In 2016, Steven van de Velde pleaded guilty to three counts of raping a 12-year British schoolgirl. On Sunday, the registered sex offender was knocked out of the Paris Olympics.
He’s still going to be representing the team in the next competition. You guys need to make sure your government knows it’s not ok to send child groomer rapists onto the world stage to represent you. And his teammates seem to be ok with playing aside him again.
“If I can speak for him, after the match we lost, we were disappointed,” Immers said of his teammate Van de Velde. “But we said to each other: ‘Look what we did together. Look how hard we fought with all the attention.’ We stayed together. We cried together off the field and said, ‘OK, let’s just enjoy this moment.’ And we did that. So I’m happy we did it that way.”
Van de Velde and Immers will play together next in the European championships in the Netherlands right after the Olympics, and then the Dutch championships.
Sorry, but this is kind of fucked up. No offense to you personally, but my opinion of the Dutch just took a nosedive.
He was first extradited by the Dutch and also imprisoned in the Netherlands (as is normal in international crimes). It’s not like they sprung him from a UK prison.
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.
Oh I know. It’s disgusting, but it’s the law and you can’t retroactively change it. But they could, at the very least, not let the fucker on their Olympics team.
I’m pretty sure he would be free to drive across Schengen borders to France in a few hours anyway. Having a criminal conviction doesn’t usually revoke the right to free travel.
Do you think the Dutch prison system taught him not to travel internationally to give 12 year olds liquor so he could rape them? Do you think it did so in under a month?
I mean that is the idea of rehabilitation, yeah. I don’t know where you are getting “under a month” from. He was in prison for 13 months and was released on parole, which would probably also include some rehabilitation activities.
Apologies, I had read a source on lemmy saying he’d served 12 months of his sentence in England before being transferred back to the Netherlands, but I can’t confirm it at this time.
edit: Forbes and New York Times say he served a year in Britain and then had his sentence reduced upon repatriation.
And I know Britain didn’t prioritize his rehabilitation in any way.
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.
Implies they didn’t agree with the UK verdict in the first place.
Yep, hence everyone being upset that a child rapist was given a slap on the hand by their government and allowed to go to the Olympics. Makes the dutch look super fucking bad overall.
“Hey, he was convicted in another country, according to their laws on rape charges, but he’s really good at slapping a ball in the sand, so we’re just gonna pretend that whole “rape” thing never happened…”
To be fair, seeing all the media coverage of him probably doesn’t help the girl he raped, either. It would be better for all involved parties that he just quietly retired from public life.
He wasn’t even allowed to serve his full sentence and be rehabilitated. He was sent home from the UK after a year and the Dutch released him and claimed him rehabed. Meanwhile he refuses to show remorse, refuses to admit he did anything beyond a “mistake”.
Also why didn’t he stay in the Olympics village? Cause there are kids there and he’s a child rapist and his own government knows it. If you’re so sure he’s rehabilitated, go all the way and show us you mean it and let him babysit your kids.
Going to the Olympics is a privilege not a right. You lose certain privileges forever when you rape kids.
It’s not even about whether he’s rehabilitated. Even if he never even thinks about molesting another kid he should be shunned and criticized and certainly never put on a global stage. Being rehabilitated doesn’t un-rape a kid.
He’s just a douche, playing a sport. I feel like the attribution of what a big honor this is falls kinda flat when nobody really cares about most athlethes, just the countries that take home the prizes.
And while we’re on this, and leaving the question of his rehabilitation aside, if you don’t believe someone who let’s presume has been changed by the justice system and would be a regular member of society going forward cannot be in the public eye, what’s even the point of going through the justice system to reform people?
The stain of past actions surely never goes anywhere, but if people can’t even go on to live a similar life to an innocent, why bother to claim we want to rehabilitate people at all? Serving 30 years in prison wouldn’t unmurder a person, why not just give the guy the chair and be done with it? Not like he can show his face in public or be considered for his abilities ever again, only for his past.
