and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
i didn't realise she was unconscious ... wow that's the end of that
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
Say I go on a lads holiday and bring a girl back to my room. Does the fact she came back for consensual sex with me mean that she was 'fair game' to the mates I was sharing a room with? Of course it doesn't. I don't understand where the grey area is in this.
on the basis of what you say cafcfan then realistically no one should have pissed sex with their partner in case they go wonky on them
It's not what I say, it's what the law says. And yes, that's right, you've got it. But you could add in case they were too drunk to give consent and you were too drunk to realise.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
This is from the CPS guidance: Section 74 defines consent as 'if he* agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:
Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question. Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice. The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
The emphasis is mine but anyone who has sex with another person that is blitzed (whatever state they themselves might be in) is taking a risk. Everyone should understand that.
* for the sake of clarity, "he" in law means both he or she, it's not a typo.
Haven't read much of this thread. I think the sponsors of any potential club he might try to sign for will play a huge role in this case. I hope Charlton don't sign him and I won't turn up for any match which involves 'his team'.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
Say I go on a lads holiday and bring a girl back to my room. Does the fact she came back for consensual sex with me mean that she was 'fair game' to the mates I was sharing a room with? Of course it doesn't. I don't understand where the grey area is in this.
this is exactly it and exactly why mcdonald was found not guilty and ched was found guilty. She willingly went back to a hotel room with clayton mcdonald, why else would you willingly go back to a hotel room with some one you've just met? Ched turned up and thought she was "fair game" as you say. So you're in a situation where you're heavily drunk and two much stronger people are saying for you to have sex with this person who's just turned up. You're in a hotel, no one knows where you are. You start to panic. You start worrying about what will happen if you refuse. They might hurt you, or rape you anyway. So you let it happen. This is still rape.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
Say I go on a lads holiday and bring a girl back to my room. Does the fact she came back for consensual sex with me mean that she was 'fair game' to the mates I was sharing a room with? Of course it doesn't. I don't understand where the grey area is in this.
this is exactly it and exactly why mcdonald was found not guilty and ched was found guilty. She willingly went back to a hotel room with clayton mcdonald, why else would you willingly go back to a hotel room with some one you've just met? Ched turned up and thought she was "fair game" as you say. So you're in a situation where you're heavily drunk and two much stronger people are saying for you to have sex with this person who's just turned up. You're in a hotel, no one knows where you are. You start to panic. You start worrying about what will happen if you refuse. They might hurt you, or rape you anyway. So you let it happen. This is still rape.
do we know if she was unconscious or started to panic , i thought i read in a report she didn't know whether she'd had sex at all with either of them the next morning
Michael Burke on the radio stating the victim did not come out of it with any credit. Getting slated for saying that. He is not allowed to express a judgment on her morals because she was in no fit state to consent to being shagged by a second complete stranger in a short space of time, so it follows she was raped. That is the law, Evans probably didnt understand it but that is no excuse. Burke questions if that excuses her behaviour that night .
I think there is a moral lesson for young men. Never shag a young lady you have only just met if she has had anything approaching a skinful. You could also say that young women should adopt the same moral stance despite the much lower risk of it constituting rape by them. In fact to be on the safe side forget the words after "if" because you wouldn't necessarily know if drugs had been taken with the effect that consent is not possible.
You could also add never do this at all if you already have a nice girlfriend.
My issue with the “he shouldn’t be allowed to play again” demands is that it seems entirely arbitrary.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
i didn't realise she was unconscious ... wow that's the end of that
That is the problem,people making uninformed comments when not in possession of the full facts. He was tried in a British Court in front of a jury who were in possession of the evidence.
For me the main question here is whether or not he did it (he is screaming to high heaven that he is innocent of rape - anyone seen the Shawshank Redemption?). If he is 100% guilty and the appeal fails, then I am on the same bandwagon that I wouldn't want him anywhere near my club nor playing in the English football league. Simple.
My only question mark is that a LOT of faith is being put in the justice system. I mean, a jury could be made up of a load of people off this board (very unlikely, but a jury is not put together based on what football team somebody supports). My experience on jury service was that there are a heck of a lot of very dodgy people in this world and it scared me that people like that are massively responsible for deciding whether or not someone is guilty. I suppose that is what we have to go on.
