Denying that you committed a criminal act is not the same thing as denying the fact you have been convicted. Convicts may argue that they have been wrongly convicted, that theirs is a miscarriage of justice, etc. Sometimes they are vindicated, sometimes not.
I am more concerned about the 'establishment' forcing a chair onto the historic sexual abuse inquiry. The very establishment that covered up for offenders now want to manage the reputational risk of damage to them and their spiritual forebears by appointing someone from their own ranks.
What I am stating is that an innocent man cannot be rehabilitated for a crime he maintains he did not commit. He denies he committed the offence that he was and is innocent. The first road to rehabilitation is to be able to admit your guilt and then work with that.
i guess no two criminals can be judged the same. listening to a prog the other night, sure it was the ceo of timpsons talking, from what i could gather he employs a lot of ex cons, he sees no ill affect in his business
Officials at the Home Office have somehow persuaded their minister to appoint someone who was obviously unsuitable to chair the sexual abuse enquiry - twice over. Their objective, successfully achieved, must have been to apply egg to the face of Teresa May, twice.
Political point scoring over the trauma and pain of the very real sexual offending that took place. How very typical of those self serving pricks in Westminster . Hey so a few dozen, hundred, thousand kids got sexually abused and irreparably damaged but hey we made the Home Secretary look a fool.
Indeed. But then again it must have reduced the chances of Teresa May becoming Prime Minister at some later date.
Indeed. It is a sad feature of criminal justice systems that an innocent man wrongly convicted is actually placed in a worse position than a guilty man rightly convicted. In some USA states a defendant accused of first-degree murder faces the death penalty, but is offered a deal by the prosecution: sentence of death is ruled out only if he agrees to plead guilty to second-degree murder. This is like playing poker but for the highest possible stakes. What is the innocent man's best course?
Guilty or not,the guy is a professional footballer,and it should be the decision of a potential employer to decide whether he plays for them or not.He has served what the Law considers is a suitable punishment,and that should be the end of it. Many women are victims of rape,sometimes being subjected to terrible violence,but the media don't fan the flames of fury when their attackers are released into society... It appears they are only doing so in this case because he is a well paid professional sportsman,and some of stink-upkickers happen to be media personalities themselves.("Television presenter Charlie Webster announces that she has stood down as a patron of Sheffield United",for example). In the possible event that the CCRC overturn his conviction,I doubt there will be similar media pressure on clubs to employ him
This reminds me of the case of the film-star Roscoe ("Fatty") Arbuckle in the 1920's. After three trials he was eventually exonerated of any offence, and acquitted. But he still remained blacklisted in Hollywood and never worked again.
An interesting piece in The Independent today which gives another viewpoint. 'Ched Evans has served his time' - and other common misconceptions about the convicted rapist footballer - Comment - Voices - The Independent
Whoa. What a misleading piece. Inaccuracies and spin vie with each other for dominance. I have no sympathy whatsoever with men who mistreat women (whether you call it "rape" or not), but this article does no one any favours at all. It simultaneously fails to fulfil both its stated purpose and its underlying agenda. For a matter as serious as this, as important as this is, I'd prefer to read something from someone a little more informed and seasoned than the youngster responsible for this passive aggressive rant-disguised-as-wisdom. Still, it's a timely reminder why I refuse to read "newspapers", or whatever they are calling those rags these days. I don't generally enjoy writers whose compositional skills fall short of my own meagre abilities.
I think Ched Evans was stitched. How can you have a gang bang where one guy gets convicted of rape and one doesn't? And as stated, she was pissed out of her tiny. His defence team must have been shit.
