Jdb case

[SaintPauli]

If I may..

To me, there's no IF about it because I just don't know the facts. But given the IF scenario, I guess the question works both ways: How do you feel about them booing him if he is found not guilty?

Here's the thing, JDB hasn't been found guilty of anything. Due process is a basic principle and it must be respected.

And yes, I am a parent. But I'm uncomfortable with dragging them into any moral argument, plus I don't believe it is relevant to any legal argument.

Brett Stewarts case took 2YEARS!
The real issue in question is TIME
court cases take. I dont have the solution IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people, particulary those in society with prominent positions such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max. TIME frame say 3 months then ALL will be benefitting.

For Jack to be stood down a likely 2 years whilst claiming innocence is nothing short of injustice and NRL are very unethical in their stance which also has a bigger negative influence on him and the game. Let's hope the best outcome for JDB and society at large.

 

[The Damo]

Do you feel bad about cheering him before he was accused?
Or just after?

No, because there wasn’t a known possibility that he could be a convicted rapist soon.
Now that is a possibility.

 

[TruSaint]

Brett Stewarts case took 2YEARS!
The real issue in question is TIME
court cases take. I dont have the solution IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max. TIME frame say 3 months then ALL will be benefitting.

For Jack to be stood down a likely 2 years whilst claiming innocence is nothing short of injustice and NRL are very unethical in their stance which also has a bigger negative influence on the game. Let's hope the best outcome for JDB and society at large.

... double post

 

[The Damo]

If I may..

To me, there's no IF about it because I just don't know the facts. But given the IF scenario, I guess the question works both ways: How do you feel about them booing him if he is found not guilty?

Here's the thing, JDB hasn't been found guilty of anything. Due process is a basic principle and it must be respected.

And yes, I am a parent. But I'm uncomfortable with dragging them into any moral argument, plus I don't believe it is relevant to any legal argument.

I don’t know the facts either, but I know it’s possible he will be convicted. That possibility does change things for me. As I said I don’t think there’s a 100% right answer here, but I think people should consider the ethics of their choices in all things.
I don’t think he should play, that avoids people booing him if he’s innocent, and supporting him if he’s guilty. I think the potential negative impact of him playing then being convicted is greater for more people than the negative impact of him not playing.

And the reason I bring up kids is not because I think it lends moral weight to my argument. It’s because it forms part of my moral calculation. I watch dragons games with my sons. I talk to them about favourite players and try pass on my enthusiasm for the skills and dedication they have. Doing that Now for Jack, who is one of the players I have high regard for, when I know there is a genuine possibility he could be a convicted rapist soon, would be a breach of the ethics I try to live by. That’s gonna be different for others and that’s fine.

Of course due process has to respected. But I don’t think there’s a due process right to play first grade while facing charges this serious. There’s plenty of criminal charges I wouldn’t think should stop someone from playing though.

 

[Willow]

Brett Stewarts case took 2YEARS!
The real issue in question is TIME
court cases take. I dont have the solution IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people, particulary those in society with prominent positions such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max. TIME frame say 3 months then ALL will be benefitting.

For Jack to be stood down a likely 2 years whilst claiming innocence is nothing short of injustice and NRL are very unethical in their stance which also has a bigger negative influence on him and the game. Let's hope the best outcome for JDB and society at large.

Stewart wasn't stood down for two years. Shaun Kenny-Dowell wasn't stood down. Both found not guilty.

Suffice to say, Stewart isn't a fan of the no-fault stand down rule.

 

[Mr Angry]

No, because there wasn’t a known possibility that he could be a convicted rapist soon.
Now that is a possibility.

Ok.

May you never be accused.

I myself await the hearing, the judgement. Until then I cheer the guy as if would had he never been accused. Clearly we are of different mindsets.

It is a possibility he kill someone between now and then. It is a possibility you might.