The fact that he is not letting go of trying to clear his name is the only thing sticking here. Not whether or not a rapist should be playing football (either for us or someone else) as that is more clear cut.
Nobody has answered.
What IF (IF being the key word) he is innocent of that particular crime? Running an appeal would surely cost a fortune so he must feel he has a case.
He has been found GUILTY, everything else is just waffle.
There must be hundreds and thousands of examples in the UK justice system where people were wrongly convicted. Everything else wouldn't have been just waffle to them.
I would at least like to wait for the outcome of an appeal but even then the full evidence wouldn't be in the public eye.
The full evidence was in the public eye before. Perhaps if you were so concerned about Evans being wrongly convicted you should have attended court and listened to all of the evidence. I doubt there will be an appeal. There would have to be fresh evidence. Evans saying 'I didn't do it' isn't enough. From entering the hotel room without it being his, entering without a key to do so, coercing a hotel employee to let him into the room, to his mates filming it, from the girl being comatose while he forced himself upon her why would you think he wasn't guilty? I assume you'd be of the same opinion if it were your sister? Your girlfriend?
If Evans does ever make a comeback he is going to get an enormous amount of stick from crowds up and down the country. He and Sheffield United, basically a well respected 'ancient' club, will need a lot of inner strength to put up with that. Evans will get stick not just from the stands but also from opposition players. IF he ever comes back, I doubt if his comeback will last too long
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
Say I go on a lads holiday and bring a girl back to my room. Does the fact she came back for consensual sex with me mean that she was 'fair game' to the mates I was sharing a room with? Of course it doesn't. I don't understand where the grey area is in this.
this is exactly it and exactly why mcdonald was found not guilty and ched was found guilty. She willingly went back to a hotel room with clayton mcdonald, why else would you willingly go back to a hotel room with some one you've just met? Ched turned up and thought she was "fair game" as you say. So you're in a situation where you're heavily drunk and two much stronger people are saying for you to have sex with this person who's just turned up. You're in a hotel, no one knows where you are. You start to panic. You start worrying about what will happen if you refuse. They might hurt you, or rape you anyway. So you let it happen. This is still rape.
I'm not sure this is completely the case here. She doesn't remember the night because she was so intoxicated. She didn't give consent out of fear, she wasn't in a fit state to give consent at all. Alcohol doesn't always have an immediate effect. She may have been coherent with Clayton McDonald but by the time Evans turned up verging on unconscious. They both left her in the room McDonald before Evans slept with her, in the morning she woke up unaware of how she got there or what happened. She asked the night porter who told her what happened and that he heard someone having sex in the room, at which point she contacted the police fearing she had been raped. McDonald and Evans were arrested at the station and admitted what happened, although they said it was consensual. Evans defence relies on her giving consent to McDonald and therefore being able to give consent to him, but he is the only person saying she gave this consent.
Evans did not have a key to the room, he was not invited to the room but by his own admission went to see who the girl was that his friend had brought back. Once that door closed and McDonald left we only have Evans word what happened. McDonald actually asked the porter to keep an eye on the girl after he left because he was worried about her and the state she was in.
On Evans website they actually admit that if Evans hadn't said he had sex with her then there would be no case as she couldn't remember the event. This is the main reason his case didn't even reach appeal last time. His team freely admit he slept with the victim who was in a state whereby she was not fit to give consent.
They also claim she was after a big pay day based off tweets sent when people were being prosecuted for violating her anonymity. This is wafer thin as the victim never went after Evans for compensation. She just tried to get away from it all, and Evans supporters still hound her.
There is no real case for appeal. She was in a state where she couldn't give consent. Evans needs her to say she was and did.
@DamoNorthStand this all comes from his website and coverage of the case at the time, all the news now focuses on Evans appeal so you have to dig back a few years to get info on the case now.
and i'm not making light of it , i can't see how anyone can judge going back in time at what point someone would be giving consent or not in the situation where alcohol and drugs are concerned
The point is he has no contact with her until she was unconscious. She could never have given consent before as she hadn't been in contact with him.
