Double Standards in sex crimes involving priests in comparison to other people

I'm noticing an interesting trend in the reporting and the apportioning of blame when it comes to sex crimes against children. In the story below, there is no mention of liability by the justice system or the mother for the continual rape of a girl once her stepfather got out of prison.

Most concerning, was after the sexual abuse started, the man was jailed for eight months for similar crimes against his teenaged sister-in-law, which had happened some time earlier.

However, the jail stint did nothing to change his behaviour and when he returned to the house the regular rapes continued.

But, any story mentioning a priest, and suddenly someone (not the justice system or the police or the parents, btw) should have known and stopped him.

Dubbed Father F, the priest was first accused of sexually abusing young boys in the early 1980s in Moree, ABC's Four Corners reported on Monday night.

Arrested in 1987, he was brought to trial but the matter was dismissed by a magistrate because he judged the alleged victim Damian Jurd, who was then 15, as a witness whose credibility could not match the priest.

Father F was allowed to continue to serve as a priest in Parramatta, where he allegedly molested more altar boys.

The continued reports of sexual assaults at Parramatta prompted a meeting between Father F and three senior priests at St Mary's Cathedral in September 1992, Fathers Brian Lucas, John Usher and Wayne Peters.

The interesting thing here is, why weren't the assaults reported to the police? Instead the assaults seemed to only have been reported to the church in Parramatta. There also appears to be no further assaults after this date, so in effect, the assaults were actually stopped, unlike the first story in my post where the man returns to his home and keep raping his stepdaughter. Justice certainly worked well there - not.

The matter was never brought to the attention of the police or any relevant authority. Father F was banned from conducting Mass in 1992 but wasn't formally defrocked until 2005.

For Daniel Powell's mother, Renee, the saga has been devastating. Daniel, like Damian Jurd, killed himself after spiralling into a life of drug abuse. Both had received substantial payouts from the church but were haunted by their abuse and the fact the accused priest remained free.

''I want to see the mongrel prosecuted. The church should have stopped him in 1983,'' she said.

Claire Jurd, Damian's mother, said: ''He must be charged ... he's not a bit regretful about what he's done.''

It seems here that Father F, the priest accused of the actual abuse, will not be charged, because there isn't enough evidence to convict him, so it's a waste of time. But there is a chance of convicting the three priests who were privy to his confession in 1992 to abuse that had occurred 8 to 10 years prior.  Some of that abuse he had already been to court over and his accuser was considered to not have enough credibility for it to get any further.  I don't know why they didn't go to the police with this information - maybe they thought it was pointless, because unless the priest actually confessed in court, then nothing would happen.

All of this trying to get the people who knew about the abuse seems to be more aimed at securing another payout from the Church, and a way of keeping in the public mind that some priests abuse children, than an actual honest attempt to prevent further child abuse.

Not convinced? Well, what about this story in New Zealand?

Hutt Valley High School's associate principal has resigned amid fallout from a damning ombudsman's report into sexual abuse at the college.

But Steve Chapman says he did not step down because of pressure from victims' parents.

He had stayed on longer than planned to answer questions about his response to the 2007 attacks.

[...]

Nine boys were chased down by a gang of older pupils during breaks, partially stripped and sexually violated with objects including a screwdriver, scissors and drills.

The ombudsman's report labelled the attacks "systematic pack assaults" and criticised the school's response.

Mr Chapman, who was in charge at the time, downplayed the seriousness of the attacks and did not alert police, child welfare agencies or victims' parents.

In November, he apologised to the school board and admitted not disclosing serious details of the attacks to his employer after being alerted to them in files handed to him on behalf of parents in 2008.

The contents of the files only came to the school's attention last year during an internal review, after the ombudsman's report was made public.

The ombudsman called for changes to the education system and for anti-bullying initiatives to be made mandatory in all schools. He is due before the education and science select committee today.

Mr Chapman was formally reprimanded by the school board after a legal process.

Is Mr Chapman ever going to be charged by police for covering up abuse? Somehow, I doubt it. He's been reprimanded by the school board and has resigned. I'm sure everyone will think that is punishment enough. What about the boys that sexually violated other boys at the school. Are there calls for their prosecution? Nope.  Probably because there is no money in it.  Suing the school, if it's even possible, will just mean suing the taxpayer, and no one wants to do that, because then we all pay.

Related links: Jail didn't stop man raping stepdaughter
Catholic priests accused of abuse cover-up
Hutt Valley teacher quits amid sex abuse report 

And more examples of rank hypocrisy