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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10916·
    3 months ago

    I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here

    Then he can stop bitching that people are booing his partner who raped a fucking 12 year old.

    Pick a lane, “no comment” or acknowledge what he did and ask for forgiveness.

    This is literally the Dutch team complaining that people are booing, and refusing to acknowledge an incredibly valid reason why it’s happening.

    Fuck em both.

    Like you said, it’s a small population of players. Even if this guy was #1 in the Netherlands, if #2 thru 25 said they won’t play with a child rapist, the child rapist wouldn’t be on the team.

    Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.

    You think she forgot till now?

    You think she doesn’t know his name?

    Why is the issue talking about how he’s a child rapist and not that the child rapist is in the goddamn Olympics?

    Quick edit:

    It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

    We don’t call people heroes for doing the right thing because it’s easy and sacrifice free.

    But we do call people shit bags for doing the wrong thing for personal gain/glory.

    Which is what we’re doing here.

    Except you, you’re out here complaining people booed a guy who raped a 12 year old.

    Why?

    • fulcrummed@lemmy.worldEnglish
      278·
      3 months ago

      Wow man, that’s a hot take. I’m not complaining at all. The crowd is upset that the Dutch team have chosen to select a man convicted of a heinous act. I absolutely abhor what that criminal did and in my mind there is absolutely no excusing or trivialising or equivocating on that. It’s unthinkable. I am not putting judgment on the crowd at all. I completely understand why they are doing it.

      I don’t believe he was complaining in the interview. A journo asked him the world’s most obvious question and he has nowhere to go. He can’t defend his partner (not should he, not that he wanted to). He can only speak for himself and say it’s hard to get booed when personally you didn’t do the thing and you’ve worked so hard to get here.

      I don’t know why you think I have anything but sincere empathy for the poor victim. I’m recognising that having a truly horrific life experience become fodder for the media, years after you last had that chapter of your life made public and the subject of speculation and judgment, must be a terrible ordeal - she will never forget his name or what happened, but there’s a difference between that and having this asshole on the front page of every news outlet for a month. It must be a genuinely traumatic experience to have it be made acute again.

      You’re passionate and assertive in your feelings about this. I respect that and I don’t disagree with your sentiments. I don’t think your read meshes with what I was trying to say. I actually think we’re morally pretty well aligned. In the context of your comment, I don’t know many genuine heroes, they do what most people can’t - that’s why they’re so revered. We all know the way, only few actually walk it.

    • Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      812·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think that guy’s really complaining about the booing, I think he’s trying to separate the rapist from the other competitors.

      I don’t know the case, and I’m very surprised the Netherlands let this guy compete for them, but he is and apparently served prison time (not as much as he probably should’ve). If he’s already served a prison sentence, then the Netherlands government probably believes he has been punished for the crime and is “rehabilited”. If he’s served time, double jeopardy applies to any punishment he would receive after the fact (IIRC).

      I don’t know the rapist and I don’t care about him, I’d hope he’s incredibly remorseful and I’m not defending what he did, but like the OP was driving at; why are the actions of the rapist POS who served prison time tainting the other athletes competing for their own interests / country that legally posits the guy has been punished for his actions? Imagine being proud of your work and being booed because of the previous unrelated actions of a coworker you may or may not like.

      If murderers are able to serve their prison sentence and be freed after their crime and feel remorse for their actions etc., at what point in time does someone stop being punished for their previous actions? I’m bringing up the rhetorical question in response to the common vitriol in comments surrounding sex crimes that bleeds onto anyone involved.

      Unless you believe in the death penalty and that the rapist deserved to die for his actions by the hands of his government, what does it take for everyone to move forward? I ask because you’re positing the other Netherland’s athlete is essentially guilty because he didn’t risk his Olympic ambitions and refuse to play with the rapist who legally served his sentence.

      How long he should’ve been in prison is another debate.

      • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.worldEnglish
        152·
        3 months ago

        That’s not how double Double Jeopardy works (Netherlands also has a different name for it). It prevents you from being tried twice for a crime for which you’ve been acquitted/convicted. It does not prevent a country from refusing to have you represent them on the world stage.

        • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
          24·
          3 months ago

          It is actually how it works in terms of official punishments(in the US at least):

          Amdt5.2.1.2.4 Imposition of Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense

          Fifth Amendment:

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against imposition of multiple punishment for the same offense.1 The application of the principle leads, however, to a number of complexities. In a simple case, it was held that where a court inadvertently imposed both a fine and imprisonment for a crime for which the law authorized one or the other but not both, it could not, after the fine had been paid and the defendant had entered his short term of confinement, recall the defendant and change its judgment by sentencing him to imprisonment only.2 But the Court has held that the imposition of a sentence does not from the moment of imposition have the finality that a judgment of acquittal has. Thus, it has long been recognized that in the same term of court and before the defendant has begun serving the sentence the court may recall him and increase his sentence.

          Obviously not being picked for an olympic team isnt an official punishment, but the principle of not punishing someone for the same crime after they complete their given sentence is true.

        • Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish
          16·
          3 months ago

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy#:~:text=The Double Jeopardy Clause in,for substantially the same crime.

          From the US, but the philosophical reasoning still applies.

          You misunderstand the point. The Netherlands did not stop him from competing for them, presumably because he’s served his time for the crime by their standards.

          That’s your problem with the Netherland’s Olympic committee then, not the other athletes - the whole point of the post.

          • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.worldEnglish
            42·
            3 months ago

            What point am I misunderstanding? You claimed double jeopardy applies. It does not. Not representing your country in the Olympics does not count as an official punishment for the same act.

            • Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              3 months ago

              The point is he was punished and likely contributed to him not being barred from Olympic participation. Ignore the double jeopardy statement then, engage with the actual discussion about the non rapist.