By David S. Prescott, LICSW
The
2024 Paris Olympics are noteworthy for the presence of a participant convicted
of raping
a 12-year-old girl. Steven Van de Velde, now 29, was 19
at the time of his crime. It is rare for an Olympian to have this kind of
conviction on their record. What happened?
The crime took place when Van de Velde, who
is from the Netherlands, was in the UK. According to media accounts, at his
sentencing, Judge Francis Sheridan
told Van de Velde: ‘Prior to coming to this country you were training as a
potential Olympian. Your hopes of representing your country now lie as a
shattered dream.’ Van de Velde was sentenced to
four years in prison after he was extradited to
the UK and arrested in January 2016. He was incarcerated after his guilty plea
in March 2016. The court then allowed for his charges and
sentence to be adjusted in line with Dutch law, meaning the charge of rape was
changed to ‘fornication’. He was released from prison in 2017, having only
served one year of his original sentence.
From the media
coverage: “Van de Velde said a year later: ‘I
cannot reverse it, so I will have to bear the consequences. It has been the
biggest mistake of my life.’ The NSPCC [National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children] condemned the decision for Van de Velde to be released
three years early and said his ‘lack of remorse and self-pity is breathtaking’.
It added: ‘We can only begin to imagine how distressed his victim must feel if
she sees his comments.’ The Dutch Volleyball Association allowed him to
continue his career as a beach volleyball player.”
Van de Velde apparently
participated in some form of counseling (“involving self-insight and
reflection”). The Dutch Volleyball Association saw “no reason” to exclude him,
and the International Olympic Committee said it would not intervene. The media
further report that Van de Velde had represented
the Netherlands at the 2015 European Games, which took place between the time
he committed his crimes and when he was actually extradited to the UK. In any
event, he remains on a sex offender registry for life.
While one always
has to be careful with media reports, the undisputed aspects of this situation
call to mind interesting questions:
· Did anyone consider the needs of those affected? While it
would not be a fair comparison to having Harvey Weinstein
moderate the Academy Awards, one wonders where the wellbeing of those who are
harmed figure into these kinds of decisions. At what point do the risks of
causing further harm outweigh the benefits of having an advantage in volleyball?
· Given the global outcry against sexual abuse, is this how a
country wishes to represent itself? Having visited the Netherlands many times
and enjoyed every minute, I can attest that it is one of the most
forward-thinking nations on the planet. Nonetheless, at what point do we sacrifice
our credibility in calling out other nations where sexual abuse goes unchecked?
· Have we not learned the lessons of the immediate past? The
Netherlands is by no means alone in these kinds of scandals. Just two years
ago, we reported on a situation involving a Finnish Hockey player who sexually assaulted a young woman
while playing in the United States.
· Is Van de Velde the best role model for this sport?
From a distance,
it seems that the Dutch Volleyball Association acted purely in
its own interests. The optics are not good. The media coverage notes that Van
de Velde is married to a prominent volleyball player from Germany and his
brother-in-law plays for Germany’s national football team. All this calls into
question the role of political connections and privilege. Despite our best
intentions, are they giving a free pass to those who commit serious crimes
simply because they can win games on their behalf? Is that the best person to
represent their country on the world stage?
As one final consideration: it’s
worthwhile to place this in the context of other misconduct by Olympic
Athletes. Had Van de Velde used a performance-enhancing drug, he might have
been disqualified, been stripped of a medal, banned from further competition,
and received considerable public shaming (Remember when the entire Russian
Paralympic team was banned?)
It is impossible to know what an
accurate risk assessment might conclude, but Van de Velde likely does not pose
a particularly high risk for re-offense. One hopes that as a society we can be
compassionate and forgiving. Just the same, the appearances in this case do not
place the Dutch Volleyball Association, the Olympics, or anyone involved in a
good light. Given the circumstances, one might hope that Van de Velde would
move forward with a his life in a manner that those who were harmed might be
more at ease with.
As an outsider to the processes,
it seems clear that Van de Velde received exceptionally favorable handling by
the systems involved. It gives us pause to consider how many people are not
extended the same courtesy because, however much they may have to give back to
the community, our systems don’t give them the chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment