Child rapist Steven van de Velde weeps in first interview since Olympics outrage
Child rapist Steven van de Velde weeps in first interview since Olympics outrage
Steven van de Velde, who was jailed for raping a 12 year old girl in 2014, was allowed to compete in the Paris Olympics and has now spoken out on the controversy
Van de Velde was booed and jeered while competing at the Games. Dutch Olympic officials went to lengths to protect him from the press during the event.
He has now opened up to Dutch publication NOS about his experience, admitting that while he anticipated backlash, the intensity of it took him by surprise. "I definitely had a moment of breaking down, both before the tournament and during it. But I thought 'I'm not going to give others the power to bully me away or get me away'.
You're viewing a single thread.
Alright.. now I'm willing to bet that most people on here, if asked, believe strongly in criminal rehabilitation. But the comments here make me think 'maybe not'.
Would someone please explain that?
Sure. He hasn't taken any real responsibility nor faced adquete consequences for raping a child. He blames others for "bullying" rather than making any attempt to understand the outrage.
If his crime had been committed decades ago, and he faced appropriate sentencing, and made steps at reconciliation with the community this would be a more nuanced conversation.
He was arrested, prosecuted and convicted. He pled guilty. He served his prison sentence and underwent psychological treatment. He has taken extensive measures to avoid contact with children. This all happened over a decade ago. He repeatedly reflected on what happened and regrets it to this day.
The child in question only seems to regret he was arrested, and cut herself because of it. She doesn't seem to think negatively about him at all, and because of that he was not convicted of grooming.
At this point, what the fuck more do you want from him? He's fully rehabilitated. He knows what he did, why it's bad and has done more than enough to prevent it from happening again. This "moral outrage" is just stupid and seems to be largely fuelled by right-wing British tabloids, because here in the Netherlands nobody seems to give a shit.
What's your message here? "Rape a child, rape a dozen, we don't care because we're going to ostracize you from society forever?" Why would anyone bother to rehabilitate then?
The child in question only seems to regret he was arrested, and cut herself because of it.
You really do not understand the psychology of a rape victim.
She doesn’t seem to think negatively about him at all, and because of that he was not convicted of grooming.
How do you know what she thinks today? There is a reason many countries do not consider a 12-year-old to be able to consent to sex. They don't understand sex. They don't understand rape. They may have only been menstruating for less than a year.
we're going to ostracize you from society forever
That is very different from simply not wanting him to be a representative for his country and potential role model for aspiring athletes in one of the biggest media events of the world though. Being welcomed back as a member of society is one thing, but there is a point to be made about expecting more of Olympic athletes than your average member of society.
Why are you defending a pedophile so hard in this thread?? He didn't even serve his full sentence since he was pulled out of the UK early. What we want from him is an apology for what he did, but it doesn't look like we will ever get that since he is now playing victim as the rapist. Maybe if he actually served his full sentence things would be a little different, but he got a small slap on the wrist for one of the worst crimes someone can commit. He should never have been sent to the Olympics as a representative of the Netherlands.
I am glad you are saying this. I have started typing a similar comment several times, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable avalanche of comments from what seems to be the lemmy hive mind on this subject.
no he didn't, so stop advocating for these types of people to represent, anything!
Yes, child rapists should be ostracised forever. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect the children in our communities. Sorry if this is hard for you to understand but the safety of innocent children is infinitely more important than the poor delicate feelings of a child rapist. If they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn't do the bad thing.
Also, he didn't even serve the full sentence given by the court that sentenced him. So no, he did not serve his punishment. That's a load of shite. His government extradited him and let him off easy. And then they effectively spat on the whole punishment again by letting him represent his country anyway.
It doesn't matter how long ago it was. The harm was still real. And it screams "we care more about perpetrators' rights than victims." Or maybe they don't care because the victim wasn't Dutch. I don't know.
I do however agree that they shouldn't go after his family. He committed the crime, not them. Even if I am disgusted by the very idea of anyone willing to sleep with a nonce. Still not my business.
“Rape a child, rape a dozen, we don’t care because we’re going to ostracize you from society forever?” Why would anyone bother to rehabilitate then?
Sounds fine to me. Put them all in a cage forever. We don't need people in society that have to have "raping kids is a bad thing" explained to them. If I was confident the justice system wouldn't falsely convict people I'd be arguing to execute them.
So lock them up forever, or kill them?
What do you do when innocent people end up getting convicted?
Why do we need people in society who need "raping adults is a bad thing" explained to them? Or "killing kids is a bad thing"? Or "killing adults is a bad thing"? Or "drinking and driving is a bad thing"? Or "robbery is a bad thing"?
So lock them up forever, or kill them?
I already covered this in my post. If we could determine guilt with 100% accuracy kill them. We can't so settle for locking them up forever. If they're found to be innocent later they can be released and compensated for their time. For raping adults and killing kids the same criteria as raping kids should be applied.
Or “killing adults is a bad thing”? Or “drinking and driving is a bad thing”? Or “robbery is a bad thing”?
These are all very different from rape or harming children and there can be other factors to consider regarding motive that would have to be taken into account when doing the sentencing. For instance in the Gary Plauché case. He murdered the man who kidnapped and molested his son. If that's his threshold for murder, it's unlikely he would re-offend (and he didn't for the rest of his life).
