Child rapist Steven van de Velde weeps in first interview since Olympics outrage
mirror.co.uk
Van de Velde was booed and jeered while competing at the Games. Dutch Olympic officials went to lengths to protect him from the press during the event.
He has now opened up to Dutch publication NOS about his experience, admitting that while he anticipated backlash, the intensity of it took him by surprise. "I definitely had a moment of breaking down, both before the tournament and during it. But I thought 'I'm not going to give others the power to bully me away or get me away'.
I'm sorry... you feel like you're the wronged party here?
Is this dude a fucking sociopath?
Probably, considering he groomed a child in another country over the internet before he traveled there and raped her repeatedly.
He was proclaimed innocent of grooming. Because he did not groom her. Do people not know basic details of a case before they start spouting nonsense on the internet?
Excuse me? What do you think happened, she seduced him?
She was twelve years old.
He's pulling out a smaller version of the DARVO tactic. Sexual predators do that quite a bit when they get caught.
Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.
"The audience was wrong to boo me! They're the bullies!" Meanwhile he completely ignores why he got booed.
Well maybe you shouldn't have raped a child, dipshit.
Multiple times. And only got a year in prison for it.
Multiple was unknown to me. Even worse. And this article was the first time I saw that he travelled to another country to do so. Wow. I wonder how this has affected the victim.
Yes. Don't let anyone have power over you, like a 19 year old would over a 12 year old. Don't let them bully you, rapey mcrapeface.
Bully you? Motherfucker, you raped a 12 year old multiple times and kept going when she said you were hurting her.
This, I support criminal rehabilitation but only if you've served your time correctly, never expected this to be condoned in Europe amongst other places, I think he deserves to at least serve his full conviction time
I'd be a little more understanding if he seemed remorseful at all. He does not.
And he still hasn't apologized for what he did.
He also doesn't consider himself a pedophile despite grooming and raping a child multiple times.
Am I the problem? Has this been the result of my actions? Have I done something henious? No, it's the audience that's wrong - this fucking chode
Boo-fucking-hoo. I'm so sorry people weren't so dazzled by your athletic ability to ignore the fact that you're a rapist. I'm sure the 12 year old you raped is also real fucking worried if her rapist is getting his feelings hurt. I mean, rape is one thing, but bulling? I mean, we have to draw the line somewhere. /s
"I'm not going to give others the power to bully me away or get me away"
Uhhh, WHAT?!?
Some people haven’t been punched in the mouth and it really shows
some mistakes you pay for your entire life. just like your victim(s). next time you do a streetview search of your neighborhood for sex predators, remember that all those pins covering the map only represent the people who got caught
Alright.. now I'm willing to bet that most people on here, if asked, believe strongly in criminal rehabilitation. But the comments here make me think 'maybe not'.
Would someone please explain that?
Sure. He hasn't taken any real responsibility nor faced adquete consequences for raping a child. He blames others for "bullying" rather than making any attempt to understand the outrage.
If his crime had been committed decades ago, and he faced appropriate sentencing, and made steps at reconciliation with the community this would be a more nuanced conversation.
He was arrested, prosecuted and convicted. He pled guilty. He served his prison sentence and underwent psychological treatment. He has taken extensive measures to avoid contact with children. This all happened over a decade ago. He repeatedly reflected on what happened and regrets it to this day.
The child in question only seems to regret he was arrested, and cut herself because of it. She doesn't seem to think negatively about him at all, and because of that he was not convicted of grooming.
At this point, what the fuck more do you want from him? He's fully rehabilitated. He knows what he did, why it's bad and has done more than enough to prevent it from happening again. This "moral outrage" is just stupid and seems to be largely fuelled by right-wing British tabloids, because here in the Netherlands nobody seems to give a shit.
What's your message here? "Rape a child, rape a dozen, we don't care because we're going to ostracize you from society forever?" Why would anyone bother to rehabilitate then?
That is very different from simply not wanting him to be a representative for his country and potential role model for aspiring athletes in one of the biggest media events of the world though. Being welcomed back as a member of society is one thing, but there is a point to be made about expecting more of Olympic athletes than your average member of society.
