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.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think it’s a little different than typical vigilantism when he’s convicted and demonstrably used his privilege to get out of it, much less when he’s in the Olympics representing his nation (of child rapists, apparently, thus the government officials defending his right to get children drunk and rape them).

    You are right that France isn’t the place to do it though, the French pedophilic cabal that has infiltrated the government is their Supreme Court.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      “A little different.” This time. What about all the other times? What if it’s a member of the French supreme court that it turns out that, despite you thinking they’re a pedophile, they aren’t actually a pedophile?

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean if they’re high in the judiciary they’re already guilty of something. It’s like billionaires, you know? Probably best to just get rid of the lot. Safer.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?

          Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.

          • sandbox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.

            (BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?

              • sandbox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.

                How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:

                • The body itself is entirely transparent with all meetings and matters of discussion open to the public
                • The body makes decisions by consensus
                • The body is created to deal with a single issue and immediately disbanded thereafter.
                • No single person can serve on such a body more than once.
                • The members of the body are chosen by some kind of open, democratic process.
                • There are otherwise no restrictions, requirements, or limitations upon the capacity of who can be on such a body (e.g. no age requirements, no citizenship requirements, etc.)

                I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.

                  • sandbox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.

                    We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.