I totally agree with you and fuck this guy, but there is some context to his sentence here in the Netherlands:

One legal distinction is that Van de Velde is unlikely to have been convicted of rape had he stood trial in the Netherlands rather than England. In England, sex with a 12-year-old is rape, regardless of the circumstances: an under-16 cannot legally consent. But after he was extradited to the Netherlands, having serving almost a year of his prison sentence, he was released after less than a month. Under Dutch law, his crime was deemed to be the lesser offence of ontucht, sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms.

From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/30/netherlands-child-rapist-olympics-steven-van-de-velde

Please point me to the words I posted in defence of his actions.

You seriously have a weird obsession with child rapists.

That’s a very interesting piece of information actually, I didn’t see that anywhere else. Implies they didn’t agree with the UK verdict in the first place.

You didn’t answer my question. If they can’t go back to a normal life, what’s the point of rehabilitative justice? You don’t want them to offend again, sure, but how do you rehabilitate an individual if you bar them from participating in society?

If he’s free to get a regular job except for some jobs(one that isn’t even related to the crime, he didn’t rape someone while playing volleyball), then he’s just not free. If you want to treat former offenders as second class citizens, then you’re not doing rehabilitative justice.

I mean as much as you hate it, being an athlete is a pretty regular job, especially in smaller sports like volleyball. A volleyball player’s average salary is like 40k a year in the Netherlands, and you don’t really hear about a player unless you’re into the sport, so I really doubt the fame is as big of a factor as you make it out to be. The only reason he’s even this famous to begin with is the news story about the rape.

Your language in rife with disdain for this man and that’s fine, but you’re argumenting from a place of emotion, not reason. Worse even, you’re just not being honest with what you believe. Even if he was some random ass employee at some random ass establishment, people like you would hound him and try to get him fired for this because you ultimately don’t believe he should have a right to a normal life at all - and to pretend like you do but you’re just not okay with him doing this job is just a bald faced lie.

Also, way to strawman your interlocutor as a rape apologist. Go ahead and point out where in my responses I engaged in any rape apologia.

Maybe you should consider going back to your folks at X.

I said in my comment that the justice system probably missed in this case, but I’m not really interested in adjudicating whether it was right or wrong in its result. I’m starting with the premise of the system maybe having done its job, because a lot of people use the fact of the case to beat around the bush and not say what they really mean - that former criminals such as rapists shouldn’t see the light of day in society.

See to me, if one never ever commits a crime again after having previously commited a crime, regardless of the method used, it should be seen as a success. Focusing on the “did the time” is just advocating for punitive justice. You’re saying it’s not possible that he’s changed because he wasn’t punished enough, and should just be punished more regardless of the conclusion the system arrived at. But I wonder if more punishment would really change a person for the better.

The punitive justice system doesn’t care whether criminals do the crime again. It doesn’t matter if a rapist is unrepentant, they serve their 7-14 years or whatever and then they’re free again. In this, I don’t think it’s a more positive outcome than someone serving less time in prison. The punishment amount ultimately doesn’t necessarily serve a purpose other than inflicting harm on the guilty. You don’t believe he’s changed, but neither of us really knows, and we couldn’t really prove that he would change if he spent another 20 years in a cage.

But one thing we do know, based on a lot of research into human psychology and sociology is that if you treat a person like a monster, they tend to become monsters. The more you ostracize someone the fewer options they have, the more they’re pushed back towards being unable to live a normal, lawful life. The US has one of the most punitive justice systems and they have a recidivism rate of like 80% within 5 years of release. Over in incarceration systems like the Netherlands’, it’s about half of that.

There’s really no evidence to support the claim that more prison time = more well behaved citizens after, in fact all evidence pretty much points to the contrary. So I gotta wonder why people would advocate for it. And surely, in this case and other extreme cases, it is because of the crime. Whether he changed or not, whether he ever commits a crime again or not, whether he does feel remorse or not, let’s not kid ourselves that it would matter for most people.

Most of the people here wouldn’t feel differently if he had come out with an apology or something. It’s just a smokescreen for bloodsports, for wanting a bad man punished, not turned into a not-so-bad man. There is something innate in us screaming to have the ill elements of our society tortured, and it’s just an inherently reactionary impulse that we as a society need to work out of our system to actually create a better world instead of just perpetuating a neverending cycle of suffering.

And by all means, hate the guy, for sure. The boos are deserved and all, I’m not saying he shouldn’t catch any flack, but I don’t think kicking him off a sports team or sending him to jail for another couple of years will untraumatize that poor kid he raped, nor will it make him a better person.