You really do not understand the psychology of a rape victim.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202105/why-some-rape-victims-continue-to-date-their-rapist
How do you know what she thinks today? There is a reason many countries do not consider a 12-year-old to be able to consent to sex. They don't understand sex. They don't understand rape. They may have only been menstruating for less than a year.
Why are you defending a pedophile so hard in this thread?? He didn't even serve his full sentence since he was pulled out of the UK early. What we want from him is an apology for what he did, but it doesn't look like we will ever get that since he is now playing victim as the rapist. Maybe if he actually served his full sentence things would be a little different, but he got a small slap on the wrist for one of the worst crimes someone can commit. He should never have been sent to the Olympics as a representative of the Netherlands.
I am glad you are saying this. I have started typing a similar comment several times, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable avalanche of comments from what seems to be the lemmy hive mind on this subject.
no he didn't, so stop advocating for these types of people to represent, anything!
Yes, child rapists should be ostracised forever. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect the children in our communities. Sorry if this is hard for you to understand but the safety of innocent children is infinitely more important than the poor delicate feelings of a child rapist. If they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn't do the bad thing.
Also, he didn't even serve the full sentence given by the court that sentenced him. So no, he did not serve his punishment. That's a load of shite. His government extradited him and let him off easy. And then they effectively spat on the whole punishment again by letting him represent his country anyway.
It doesn't matter how long ago it was. The harm was still real. And it screams "we care more about perpetrators' rights than victims." Or maybe they don't care because the victim wasn't Dutch. I don't know.
I do however agree that they shouldn't go after his family. He committed the crime, not them. Even if I am disgusted by the very idea of anyone willing to sleep with a nonce. Still not my business.
Sounds fine to me. Put them all in a cage forever. We don't need people in society that have to have "raping kids is a bad thing" explained to them. If I was confident the justice system wouldn't falsely convict people I'd be arguing to execute them.
So lock them up forever, or kill them?
What do you do when innocent people end up getting convicted?
Why do we need people in society who need "raping adults is a bad thing" explained to them? Or "killing kids is a bad thing"? Or "killing adults is a bad thing"? Or "drinking and driving is a bad thing"? Or "robbery is a bad thing"?
I already covered this in my post. If we could determine guilt with 100% accuracy kill them. We can't so settle for locking them up forever. If they're found to be innocent later they can be released and compensated for their time. For raping adults and killing kids the same criteria as raping kids should be applied.
These are all very different from rape or harming children and there can be other factors to consider regarding motive that would have to be taken into account when doing the sentencing. For instance in the Gary Plauché case. He murdered the man who kidnapped and molested his son. If that's his threshold for murder, it's unlikely he would re-offend (and he didn't for the rest of his life).
So we don't need rapists (incl. of adults) or child murderers in society because they can't be rehabilitated. But people who murder adults can serve their time and be welcomed back into society...am I following what you're saying?
Are we counting it as the age of majority? Murder a 15/17 year old, imprisoned for life, murder a 16/18 year old, regular sentence?
Rape an adult, life imprisonment, murder an adult, regular sentence?
Apparently not. I said you have to look at the context of the murder to determine how to handle them appropriately. I even gave you an example of one where with mitigating circumstances. If it's unlikely the murderer can be rehabilitated lock them up forever too. As for what's considered a child I don't have a good answer, I suppose again, it would have to be contextual.
No sympathy for him from here, but this is an interesting conversation about justice.
Is it his responsibility that the justice system gave him the sentence it did?
Who gets to decide what is adequate consequences, how long ago the crime should have been, what is appropriate sentencing and what is appropriate steps of reconciliation?
I agree with the gut feeling that he was sentenced lightly, but as the previous comment said, how do we combine that with a belief in the rehabilitation of criminals?
There needs to be some work on the part of the criminal. They need to at minimum show remorse and attempt to make amends with the community.
Makes sense. But does this community know whether he has done so? My understanding is that the crime was committed a decade ago, and that he admits fault. I assume nobody here followed it at the time.