 

[Glenn012]

Personally I could agree with the NRLs draconian policy if all those who initiated it and those in favor of it, including Greenberg, Beattie, that fat f**k from Melbourne and posters on this site agreed that they too would face serious, personal repercussions if Jack is eventually found not guilty.

 

[The Damo]

Ok.

May you never be accused.

I myself await the hearing, the judgement. Until then I cheer the guy as if would had he never been accused. Clearly we are of different mindsets.

It is a possibility he kill someone between now and then. It is a possibility you might.

Well if I get accused, keep my job and wages, have institutional support from my employer and peer group and have quality legal representation then I won’t feel hard done by except by the accuser.
I do differentiate between genuine known possibilities and purely speculative ones.
Each to their own.

 

[TruSaint]

Brett Stewarts case took 2YEARS!
The real issue in question is TIME
court cases take. I dont have the solution IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people, particulary those in society with prominent positions such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max. TIME frame say 3 months then ALL will be benefitting.

For Jack to be stood down a likely 2 years whilst claiming innocence is nothing short of injustice and NRL are very unethical in their stance which also has a bigger negative influence on him and the game. Let's hope the best outcome for JDB and society at large.

So for high profile / influential / public figures we speed up the justice system, but for average Joe, whom may depend on legal aid to mount a defence, we let the process run ?

Jack is an elite footy player, and through his hard work is in a position to engage the best counsel he can.

Such criminal charges take time to reach conclusion. Why should a footy player, or public figure have the justice system given up to " 3 months ", or any arbitrary time frame, when the rest of society cant?

 

[Mr Angry]

He did not keep his job...…..kind of the point.

 

[Willow]

I don’t know the facts either, but I know it’s possible he will be convicted. That possibility does change things for me. As I said I don’t think there’s a 100% right answer here, but I think people should consider the ethics of their choices in all things.
I don’t think he should play, that avoids people booing him if he’s innocent, and supporting him if he’s guilty. I think the potential negative impact of him playing then being convicted is greater for more people than the negative impact of him not playing.

And the reason I bring up kids is not because I think it lends moral weight to my argument. It’s because it forms part of my moral calculation. I watch dragons games with my sons. I talk to them about favourite players and try pass on my enthusiasm for the skills and dedication they have. Doing that Now for Jack, who is one of the players I have high regard for, when I know there is a genuine possibility he could be a convicted rapist soon, would be a breach of the ethics I try to live by. That’s gonna be different for others and that’s fine.

Of course due process has to respected. But I don’t think there’s a due process right to play first grade while facing charges this serious. There’s plenty of criminal charges I wouldn’t think should stop someone from playing though.

The only issue there is who decides the ethics? Gets into murky territory, and another reason why we should just allow for due process. You have a different view - you don't think due process applies here - so let's leave it at that.

The kids thing is a parent's choice. There'll always be difficult questions and the answers aren't always easy. I found it was impossible to protect them from all the ills of the world but I also found that kids can be pretty smart and resilient at times. When the tricky questions came up, and they inevitably do, we just answered in the best and fairest way we could. Each to their own.

 

[The Damo]

The only issue there is who decides the ethics? Gets into murky territory, and another reason why we should just allow for due process. You have a different view - you don't think due process applies here - so let's leave it at that.

The kids thing is a parent's choice. There'll always be difficult questions and the answers aren't always easy. I found it was impossible to protect them from all the ills of the world but I also found that kids can be pretty smart and resilient at times. When the tricky questions came up, and they inevitably do, we just answered in the best and fairest way we could. Each to their own.

I agree with you about the kids, and try to do that too.
Minor thing, it’s not that I don’t think due process applies. I think it is being applied, and suspending him from playing doesn’t breach it in a significant way. Happy to leave it, and appreciate the good faith discussion.

 

[getsmarty]

As de Belin challenges NRL ban, Sinclair back playing in Group Seven for Shellharbour

• 
  Tim Barrow

Dragons Den
As Jack de Belin fights to overturn his NRL playing ban while on an aggravated sexual assault charge, co-accused Callan Sinclair has been on the field for Group Seven club Shellharbour.