Say I go on a lads holiday and bring a girl back to my room. Does the fact she came back for consensual sex with me mean that she was 'fair game' to the mates I was sharing a room with? Of course it doesn't. I don't understand where the grey area is in this.
this is exactly it and exactly why mcdonald was found not guilty and ched was found guilty. She willingly went back to a hotel room with clayton mcdonald, why else would you willingly go back to a hotel room with some one you've just met? Ched turned up and thought she was "fair game" as you say. So you're in a situation where you're heavily drunk and two much stronger people are saying for you to have sex with this person who's just turned up. You're in a hotel, no one knows where you are. You start to panic. You start worrying about what will happen if you refuse. They might hurt you, or rape you anyway. So you let it happen. This is still rape.
I'm not sure this is completely the case here. She doesn't remember the night because she was so intoxicated. She didn't give consent out of fear, she wasn't in a fit state to give consent at all. Alcohol doesn't always have an immediate effect. She may have been coherent with Clayton McDonald but by the time Evans turned up verging on unconscious. They both left her in the room McDonald before Evans slept with her, in the morning she woke up unaware of how she got there or what happened. She asked the night porter who told her what happened and that he heard someone having sex in the room, at which point she contacted the police fearing she had been raped. McDonald and Evans were arrested at the station and admitted what happened, although they said it was consensual. Evans defence relies on her giving consent to McDonald and therefore being able to give consent to him, but he is the only person saying she gave this consent.
Evans did not have a key to the room, he was not invited to the room but by his own admission went to see who the girl was that his friend had brought back. Once that door closed and McDonald left we only have Evans word what happened. McDonald actually asked the porter to keep an eye on the girl after he left because he was worried about her and the state she was in.
On Evans website they actually admit that if Evans hadn't said he had sex with her then there would be no case as she couldn't remember the event. This is the main reason his case didn't even reach appeal last time. His team freely admit he slept with the victim who was in a state whereby she was not fit to give consent.
They also claim she was after a big pay day based off tweets sent when people were being prosecuted for violating her anonymity. This is wafer thin as the victim never went after Evans for compensation. She just tried to get away from it all, and Evans supporters still hound her.
There is no real case for appeal. She was in a state where she couldn't give consent. Evans needs her to say she was and did.
@DamoNorthStand this all comes from his website and coverage of the case at the time, all the news now focuses on Evans appeal so you have to dig back a few years to get info on the case now.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
My issue with the “he shouldn’t be allowed to play again” demands is that it seems entirely arbitrary.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
True, but is his victim not suffering in perpetuity? She has to live the rest of her life with what happened, should he not have to live the same amount of time with some sort of consequence? He wants to go back to life as normal and resume his football career, should he not have something of, not equal but lesser (his football career), value taken from him as consequence for his actions? The punishment does not fit the crime.
While this is one side of my view, on the previous page I set out why I felt he should not be allowed to return to a position of influence and should be made to face the same restrictions as everyone else who committed a heinous crime such as rape. He should be rehabilitated but that does not mean he gets all his privileges back as if nothing happened.
My two cents. This isn't about his, his girlfriends or our interpretation of rape. By the letter of the law the victim was not in a fit state to give consent and therefore it is rape. No grey area, no ifs or buts about it. That is why he is guilty and was found so by a jury of his peers.
I've seen the website trying to proclaim his innocence, I've read their "case". They focus on the fact that she was able to walk into the hotel. They don't refer to his mates videos which were used at the trial. He's already had one leave for appeal turned down while he was inside. He's been found guilty and in all honesty the verdict is likely to remain the same.
On his return to football, I don't believe he should be allowed to return. Just because Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick, Marlon King, Troy Deeney were allowed back does not mean this scumbag should. I'm pretty sure people looking back will see those cases and go "well s--t, we f---ed that up". Now is a time for football to stand strong and set an example that this behaviour is unacceptable. Let's not fall behind the curve like the NFL has in the states.
In response to those saying he has served his time and should be allowed to get on with his life I say this. If anyone else in a position of influence did this they would not be allowed to return to their former job. A CEO, a politician, a judge etc would have to report it and then lose their job. He should be rehabilitated, no doubt, but rehabilitation does not mean you get all your privileges back and get to act like nothing happened. If Sheffield United were approached by a convicted rapist for any other position they would refuse them the role, but because he is a footballer he gets treated differently? He has every right to make his way in the world now, but he should face the same rules as everyone else.
