've worked extensively as a prosecutor and defense attorney, and were I asked in advance of this trial whether Shanley would be convicted, I would probably have predicted an acquittal. Actually, I would've said the same thing for Scott Peterson. In both cases, I am quite confident the defendants are guilty as hell, so I have a hard time getting too exorcised about their respective plights.

True, I'm just assuming the evidence was light based on their comments. Seems very similar to Peterson's case. I agree I predicted acquittal for him based on what we knew (which is more and less than the jurors, depending on the evidence).

Do you view this as a lowering of the bar for guilt? It seems so to the layman from the reports, which I'm sure is why people have issue with the case.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Do you view this as a lowering of the bar for guilt? It seems so to the layman from the reports, which I'm sure is why people have issue with the case.

No, I don't. IMO It would be silly for anyone to presume that the outcome in one particular case (particularly one with such a loathsome defendant) reflects a larger trend in criminal justice.

Frankly, there are predictably a certain number of cases per year (and I am not implying this is one) in which innocent people are convicted. Sometimes they are he said/she said cases like this one - IMO rape is a crime that lends itself to this phenomenon. Interestingly, many wrongful convictions are based on false confessions and incorrect witness identification, both of which are the kinds of evidence laypersons find very powerful.

Ultimately, justice is a human enterprise, and hence imperfect. In this case, I'm confident Shanley is guilty, but that doesn't mean people aren't wrongfully convicted from time to time.