Back in court: Jack De Belin (right). Picture: AAP Image/Peter Rae

De Belin attended the NSW Federal Court in Sydney on Monday, the first day of a hearing to challenge the validity of the NRL's contentious "no-fault" policy, brought in to have players charged with serious crimes stood down.

Less than 48 hours earlier, Sinclair scored a try in the Sharks' 50-nil first grade thumping of neighbours Stingrays at Flinders Field, having also been part of the season-opening win against Warilla.

The Country Rugby League declined to comment on the matter on Monday, however, the NRL's "no-fault" policy does not extend to competitions under CRL jurisdiction.

The Mercury unsuccessfully attempted to contact Shellharbour for comment.


The ARL Commission introduced the new rule in March after a number of off-field allegations, with de Belin, Manly's Dylan Walker and ex-Parramatta and NSW State of Origin star Jarryd Hayne the first to be stood down.

De Belin and Sinclair were granted conditional bail after being accused of repeatedly raping a 19-year-old woman inside a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9.

The case will be mentioned in Wollongong Local Court on Wednesday.

A St George Illawarra and NSW State of Origin forward, de Belin fears his NRL career will be irreparably damaged unless the NRL's "draconian" no-fault stand down rules are overturned.

De Belin's barrister Martin Einfeld QC told Justice Melissa Perry on Monday the NRL's stand down rule was: "A harsh rule, an unfair rule, a draconian rule.

"It's unprecedented in any sporting code in Australia."

In action: Callan Sinclair (back row, second from right) after playing for Shellharbour against Warilla.


Einfeld told the court that there were grave fears for De Belin's playing future because there was no guarantee that his criminal case would be finalised before the end of 2020 season, when his Dragons contract expires.

De Belin's manager Steve Gillis testified his client would have trouble resuming his career if he was to remain on the sidelines for the remainder of his deal.

"I would expect he would be severely financially hit if he's not allowed to ply his trade in the next 18 months to two seasons," Gillis said.

"The player needs to showcase what he can do, he needs to be in the shop front window."


https://www.illawarramercury.com.au...-co-accused-sinclair-is-back-playing/?cs=3713

 

[SnowDragon]

I wonder if the legal team has brought up the cases of players like Mat Lodge?
As a sponsor, what would you think the differences are between an accusation and those videos?

Still not sure what I think of these rulings re Jack, but consistency is needed, and a club should NOT be disadvantaged by whimsical changes in rulings like the dragons are

 

[SnowDragon]

I don’t know the facts either, but I know it’s possible he will be convicted. That possibility does change things for me. As I said I don’t think there’s a 100% right answer here, but I think people should consider the ethics of their choices in all things.
I don’t think he should play, that avoids people booing him if he’s innocent, and supporting him if he’s guilty. I think the potential negative impact of him playing then being convicted is greater for more people than the negative impact of him not playing.

And the reason I bring up kids is not because I think it lends moral weight to my argument. It’s because it forms part of my moral calculation. I watch dragons games with my sons. I talk to them about favourite players and try pass on my enthusiasm for the skills and dedication they have. Doing that Now for Jack, who is one of the players I have high regard for, when I know there is a genuine possibility he could be a convicted rapist soon, would be a breach of the ethics I try to live by. That’s gonna be different for others and that’s fine.

Of course due process has to respected. But I don’t think there’s a due process right to play first grade while facing charges this serious. There’s plenty of criminal charges I wouldn’t think should stop someone from playing though.

I respect your post mate. It is hard that’s for sure.

With my kids, early to mid teens, I have used this as a discussion point;
1) to discuss the rape issue,
2) free choice and how to be a good or fair person...
3) not putting yourself or others in this position.., think morals
4) to discuss the ethics v legal v social media aspects of unclear situations
... out of such situations, maybe others get a chance to learn?

