You, like most people in this thread, are confusing support for a person with support for a form of punishment which is humanitarian and rehabilitative, rather than vengeful and punitive.

Is it? What do you read into that?

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.

I get your point, but a convicted criminal who is rehabilitated could also be considered a good role model. Not saying he is, but not really a means to disqualify him.

Well on that same vein, the IOC unilaterally disqualifying a country’s chosen athlete is likely to be even more politically problematic.

I also saw those statements on his wiki. Also saw some about it being “the worst mistake of his life”. I don’t imagine he would get parole without showing remorse.

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 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.

Nice slogan, but back in reality, there’s a phenomenon documented in psychology literature called Projection. It’s usually those who rabidly accuse others and calling for harsh punishments that are guilty of those same behaviours they are condemning.

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

This is exactly the point I’m trying to make, but am getting downvoted because I apparently sound like a “child rape apologist”.

I understand the crime is emotionally charged, but that doesn’t mean anyone convicted of it should just be thrown in the oubliette.

I agree, it seems like a small amount on the face of it.

But at the same time, I’m more inclined to trust the judgement of the prison system (at least in The Netherlands) as to whether he is ready to return to society.

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.

What do you mean? He served 13 months and got out on parole. He’s publicly expressed remorse, but that isn’t exactly conclusive. I assume there would have been some genuine remorse inside, otherwise there would be no parole.

My point is, if you stop anyone who has been to jail returning to normal society at all, then why let them out at all? You might as well just put every criminal in jail for life, or just kill them straight away.

Yeah but that’s not really what my question was about.

Why shouldn’t the Dutch delegation select him? And what rules would prevent a selection of any convicted criminal?

Or are we talking about the IOC specifically banning people convicted of child rape offences?

You dislike the Dutch now because their system of imprisonment is based on rehabilitation?

I’m very conflicted about this whole thing. On the one hand, yeah it’s kind of a scandal and people have every right to be booing him every time he touches the ball.

On the other hand, he was convicted, sentenced, did time and is now back in society apparently showing remorse. People are calling for his career to end and various wishes of death on him. Why can’t he continue his life?

Are we supposed to lock up all criminals forever? Kill them? Just not allow them to follow their chosen career after getting out? Or is it just sports they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in?

On what grounds would he be removed though? Is there a reason countries shouldn’t select athletes that have been to prison?

This is the part of Plague Inc. where you suddenly ramp up the deadlines mutations.

For a second I thought you were talking about the hit, but now I realise you mean the police chief part.