It’s easy to defend a rehabilitative system of justice when the crimes are petty, but one must defend it in equal measure when the crimes are grave, and even when, in my opinion in this case, it kind of misses. Sometimes bad guys get off too easy, but if they never commit such an act again, did the system not do its job?
if you don’t believe someone who let’s presume has been changed by the justice system and would be a regular member of society going forward cannot be in the public eye, what’s even the point of going through the justice system to reform people?
Being famous isn’t a fucking right people deserve. He’s free to get a regular job (E: one that does not give him direct and personal access to children and other vulnerable people, nor any power or influence) and earn a living like everyone else.
As for the point of going through the justice system to reform people - it’s so that they don’t rape children again, not so they can continue their lives exactly where they left off consequence free, and definitely not so that they can represent their country on a global stage.
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.
if you don’t believe someone who let’s presume has been changed by the justice system and would be a regular member of society going forward cannot be in the public eye
That’s presuming a lot though.
Dude served 13 of his 48 months sentence (1/4). Of those 13 months, 12 were in England, and 1 was in the Netherlands before being released. How much reform did he get in 1 months? Enough to make up for repeatedly raping a pre-teen?
I don’t know about you, but I fucking doubt he’s changed if he’s not even publicly remorseful of his actions. I get the whole “served his time” argument, but that would require one to actually serve the time for the crime.
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.
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.
I definitely don’t agree with the last point there, I’ve known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful. This man has done neither, so I’m not willing to entertain that the system did it’s job. Especially when the system quartered the sentence of another nation for a violent crime against a minor.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it’s successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake". Especially with this argument:
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.
Sure, that’s all true. But I can’t imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn’t going to not be re-traumatizing. It’s also not a good look for the Dutch, since it shows they care more about sports than they do their image or the suggestion that they’re light on child rapists.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it’s successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake".
It’s not that I wanna call it that, it literally is punitive justice. You’re not putting any arguments down for why your approach would make things better for anyone involved other than “the perpetrator should just have been punished more”.
Like I get your point of view, that rapists generally get away with it too often, but that’s kind of immaterial to the argument at hand - this person didn’t just get away with it. They were caught, they were convicted, they served some time, the only issue is that it wasn’t enough time in your opinion and that they returned to a public life. But would more time really have made a difference? It’s arbitrary as hell, since if he had spent 10 years behind bars but never apologized and returned to play volleyball in the olympics, I don’t think you’d view him a lot more favorably. How do you settle on a just time in prison for ruining someone’s life? It’s all either arbitrary or subjective. Some would want him jailed for life, others think 20 years would be fine, other think 7, others want him dead, etc.
I definitely don’t agree with the last point there, I’ve known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful
My point wasn’t that there aren’t former criminals that are remorseful, my point is that the punitive justice system doesn’t care if they are. Reform is not the point and whether they come out a changed person is irrelevant. You serve your time, you get out. And frankly, a lot of the time, prison changes people for the worse. I don’t think you have any data to back up the point of view that more prison time is gonna make someone less likely to commit another offense in the future. If anything, they’re just more likely, since they have a hard time adjusting to life outside after a long time in jail.
Sure, that’s all true. But I can’t imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn’t going to not be re-traumatizing.
You can’t change the past. If she saw him mopping streets she would probably feel traumatized again, simply because of being reminded of it, not because of anything pertaining to the guy’s occupation.
This isn’t some national hero being cheered by people as he goes. The public hasn’t forgotten. People have been booing him during the game, his face is everywhere online with “rapist” plastered right next to it, negative articles are flowing, this isn’t a victory for him. Idk why this whole thread is pretending like he’s won at life or something just because he gets to be in a competition at the olympics. It’s probably done more to harm his life than if he hadn’t participated. And again, to be clear, I’m not shedding any tears for him over here, but I do feel the very strong tide of sentiment that he should just disappear somehow.
It’s like when people disingenuously say they’s fine with trans people existing but that they should exist elsewhere. You know that you wouldn’t even be okay with this guy serving you burgers. This same crowd would like him fired from any job.
He’s still going to be representing the team in the next competition. You guys need to make sure your government knows it’s not ok to send child groomer rapists onto the world stage to represent you. And his teammates seem to be ok with playing aside him again.
Sorry, but this is kind of fucked up. No offense to you personally, but my opinion of the Dutch just took a nosedive.
You dislike the Dutch now because their system of imprisonment is based on rehabilitation?
He was imprisoned by the UK, not the Dutch. The Dutch got him out of prison. After a year. For raping a 12-year-old multiple times.
He was first extradited by the Dutch and also imprisoned in the Netherlands (as is normal in international crimes). It’s not like they sprung him from a UK prison.
And exactly how long was he in prison in the Netherlands? For repeatedly raping a 12-year-old girl?
I totally agree with you and fuck this guy, but there is some context to his sentence here in the Netherlands:
From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/30/netherlands-child-rapist-olympics-steven-van-de-velde
Oh I know. It’s disgusting, but it’s the law and you can’t retroactively change it. But they could, at the very least, not let the fucker on their Olympics team.
100% agree. I’m Dutch and he’s sent there to represent me/us/the country, it’s fucking disgusting.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that none of the people in this thread defending him being on the team seem to be Dutch.
Nah, I hate them because their government sends known child rapists to other countries.
I hope you’re not from the US or the UK because I have some bad news for you…
I’m pretty sure he would be free to drive across Schengen borders to France in a few hours anyway. Having a criminal conviction doesn’t usually revoke the right to free travel.
Just how far will you go to defend child rapists?
Please point me to the words I posted in defence of his actions.
You seriously have a weird obsession with child rapists.
When did the conversation switch to the Vatican?
Do you think the Dutch prison system taught him not to travel internationally to give 12 year olds liquor so he could rape them? Do you think it did so in under a month?
I mean that is the idea of rehabilitation, yeah. I don’t know where you are getting “under a month” from. He was in prison for 13 months and was released on parole, which would probably also include some rehabilitation activities.
Apologies, I had read a source on lemmy saying he’d served 12 months of his sentence in England before being transferred back to the Netherlands, but I can’t confirm it at this time.
edit: Forbes and New York Times say he served a year in Britain and then had his sentence reduced upon repatriation.
And I know Britain didn’t prioritize his rehabilitation in any way.
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.
Yep, hence everyone being upset that a child rapist was given a slap on the hand by their government and allowed to go to the Olympics. Makes the dutch look super fucking bad overall.
“Hey, he was convicted in another country, according to their laws on rape charges, but he’s really good at slapping a ball in the sand, so we’re just gonna pretend that whole “rape” thing never happened…”
Yeah, that’s a good look.
Removed by mod
This has nothing to do with the system.
His victim tried to self harm, and now she gets to see him living his best life at the olympics.
Where is the justice to his victim who gets to live a life of mental hell while he gets to be on TV?
There are plenty of things he could be doing with his life other than the olympics and torturing his victim all over again.
To be fair, seeing all the media coverage of him probably doesn’t help the girl he raped, either. It would be better for all involved parties that he just quietly retired from public life.
He wasn’t even allowed to serve his full sentence and be rehabilitated. He was sent home from the UK after a year and the Dutch released him and claimed him rehabed. Meanwhile he refuses to show remorse, refuses to admit he did anything beyond a “mistake”. Also why didn’t he stay in the Olympics village? Cause there are kids there and he’s a child rapist and his own government knows it. If you’re so sure he’s rehabilitated, go all the way and show us you mean it and let him babysit your kids.
Going to the Olympics is a privilege not a right. You lose certain privileges forever when you rape kids.
It’s not even about whether he’s rehabilitated. Even if he never even thinks about molesting another kid he should be shunned and criticized and certainly never put on a global stage. Being rehabilitated doesn’t un-rape a kid.
He’s just a douche, playing a sport. I feel like the attribution of what a big honor this is falls kinda flat when nobody really cares about most athlethes, just the countries that take home the prizes.
And while we’re on this, and leaving the question of his rehabilitation aside, if you don’t believe someone who let’s presume has been changed by the justice system and would be a regular member of society going forward cannot be in the public eye, what’s even the point of going through the justice system to reform people?
