Capitalist Justice and the Cardinal Pell Verdict
Written By: George Cunningham
On December 11th 2018, the highest ranking Catholic priest in Australia and ex-Vatican Treasurer, Cardinal George Pell, was convicted of five counts of child sexual abuse of two boys. The verdict in a Melbourne court represented a major victory for the victims of sexual abuse and a major step towards rooting out alleged systemic abuse of children within the Catholic Church in Australia. Joy turned to despair however when the High Court cruelly snatched this victory away on a technicality despite the Court of Appeals supporting the original verdict. Marxists would see this verdict in its rightful context: the decision of a system designed to protect private property and to resolve conflicts within the ruling class, not to seek justice for the oppressed.
“Pell’s case was effectively tried four times. First there was a hung Jury, then Pell was convicted, later his appeal failed, and now finally on appealing to the High Court he walks free”
The details of the crimes Cardinal Pell was initially convicted of were monstrous. According to the details of the charges laid against him, Pell used his authority within the church and as a caretaker to abuse two boys and keep them silent. The choirboys were on scholarships and therefore their education depended upon those Sunday proceedings where the crimes took place; the victims were inextricably tied to the church and therefore easy targets. In a move that Judge Kidd described as “breathtakingly arrogant”(1), Pell allegedly didn’t bother to lock the doors to the priest sacristy when the crimes took place since it was assumed that whatever occurred Pell’s position as Cardinal would protect him. In addition, Judge Kidd denied that Pell be tried merely as a man as was requested by his lawyers and since Pell explicitly used his power of authority, it was relevant to the case that his position of authority be taken into consideration.
Pell’s case was effectively tried four times. First there was a hung Jury, then Pell was convicted, later his appeal failed and now finally on appealing to the High Court he walks free. George Pell essential had four chances to avoid a lasting guilty verdict, something that is denied to ordinary Australians too poor to challenge a verdict all the way to the High Court. His final gamble paid off when the High Court ruled that the jury, and by extension the Court of Appeals, had made technical errors in the application of the law. The jury believed that Pell was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the normal standard of evidence in a criminal case. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals but upon further review the High Court disagreed saying in a summary that “….the jury, acting rationally, on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt”(2). The High Court’s opinion trumps that of any lower court or any jury so this is the result the victims are stuck with.
“Law is a mechanism that exists both to protect the existing system of exploitative class relations and a means of resolving conflicts between members of the ruling class”
The ideological apparatus of capitalism has manufactured the notions of law that citizens have internalised. In other words, people have these ideas about law floating around in their heads that have been put there through schools and media. There is this sense that law is something above and beyond society that applies equally to all and guarantees that there is justice. Law is treated as an almost material force that both ensures and enforces itself. Following this general belief in law is a vague understanding of the principles of law as expressed in popular culture and school curricula. Everyone has heard the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” or heard mention of “Miranda Rights” while watching shows like Law and Order. In countries like Australia there is a general sense among ordinary people that the laws that exist, no matter how unjust they are, should be enforced and a strong fear of being prosecuted influences people’s behaviour.
“When push comes to shove liberals will line up to defend the authority of the ruling class and the status quo against the working class”
Of course, Marxists see things differently. Although there are different Marxist theories of law that explain the origins of law and how it should operate in socialist societies in different ways, there is general agreement that the liberal propaganda surrounding law is sheer nonsense. Law is not something external to society but rather an integral part of its class structure under capitalism. It is a mechanism that exists both to protect the existing system of exploitative class relations and a means of resolving conflicts between members of the ruling class. It is not inherently just nor does greater enforcement of laws necessarily mean there will be just outcomes. Even bourgeois legal theorists often fail to take into account the simple fact that laws are made by members of a class society on behalf of a specific class. Under capitalism this is of course parliamentarians bought and paid for by the ruling class to legislate on their behalf. Laws that appear to be fair on the surface, especially when coupled with platitudes about all people being equal before the law, can still be biased against working class defendants. A good example of this is any instance where fixed rate fines are issued. A ten thousand dollar fine would destroy a family living pay check to pay check but mean nothing to even moderately wealthy people. Can we call it justice if unjust laws are enforced in a procedurally just way?
“Pell now walks free and returns to his previous positions of power and authority within the Catholic Church, while the victims are hurt and afraid”
Proponents of a liberal understanding of Rule of Law would likely see the High Court’s decision in the Pell case as a victory for procedural justice in the face of emotional mob justice. They would see the High Court stepping in to protect the “standard of proof”, regardless of how guilty the defendant seemed. This flies in the face of another liberal principle that a defendant has the right to be tried by one’s peers. However, when push comes to shove liberals will line up to defend the authority of the ruling class and the status quo against the working class.
Pell now walks free and returns to his previous positions of power and authority within the Catholic Church, while the victims are hurt and afraid. Perhaps we need to revisit the rule of law and how it is applied, but more importantly, who it applies to. As Marx points out in regard to the Lockean proviso, equality manifests as inequality, the ruling class overwhelmingly walk free of their crimes while the working class is locked behind bars.
Bibliography
1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pells-full-sentencing,-as-issued-by-peter-kidd/10897650
2 https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf