Personally,I think the blokes a bit of a shit bag....I mean,jumping on top of some random doris shortly after your mates had a bash? Dear oh dear,he must be a pretty dull character if he's a pro-footballer,as fit as a fiddle AND got a few quid,but he still couldn't pull a woman himself? He needs to take a leaf out of Peter Crouch's book,theres a feller who has made the most of his fame and fortune,because he's definitely no oil painting... But....the Judge handed down a prison sentence,he's served the percentage that most do and he's now out on licence,and as far as I know the penalty did not include a ban from playing professional football. So is it right that the media are whipping up this hysteria over him going back to playing? He has said he is innocent from day one,and if that is the case he has no reason to say any different...and occasionally Judges/Juries do get it wrong,so he may be innocent...or guilty.. His mate got treated differently,even though both men said the same thing,ie,the woman was up for it. And apparently she herself said she doesn't remember anything,and only went to the Police because her handbag was missing..or so it has been reported,anyway. The shrieking harridan from, (Sheffield something or other FC), on the Bbc sofa this morning proclaimed that he should take any job in football,but should not be able to play,citing that players are role models for kids.... To me,it sounds a bit like she wanted to keep him away from the lucrative part of football rather than anything else,ie,he should suffer a life-long financial penalty for his crime,in addition to time served...
Juries do not have to (or rather are not allowed to ) give any reasons for their verdicts, so we have no way of knowing exactly why the two defendants got different verdicts, one guilty and the other not guilty. However the verdicts do on the face of it seem to be inconsistent. There is no doubt that Evans behaved disgracefully, but the issue was whether what E did amounted to the offence of rape in law. Apparently E states that he still believes he was not guilty of rape, and I must say the conviction looks pretty marginal to me. This case is an example of the "Did drunk woman consent?" category of cases. It is well-established that if a woman is unconscious from drink she cannot possibly consent, so that sex with her must be without consent and therefore rape. It is also well-established that if a woman, although not unconscious, is so drunk that she is incapable of consenting then that too is therefore rape. Then there are less clear cases where it is a matter of dispute whether the woman was sober enough to be capable of consenting, or so drunk that she could not have consented. E's case is one of the latter type. The problem is that the not guilty verdict for the other defendant implies that the woman must have been capable of consenting, whereas the guilty verdict for E implies that she must have been too drunk to consent. Therein lies the inconsistency. It is conceivable that the jury may have presumed that the woman, sober enough to consent, might have consented to one man but not to the other. If so, that presumption does not seem to be based on the evidence, and it is not a presumption a jury ought to make. Some people seem to be arguing that because E still maintains his innocence, refuses to show contrition for guilt, and is trying to pursue an appeal, he should therefore be punished additionally by denying him employment. It seems to me that is an undesirable line to take.
I find the constant "footballers are role models" line very irritating. They are not role models, they are youngish blokes who are good at kicking a ball and running around a bit. As with many men of similar ages, they are prone to push the limits of what they can get away with and given the opportunity to get laid by an attractive hanger on, they will. They are no more role models than drug and booze addled musicians. If anyone should be a role model it is those that take every opportunity to tell us how to behave, politicians and religious leaders etc. Luckily , as we all know, you can rely on a politician or religious leader not to let you down. Obviously I am not suggesting that rape is the same as taking advantage of a woman throwing herself at you at a club or hotel. It is not against the law to be a professional footballer after having been convicted of rape and served your prison sentence but I have to say I would not want to employ , work with or be in a team with a convicted rapist but then the same goes for a car thief, a wife beater, murderer etc. etc. regardless of whether they apologised or not. Shame appeals take so long.
I am surprised it has taken this long for us to get on to Ched Evans. The case, from what I have heard, was very unsavoury with Evans coming out of it very poorly, as did the young woman concerned. He has served his sentence and should be free to return to professional football if any club wishes to employ him, the fans should then be equally free to boycott that club. Frankly I couldn't care less. Whatever mess he is in is entirely a result of his own lack of judgement.
He would have been better off keeping a low profile until his appeal was done and dusted, then worry about his future depending on the result. At the moment he is a convicted rapist and I don't blame anyone not wanting to employ him.
That sir is one of the most erudite and unbiased summations of the information to hand I have read anywhere. You have my admiration and respect. Andy
He's a footballer, that alone for me would be enough to invoke capital punishment, given that he is also a rapist death cannot come soon enough
They certainly shouldn't be role models, and I'm pretty sure not one of them wants the responsibility of being one. But they are role models, because of the way the media and fans treat them, because of the status their huge pay packets affords them. And because of that they have a duty to behave in the eyes of the public. Unfortunate, but true.
Of course there are different types of rape. The two main types of rape trials are (1) 'identity' cases and (2) 'consent' cases; the Defendant can run one or the other type of defence, but he can hardly run both. * In identity cases, it is undisputed that a sexual attack amounting to rape occurred and the issue is whether the Defendant is the one who did it; D's defence is "Not me". * In consent cases, it is undisputed that sex took place between D and the woman and the issue is whether this took place with or without her consent; D's defence is "She agreed". The Evans case is a sub-type of the 'consent' type, where the extent of the drunken-ness of the woman makes it hard to determine whether consent was possible or not.
No. If she was unconscious (for example), she naturally would not be able to give useful evidence of what had happened but it would still be rape. It is not OK to have sex with an unconscious woman!
Good point. If a guy has been convicted of an offence of dishonesty, you would not employ him in a position of trust looking after other peoples' money. If a guy has been convicted of an offence involving children, you would not give him a job involving contact with kids. If a guy has been convicted of dangerous driving, you would not want to employ him as a bus driver. Footballers merely run about kicking a ball in front of a crowd. In that occupation, what difference would it make to have been guilty of even a pretty serious offence?
but they are not different types of rape.....rape is rape......they are merely different issues needed to be proved...
Obviously. Assuming she was conscious but can't remember anything, how can she remember giving consent or not?
You're right; they are not exactly different types of rape. It's more accurate to say they are different types of rape trial, depending on the nature of the prosecution evidence and the type of defence relied upon by the defendant. If the defendant pleads guilty the trial is usually much simpler, obviously.
That's right. If she was too drunk to remember what happened, she cannot remember whether she consented or not. So the prosecution case is that she was so very drunk that she was incapable of consenting, and therefore could not have consented and did not consent. The defence case is that she was still sober enough to be able to consent (even if she later forgot this), that she did in fact consent as attested by the defendant in his own evidence, and that his evidence is uncontradicted. It is up to the jury to decide as a fact whether she was too drunk to consent, or sober enough to be able to consent. In Evans & another the jury seems to have decided both ways at once.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point during the sexual act, if you then continue you are guilty of rape. He is currently on licence from prison and could be recalled at any time if his behaviour is of sufficient to concern to probation . He is also required to register as a sex offender, and will be proactively managed by a public protection unit. This will have consequences to his ability to travel, stay away from his registered home address etc; this is on top of any licence conditions imposed. He may also be subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order with its own tight prohibitions. The furore is understandable if he is completely in denial that he committed a criminal act. How do you rehabilitate a person that denies the very fact of his conviction? That is not possible. He is unemployable due to the nature of professional football, would you want him representing your brand? Or even being associated to it? No team will risk the loss of sponsorship for one individual, this then puts teams into an incredibly awkward dilemma . He is not being stopped from working, in the same way that a teacher or police officer would be, only not in his chosen profession. The vast majority of men whom sexually offend are in absolute denial as to their offending and will always turn the blame on others and quite often the victims. I have heard all the excuses, and his is nothing new. I am struggling to understand the fuss.