The stain of past actions surely never goes anywhere, but if people can’t even go on to live a similar life to an innocent, why bother to claim we want to rehabilitate people at all? Serving 30 years in prison wouldn’t unmurder a person, why not just give the guy the chair and be done with it? Not like he can show his face in public or be considered for his abilities ever again, only for his past.
It’s easy to defend a rehabilitative system of justice when the crimes are petty, but one must defend it in equal measure when the crimes are grave, and even when, in my opinion in this case, it kind of misses. Sometimes bad guys get off too easy, but if they never commit such an act again, did the system not do its job?
Being famous isn’t a fucking right people deserve. He’s free to get a regular job (E: one that does not give him direct and personal access to children and other vulnerable people, nor any power or influence) and earn a living like everyone else.
As for the point of going through the justice system to reform people - it’s so that they don’t rape children again, not so they can continue their lives exactly where they left off consequence free, and definitely not so that they can represent their country on a global stage.
You rapist apologists are fucking gross.
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.
Lmfao, the site run by a rapist?? That’s your best comeback? 🤣🤣
It’d fit with your right wing ideals perfectly, don’t you see that?
That’s presuming a lot though.
Dude served 13 of his 48 months sentence (1/4). Of those 13 months, 12 were in England, and 1 was in the Netherlands before being released. How much reform did he get in 1 months? Enough to make up for repeatedly raping a pre-teen?
I don’t know about you, but I fucking doubt he’s changed if he’s not even publicly remorseful of his actions. I get the whole “served his time” argument, but that would require one to actually serve the time for the crime.
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.
I definitely don’t agree with the last point there, I’ve known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful. This man has done neither, so I’m not willing to entertain that the system did it’s job. Especially when the system quartered the sentence of another nation for a violent crime against a minor.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it’s successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake". Especially with this argument:
Sure, that’s all true. But I can’t imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn’t going to not be re-traumatizing. It’s also not a good look for the Dutch, since it shows they care more about sports than they do their image or the suggestion that they’re light on child rapists.
It’s not that I wanna call it that, it literally is punitive justice. You’re not putting any arguments down for why your approach would make things better for anyone involved other than “the perpetrator should just have been punished more”.
Like I get your point of view, that rapists generally get away with it too often, but that’s kind of immaterial to the argument at hand - this person didn’t just get away with it. They were caught, they were convicted, they served some time, the only issue is that it wasn’t enough time in your opinion and that they returned to a public life. But would more time really have made a difference? It’s arbitrary as hell, since if he had spent 10 years behind bars but never apologized and returned to play volleyball in the olympics, I don’t think you’d view him a lot more favorably. How do you settle on a just time in prison for ruining someone’s life? It’s all either arbitrary or subjective. Some would want him jailed for life, others think 20 years would be fine, other think 7, others want him dead, etc.
My point wasn’t that there aren’t former criminals that are remorseful, my point is that the punitive justice system doesn’t care if they are. Reform is not the point and whether they come out a changed person is irrelevant. You serve your time, you get out. And frankly, a lot of the time, prison changes people for the worse. I don’t think you have any data to back up the point of view that more prison time is gonna make someone less likely to commit another offense in the future. If anything, they’re just more likely, since they have a hard time adjusting to life outside after a long time in jail.
You can’t change the past. If she saw him mopping streets she would probably feel traumatized again, simply because of being reminded of it, not because of anything pertaining to the guy’s occupation.
This isn’t some national hero being cheered by people as he goes. The public hasn’t forgotten. People have been booing him during the game, his face is everywhere online with “rapist” plastered right next to it, negative articles are flowing, this isn’t a victory for him. Idk why this whole thread is pretending like he’s won at life or something just because he gets to be in a competition at the olympics. It’s probably done more to harm his life than if he hadn’t participated. And again, to be clear, I’m not shedding any tears for him over here, but I do feel the very strong tide of sentiment that he should just disappear somehow.
It’s like when people disingenuously say they’s fine with trans people existing but that they should exist elsewhere. You know that you wouldn’t even be okay with this guy serving you burgers. This same crowd would like him fired from any job.
deleted by creator
This:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/10020278