By Kasia Uzieblo, Ph.D.
*Disclaimer: We realize that David Prescott has written a blog about the case of Van de Velde before. However, during her summer break and unaware of David’s blog, Kasia Uzieblo wrote her own blog about the same case. Since this blog offers an additional perspective, we decided to publish this 2nd blog as well.*
What a
crazy summer of sports. After the UEFA European Championship and the Tour de
France, sports enthusiasts like me can now fully enjoy the Olympic Games in
Paris. For many athletes, the Games are one of the—if not *the*—highlights of
their sports career. This is also true for 29-year old Steven Van de Velde, a
Dutch beach volleyball player who was selected to represent his country in
Paris. However, his participation is overshadowed by his past, a past he
carries with him daily and can never escape, as shown by British and -broader-
international media coverage.
When he was
19, he was a rising star in the Netherlands; more than
that, he was described as one of the greatest talents Dutch beach volleyball
had ever known. During this period, he met a girl via Facebook. He stated that
he was going through a turbulent time and found understanding and support from
her. When he found out that she was not 16 but 12, he broke off contact for a
while, but this break did not last long. One day, he booked a ticket to
England, where he met her, gave her alcohol, and had sex with her multiple
times, according to Steven. He also stated that he soon realized he had made a
big mistake. The facts came to light when the girl went to the hospital due to
physical complaints. Steven Van de Velde confessed his crimes and received a
four-year prison sentence in 2016 for child rape. After serving 12 months in a
British prison and one month in a Dutch prison, he was released. The conviction
was also adjusted to Dutch law, and the charge of rape was changed to
fornication. He tried to rebuild his life and hoped for a second chance: “I
did what I did. I can't undo it, so I'll have to face the consequences. You can
judge, of course. It's the biggest mistake of my life,” he
said in a TV interview. After his release, he
gradually rebuilt his life, under professional guidance and supervision from
probation. He is currently married and has a child. Experts
estimate his chances of reoffending as very low, even negligible.
However,
international media and various organizations, including national
sports organizations and women's safety groups, do not support this second
chance, nor believe in the safety measures taken (e.g., the Dutch Olympic committee
(NOC*NSF) and Van de Velde decided that he would not enter the Olympic Village
and that he would not engage with any press, amongst others). Many newspapers
describe him as a child rapist, a convicted rapist, and a sex monster. Many are
extremely concerned that he will make new victims in Paris. For example,
Ju’Riese, CEO for the US Center for Safesport, said in a
statement to CNN: "deeply concerned that anyone
convicted of sexually assaulting a minor could participate in the 2024 Olympic
Games. With teams from around the world about to convene in Paris, many of
which include minor athletes, this sends a dangerous message that medals and
money mean more than their safety. Participation in sport is a privilege, not a
right[1]."
The story
of Steven Van de Velde illustrates the complex and controversial nature of
second chances for people convicted of serious crimes, often sex offenses.
Despite his efforts to take responsibility and rebuild his life, he continues
to face his past, which he also accepts. This raises the question of whether
and to what extent someone deserves a new chance to lead a normal life and
achieve professional success, for example, in sports.
For many
who work with such clients, it is a familiar story. As professionals, we want
to support the restorative and reintegration processes as well as possible,
often encountering the limits of these processes and facing numerous dilemmas.
The call for increasingly severe penalties for sex offenders remains loud.
However, by focusing on punishment, we seem to be avoiding important discussions:
What happens after punishment? Is there a post-sentence period possible/acceptable?
How do we, as a society, but also as sports organization, scouts, schools,
academic institutions, film industry, etc., deal with people who have committed
a sex offense but are trying to rebuild their lives afterward? We want them to
acknowledge the harm they caused and to take responsibility for their crime and
reintegration process, but if they do, is that enough? Can this person hold a
public position anymore and is this person allowed to achieve (professional)
success? After
how much time does someone deserve a second chance? And what should or could
that second chance look like? And if second chances are not possible: will we
then develop a uniform policy for everyone who has exhibited transgressive or
criminal behavior? Or will we only focus on people who have committed a sex
offense (and of whom this is known)? In sum, what does restoration and
re-integration truly means for people who committed sexual offences?
We clearly
struggle with these questions. I do not claim to have all the answers to these
questions either. Each case is a difficult balancing exercise where, as a
professional, you constantly navigate between the well-being and safety of
(potential) affected persons, the (criminogenic) needs and well-being of the
person who committed the offense, and society. The "easiest" way is
to completely exclude the person, to cancel them, as it were. These actions can
give us the—albeit false—feeling that we are in control, that we can take
revenge on the person in question, that we are fighting for justice. However,
we know that such cancel culture can have the opposite effect, causing enormous
harm to the person in question, their family and friends, and may even hinder
the recovery process of the persons with lived experience. It can even
paradoxically increase the risk of recidivism.
It is not
the intention of this blog here to make a plea for or against the participation
of the aforementioned athlete; nor is it the intention to disregard the
suffering caused by people who commit such acts. On the contrary, in
formulating answers to the previous questions, it is essential to centralize
the recovery process of the persons with lived experience and give them a voice
in the debate. However, assuming that they all want their offenders to be
punished forever is not giving them a voice, but is deciding for them what is
best. From my conversations with many persons who have been affected by various
and sometimes the most gruesome crimes, I have learned that their wishes and
needs can vary greatly. In which way the voice of the affected person in
question was heard in this particular case, I can only guess.
But there
must be a debate. We know that numerous individuals cause harm, that many will
remain in society, even after the behavior or offense has become known, and
that, if imprisoned, most of them will return to society one day. It is
therefore a utopia to believe that we can avoid such questions. We have noticed
this over the past years with, for example, the recurring discussions about various
people who have exhibited (sexually) transgressive behavior and/or have
committed sexual offences within the entertainment industry, educational
institutions, the Church, etc. Time and again, we encounter the same questions,
the same dilemmas.
The space
for debate and for an in-depth discussion is however seldom there, as the
current case shows. For the media, it certainly seems much easier to avoid difficult
discussions and to focus solely on the offenses and on click-worthy headlines,
rather than addressing the more difficult questions. But I truly hope that this
case will invite at least some to start or continue nuanced conversations with family,
friends, colleagues, policy, journalists. Also, I truly hope that this case will
(finally) encourage institutions such as -but certainly not limited to- sports
organizations and educational institutions to reflect on this and to build[2] a consistent,
well-founded, and thoughtful policy which also includes guidelines for dealing
with the persons who have engaged in the transgressive/criminal behavior, and
this - where feasible and desirable – based on evidence-based rehabilitative
and restorative practices.
In any
case, these are complex questions that require complex thought processes and
often complex and nuanced answers, where we will keep encountering issues as
long as we avoid these conversations.
[1]
But see, EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf
(olympics.com) in which participant in sports is being described as
a human right.
[2]
Or strengthen if a policy is already available.
No comments:
Post a Comment