It seems this community has turned very quickly to an un-nuanced discussion with very little data.
Raping a kid is very un nuanced.
Absolutely, but the morality of said rapist competing at the Olympics a decade later, after having served his sentence and possibly having been rehabilitated is a pretty nuanced subject, wouldn't you say?
What does it matter? He was sentenced and served time. Wasn't it enough, or what's your argument here?
I don't think rehabilitation is just serving time and being done with it.
That's what it's supposed to be...
If you’re going to be an apologist for a predator at least understand the situation. It looks like you are arguing just to be contrarian- not a good look in this case, highly insensitive given the type of crime we are discussing.
He did not serve his full eight year sentence. He was transferred back to Holland from England to serve the remainder of his eight year sentence - and was released the same year
So to answer you: No he absolutely did not serve his sentence
First, don't call me an apologists, you don't know the first fucking thing about me or my beleifs.
Second, it was a four year sentence, not eight years.
Third, yes, he did serve his sentence and was released.
I absolutely believe in rehabilitation. I also don't believe that a little over a year in prison for repeatedly raping a child is enough time to rehabilitate someone who did that. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, he's done things like say it was a mistake, but he has yet to apologize for it. That, to me, says he has not been rehabilitated. In fact, I would say that one of the first signs of rehabilitation is to apologize for your actions.
Isnt that the court or parole boards fault though?
Like when they released him on parole should he have said "no, I need to stay in jail because 1 year is not enough"?
If you think he didn't serve enough time, that's a flaw in the system. But then, that doesn't answer my question...
I'd argue being an Olympian, which requires relying on a mix of public funding, ones own resources (usually family or sponsors), and gives an international platform, media coverage and potential prominence is a privilege given quid pro quo for behavior befitting that privilege.
Post-rehabilitation and having served one's time - There's no reason this person couldn't practice their sport in private, there's no reason this person couldn't be a private citizen with a regular office job.
However, I'm sure you could agree that they shouldn't ever be allowed to work with children again, so there must be a line of compromise you agree with.
I'd also argue that knowing that one's mistakes - although paid for - may have lifetime consequences - are also part of the rehab process. Like how alcoholics can never have one drink again.
I get the impression that many lemmy users don't have a lot of life experience. Everyone deals in absolutes and ideals, no one seems to see the nuance.
The question of "should this guy be allowed to compete" is a complex one, and anyone who thinks there's an easy answer is an idiot.
It's the exact opposite of a complex question. People who rape children shouldn't be allowed to represent their nation at the Olympics. That's a hard line in the sand that normal people are perfectly fine with. It's amazingly reasonable. No one who rapes a child gets rewarded with honor and respect. If they serve an appropriate punishment and show remorse, two things he never did, you can return to life. You should not however be honored on the national and even worldwide stage that is a privilege that should be lost forever. Don't like it? Don't rape kids. Not a lot of nuance needed.
This is exactly the kind of perspective I'm talking about. Well done.
"Everyone deals in absolutes" sure sounds a lot like an absolute. It's easier to fall into using absolutes in short form, instantaneous internet comments.
No, that's a generalisation.
Not for pedos.
/Thread
Every child rapist should be booed, and worse, whether they're an olympic athlete, a former president, whatever
booed? no. child rapists should be killed. fuck these monsters setting up kids to a life of mental health and substance issues
He can cry all he wants.
"It's certainly not nothing that's been fired at you. I think it's a shame, it's been 10 years, I've played more than 100 tournaments. I understand that it's an issue, should someone with such a past be allowed to stand on such a podium? That's a legitimate question."
He seems somewhat self aware…
Controversial take: If people don’t want pedos back in society, don’t let them back in society. Change the laws.
Drop them off at point nemo equipped with a swimsuit and a banana.
