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.

  • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.