So we don't need rapists (incl. of adults) or child murderers in society because they can't be rehabilitated. But people who murder adults can serve their time and be welcomed back into society...am I following what you're saying?
Are we counting it as the age of majority? Murder a 15/17 year old, imprisoned for life, murder a 16/18 year old, regular sentence?
Rape an adult, life imprisonment, murder an adult, regular sentence?
So we don’t need rapists (incl. of adults) or child murderers in society because they can’t be rehabilitated. But people who murder adults can serve their time and be welcomed back into society…am I following what you’re saying?
Apparently not. I said you have to look at the context of the murder to determine how to handle them appropriately. I even gave you an example of one where with mitigating circumstances. If it's unlikely the murderer can be rehabilitated lock them up forever too. As for what's considered a child I don't have a good answer, I suppose again, it would have to be contextual.
We want this child raper to die. He raped a kid once, he'll do it again. Rehabilitation doesn't work to cure pedophiles, a 9mm super sonic rock through the dome is the cure.
No sympathy for him from here, but this is an interesting conversation about justice.
Is it his responsibility that the justice system gave him the sentence it did?
Who gets to decide what is adequate consequences, how long ago the crime should have been, what is appropriate sentencing and what is appropriate steps of reconciliation?
I agree with the gut feeling that he was sentenced lightly, but as the previous comment said, how do we combine that with a belief in the rehabilitation of criminals?
There needs to be some work on the part of the criminal. They need to at minimum show remorse and attempt to make amends with the community.
Makes sense. But does this community know whether he has done so? My understanding is that the crime was committed a decade ago, and that he admits fault. I assume nobody here followed it at the time.
It seems this community has turned very quickly to an un-nuanced discussion with very little data.
Raping a kid is very un nuanced.
Absolutely, but the morality of said rapist competing at the Olympics a decade later, after having served his sentence and possibly having been rehabilitated is a pretty nuanced subject, wouldn't you say?
What does it matter? He was sentenced and served time. Wasn't it enough, or what's your argument here?
I don't think rehabilitation is just serving time and being done with it.
That's why he also had psychological treatment that he underwent willingly and why he has taken extensive measures to avoid any contact with children despite the fact that he has the all-clear if that were to happen.
He has rehabilitated successfully.
That's what it's supposed to be...
If you’re going to be an apologist for a predator at least understand the situation. It looks like you are arguing just to be contrarian- not a good look in this case, highly insensitive given the type of crime we are discussing.
He did not serve his full eight year sentence. He was transferred back to Holland from England to serve the remainder of his eight year sentence - and was released the same year
So to answer you: No he absolutely did not serve his sentence
First, don't call me an apologists, you don't know the first fucking thing about me or my beleifs.
Second, it was a four year sentence, not eight years.
Third, yes, he did serve his sentence and was released.
The Netherlands has different laws. He was convicted of the lesser crime of "ontucht", which carries a different sentence. He served the sentence that matched with that crime. And given his successful rehabilitation, it was the right sentence to give.
I absolutely believe in rehabilitation. I also don't believe that a little over a year in prison for repeatedly raping a child is enough time to rehabilitate someone who did that. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, he's done things like say it was a mistake, but he has yet to apologize for it. That, to me, says he has not been rehabilitated. In fact, I would say that one of the first signs of rehabilitation is to apologize for your actions.
Isnt that the court or parole boards fault though?
Like when they released him on parole should he have said "no, I need to stay in jail because 1 year is not enough"?
If you think he didn't serve enough time, that's a flaw in the system. But then, that doesn't answer my question...
I'd argue being an Olympian, which requires relying on a mix of public funding, ones own resources (usually family or sponsors), and gives an international platform, media coverage and potential prominence is a privilege given quid pro quo for behavior befitting that privilege.
Post-rehabilitation and having served one's time - There's no reason this person couldn't practice their sport in private, there's no reason this person couldn't be a private citizen with a regular office job.
However, I'm sure you could agree that they shouldn't ever be allowed to work with children again, so there must be a line of compromise you agree with.
I'd also argue that knowing that one's mistakes - although paid for - may have lifetime consequences - are also part of the rehab process. Like how alcoholics can never have one drink again.
I get the impression that many lemmy users don't have a lot of life experience. Everyone deals in absolutes and ideals, no one seems to see the nuance.
The question of "should this guy be allowed to compete" is a complex one, and anyone who thinks there's an easy answer is an idiot.
"Everyone deals in absolutes" sure sounds a lot like an absolute. It's easier to fall into using absolutes in short form, instantaneous internet comments.
No, that's a generalisation.
It's the exact opposite of a complex question. People who rape children shouldn't be allowed to represent their nation at the Olympics. That's a hard line in the sand that normal people are perfectly fine with. It's amazingly reasonable. No one who rapes a child gets rewarded with honor and respect. If they serve an appropriate punishment and show remorse, two things he never did, you can return to life. You should not however be honored on the national and even worldwide stage that is a privilege that should be lost forever. Don't like it? Don't rape kids. Not a lot of nuance needed.
This is exactly the kind of perspective I'm talking about. Well done.
Not for pedos.
/Thread