Here's another controversial take. We did something like that before, where we excluded a group of people from society because we didn't like them. In the US we called it "Separate but Equal" and "Jim Crow". I think it was called Apartheid in South Africa. Now I understand you aren't suggesting we segregate people based on their race but rather their past convictions but it is similar and will have a similar outcome. Though you may want to limit it to a specific type of crime I will guarantee that it will expand to encompass more crimes and more people will be convicted of those crimes so that they can be excluded from society as well. Even here in the US there are some Republicans talking about adding teachers to the sex offender list if they talk about the wrong topic to their students.
You are seriously comparing punishing pedophiles to Jim Crow laws? Are you really comparing the abuse and mistreatment of black people to the punishment of pedophiles? Do you have any idea how that makes you sound?
Did you even read my post? Here is what I said:
I was pretty clear on what I said. Segregation is bad no matter your excuse. If they did their time in prison then they return to society. If you don't like how much time they served then argue for a longer sentence without it being cruel and unusual punishment. Further excluding them from society after their sentence is up does no good except make some people feel better. Why not do that for all crimes from the terrible ones like murder and manslaughter to DUIs and fraud. Kick everyone out of society so we can have only people with clean records. But since you came to my reply with your outrage why don't you elaborate on why you are upset. What problems do you have with what I said?
You can argue rehab vs punishment, but what you are being downvoted for, correctly in my view, is for comparing people who were convicted for crimes according to law directly with people who never did anything wrong in first place.
You may say that everyone who finished serving a sentence is equal to anyone else before the law, but that may not be the case in practice, there are lots of legitimate reasons for people to stigmatize e.g. if they personally don't agree with the sentencing length.
That may or may not be fair, but it is what it is.
Stigmatizing someone just because of the way they look is just wrong, people may have tastes in who they want to hang out with, but it is not equivalent to naturally fearing an ex-convict.
Everyone: “Rape is bad”
You: “Have y’all heard of racism?”
Rapist vs segregation?.... Really.
This is like boomers saying calling them boomers is the same as the N word.
You’re right it will be abused. I would like to say, in no way was I advocating for anything. I personally feel that once a person has completed their sentence they should be done. Period. Pedos disgust me but if they’re done with their sentence that’s it. They’re done.
^🎻
Sure sign of mental illness is the idea that somehow you are the victim when you raped a child.
Why are they even interviewing him, he should be shunned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoRBVG0Jtso
The man recognizes it's within his interests to show remorse.
Does he truly feel it? We'll never know.
He's not showing remorse at all. He never has. He's bummed he got booed at the Olympics.
This is a bit of an interesting conundrum ...
Granted, I do not know the details of the crime for which he plead guilty and was sentenced. Was it a violent rape? Or was it a concensual get together but she was far to young and he was slapped hard for it? Now I don't condone it either way but it might give nuance to how he feels about it.
On one side, he, and society overall see it as he served his sentence (not all of it but that is not his fault) and is rehabilitated, he made changes to his life after that and made sure he is not near minors alone again, now even has a family of his own.
But, I really think it's wrong to think rehabilitation means you can stand on a podium for admiration, or be in a place that strives for excellence in rhe public eye.
This is where he and the people around him should have realized that, no, no matter how good he is in his sport, he should just not be a competitor in the olympics as a shining example of greatness.
Rehabilitation means to be allowed back into society, in a menial job out of view and not in a spotlight of any kind.
It is definitely not a full reset on your life and you can do whatever, thinking people mostly forgot what you did.
So the bullying boo's are quite justified imo and he should have expected this backlash because he sought the spotlight and admiration for his greatness in sport. And it shows he thought it a deserved thing for his ego following the years of hardship he went through after making a big mistake when he was young.
A 12 (TWELVE) year old cannot consent in the UK. So that's a strawman argument.
FTFY. It was statutory rape. He groomed a 12 year old, and slept with her multiple times. It wasn’t just a spur of the moment thing; It was planned, and he went out of his way to convince the victim that having sex was her idea.
To clarify: He was sentenced to several years where the crime happened, but was extradited to his home country after only a few months. After extradition, he didn’t serve any time. So he only served a few months total.
He had repeatedly refused to even acknowledge it during the games, and tried to downplay it every single time he was directly asked. Not even so much as a “yeah I messed up but I’m doing my best to make up for it.” Just straight up refusal to engage. Refusing to even admit you messed up doesn’t really tell the public “yes this person has been rehabilitated.” And again, he only served a couple of months for the crime.
The Olympic Games are mostly minors, and most of the athletes live and sleep in close proximity to one another for the duration of the games. The Olympics are also pretty notorious for the massive orgies that happen after hours. They even have special beds (which the athletes always complain about) designed to only hold the weight of one person, because they couldn’t find better ways to stop all the athletes from having hardcore sex parties every night. Almost as if cramming a bunch of the world’s most physically fit teens into a close space and forcing them to sleep in one giant hotel will lead to rampant sex.
He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn't, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn't stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.
So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don't know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn't just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There's a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.
Also, he's never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he's said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He's much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren't really relevant to his case because it doesn't appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He's merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.
Thank you for elaborating on the backstory, seems I did not know half of the past of the case.
Tried a short google but there was no old in depth information about the case back then.
All in all it is at least a strange thing that the people around him thought it was a good idea for him to attend the olympics and enabled him to do it.
::: spoiler Daily Mirror - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Daily Mirror:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/vandevelde-olympics-paris-volleyball-interview-33455460
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/not-allowed-olympic-chief-slams-33307070 ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Preface: I am not defending any action done, or the people that act on impulse or through desire.
If someone were to come to you and admit that they're ashamed they like children in a sexually gratifying way, and stated that they never intend to act on those thoughts. How would you react?
I'm expecting kneejerk reactions. Surprise me, Lemmy.
he did not only find minors attractive; he tortured and raped a minor for days nonstop, and got out after 1 year only. I'd hate to be that young kid watching her rapist get paid and cheered representing her country.
I am not sure where you got the torture for days from, there was none of that mentioned in the case, nor what he was sentenced for.
he raped her in a motel over several days.
I'm not asking nor defending that in any way. I am challenging the typical way people look at individuals who are attracted to minors. There are people out there who are ashamed and scared. They know it's wrong. They don't act, yet the impulse is there, and with it the anxiety. There is a stigma even against them, those who can find help in treatment, but are labeled right alongside those who commit atrocities and act on that desire.
It's anger. Rightfully so. Often displaced.
Paraphilia is considered a disorder for a reason. It can be treated, and it is important to make the distinction.
I will die on this hill.
You see the problem is you are posting this altogether by itself rational argument in an irrational place; under a post in regards to a convicted and known rapist, therein implying that you wish to excuse that rapists actions.
While it is correct that intrusive thoughts are simply human nature, acting on them is not. Harming children in any way is not acceptable and should not be excused. That distinction was already made here, as it wasn't about intrusive thoughts at all.
Case in point, I believe that you are either very confused, very stupid, or rage baiting.
I do this on purpose. Calm and rational people will attend calm and rational debates. I don't actually expect to receive rational responses in a thread like this. My only goal is to plant the potential for a rational response when the normal reaction is anger.
So if I had to choose one, I'll go with very stupid. :) I've been called worse by those who claim I am in support of the act of pedophillia, when I am in support of treatment of those who have not taken action, and against the label and stigma produced by our society which stops these individuals from coming forward.
As a culture we equate action and desire without action as the same thing in these circumstances. People then who might seek help do not for a very real fear of their life, potentially literally, ending.
I'll take very stupid in a semi-relevant thread if it helps even one person decide to seek treatment. Because that decision will stop harm for themselves, and importantly stop potential harm to a child in the future. Whether harm was maliciously intentioned or not.
I’d tell them to get help from a professional.
People can’t choose who they’re attracted to, but they are responsible if they ever act on it.
If society wants to truly protect children, we need to ensure paedos don’t become abusers/rapists. That means creating an atmosphere where people can feel more comfortable going to get the help they need.
Yes, precisely. Thank you. This is a charged topic and because it's so culturally brittle, I feel we must be more willing to have these discussions. Even if there is never a good time nor place to do so.