If Jack does get to play, I will try to cheer, but until proven innocent, I’ll be barracking for the jersey, and trying to ignore the charges. I hope the truth comes out

 

[Old Timer]

Brett Stewarts case took 2YEARS!
The real issue in question is TIME
court cases take. I dont have the solution IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people, particulary those in society with prominent positions such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max. TIME frame say 3 months then ALL will be benefitting.

For Jack to be stood down a likely 2 years whilst claiming innocence is nothing short of injustice and NRL are very unethical in their stance which also has a bigger negative influence on him and the game. Let's hope the best outcome for JDB and society at large.

JDB’s case doesn’t warrant to be elevated above any ordinary person who is facing the court
Everyone’s life is equally important so take a number and wait til it’s called.

 

[st penguin]

I don’t know the facts either, but I know it’s possible he will be convicted. That possibility does change things for me. As I said I don’t think there’s a 100% right answer here, but I think people should consider the ethics of their choices in all things.
I don’t think he should play, that avoids people booing him if he’s innocent, and supporting him if he’s guilty. I think the potential negative impact of him playing then being convicted is greater for more people than the negative impact of him not playing.

And the reason I bring up kids is not because I think it lends moral weight to my argument. It’s because it forms part of my moral calculation. I watch dragons games with my sons. I talk to them about favourite players and try pass on my enthusiasm for the skills and dedication they have. Doing that Now for Jack, who is one of the players I have high regard for, when I know there is a genuine possibility he could be a convicted rapist soon, would be a breach of the ethics I try to live by. That’s gonna be different for others and that’s fine.

Of course due process has to respected. But I don’t think there’s a due process right to play first grade while facing charges this serious. There’s plenty of criminal charges I wouldn’t think should stop someone from playing though.

Due process is an interesting aspect here. I mean, if you're a bus driver, does it really affect your life if you are stood down for 18 months? You would probably be given an admin job or something similar.

In this case, JDB is still an employee and can do everything he used to do, except take the field on the weekend. But he's at the peak of his career right now and will be out of the game for his best years. By the time the trial is over, he may be too old to play again (at least at the same level). Will the courts see that as too much of a punishment in this particular case? I don't know the answer to that.

As another example, say you were CEO. You could stand down from that position for a couple of years and still build a career after the trial if you are found not guilty. JDB doesn't have enough time to build up his career again because league players' careers are so short.

I have always been in favour of standing him down. If it was just for 6 months or even a year I think that's appropriate. However, in this case, he will probably miss two whole seasons and be about 31 by the time he returns? It's very harsh.

From a nerd point of view, I am very interested to see what the ruling will be here.

 

[possm]

The only issue there is who decides the ethics? Gets into murky territory, and another reason why we should just allow for due process. You have a different view - you don't think due process applies here - so let's leave it at that.

The kids thing is a parent's choice. There'll always be difficult questions and the answers aren't always easy. I found it was impossible to protect them from all the ills of the world but I also found that kids can be pretty smart and resilient at times. When the tricky questions came up, and they inevitably do, we just answered in the best and fairest way we could. Each to their own.

The courts had already decided that De Belin be released on bail and allowed to travel in order to continue playing football. The ARLC should have the lead from this determination rather than their own unsupported notion that De Belin would bring harm to the game by playing until his legal fight is over.

 

[st penguin]

The courts had already decided that De Belin be released on bail and allowed to travel in order to continue playing football. The ARLC should have the lead from this determination rather than their own unsupported notion that De Belin would bring harm to the game by playing until his legal fight is over.

I don't think you can conflate the two decisions.

The bail decision considers whether he is a flight risk. It does not mean the court thinks he should play football.

 

[Dragons 09]

I don't think you can conflate the two decisions.

The bail decision considers whether he is a flight risk. It does not mean the court thinks he should play football.

Didn't it go a little further than that? I thought that his requirement for reporting to police was relaxed so as he could fulfill his contractual obligations to play footy......or am i just imagining that?