Finally, for those of you who are blaming the victim, or saying she should take responsibility for it because she was drunk, there aren't the words to describe how much you sicken me. You have no right. You can take responsibility for you actions when drunk, she can take responsibility for hers, but what you can't do is put Ched Evans actions on her. She was not fit to give consent and yet he committed the act anyway, that is all on him. Yet you want to blame her for his actions? His choice? She cannot remember that night, how can she be fit to give consent? The only person who claims she did give consent was Evans. Your attitude of "she was drunk, she has to accept what happened because of that" is sickening. Your attitude of victim blaming is what is wrong here, not her state of inebriation. Your attitude is the reason so many of these crimes go unpunished, the victim is made to feel it is their fault that someone forced themselves upon them, took that choice away from them. Until this view is changed then more crimes will go unpunished. Ched Evans committed the crime here, not the victim. She was drunk, that gave him an opportunity, but it didn't force him to commit a crime. He chose to.
Each and every one of goes through each day with the opportunity to commit a crime, the difference between us and Evans is we choose not to. He was found guilty of sleeping with this girl without her consent, that is rape regardless of the reason she couldn't give consent. He chose to do that, not her.
For those of you that want to blame the victim for this, go take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. Then go look at your daughter, wife, mother or sister. Look them in the eye. And you tell them, that if a man forces himself upon them, and they've been drinking, then it is their fault. Not his. They have to take responsibility for it, by drinking they gave him the right to do that, because that is what you are saying. It is sick.
Evans can go find himself a job, but he should do it like everyone else. No special treatment for being a footballer.
I agree with almost all of this. I am unsure about whether he should be allowed to resume his footballing career, however having been found guilty by a court of law then before he comes back he should acknowledge his crime and apologise to the victim, not just for the rape but also for the malicious campaign his supporters have and continue to wage against her.
If we the public are only willing to accept the guilty verdicts that we want to then there is no place for a legal ssytem in this country.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
The only grey area if any would be the situation with McDonald, because as you say it is a valid interpretation that her going with him willingly was signalling consent - maybe this wasn't so but it remains a possibility. BUT she did not at any point enter the room WITH Evans, or have any reason to suspect he would even show up, so she could not possibly have willingly given informed consent to him whilst as drunk as she was.
Personally I find Evans' actions indefensible and if it was my decision, at the minimum I would have had him banned from football for the entire duration of his sentence, not merely the part of it he spent behind bars. Once that time is up, any club who wishes to employ him can do so, but I would think less of them whoever they were.
well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
Personally i think that if Evans has been convicted and served his time he should be allowed to get on with his life and profession .I am not sure what the terms of his license /probation are but they are pretty loose it seems .There seems no remorse/contrition from him and this is the sad thing .If he does have a PR man /agent i think he should get someone very different though .
My issue with the “he shouldn’t be allowed to play again” demands is that it seems entirely arbitrary.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
True, but is his victim not suffering in perpetuity? She has to live the rest of her life with what happened, should he not have to live the same amount of time with some sort of consequence? He wants to go back to life as normal and resume his football career, should he not have something of, not equal but lesser (his football career), value taken from him as consequence for his actions? The punishment does not fit the crime.
While this is one side of my view, on the previous page I set out why I felt he should not be allowed to return to a position of influence and should be made to face the same restrictions as everyone else who committed a heinous crime such as rape. He should be rehabilitated but that does not mean he gets all his privileges back as if nothing happened.
But your answer supposes that being denied the chance to play football is "not equal but lesser (his football career), value" to being raped. How did you come up with that comparison ? How could one even compare the trauma of being raped to being stopped from working in a particular profession ?
And on what criteria could it realistically be applied across a legal system which has to set guidelines for the punishment of all offenders in this country not just Ched Evans ? If it couldn't then it is, again, an entirely arbitrary punishment that has been dreamt up for this particular case.
Personally i think that if Evans has been convicted and served his time he should be allowed to get on with his life and profession .I am not sure what the terms of his license /probation are but they are pretty loose it seems .There seems no remorse/contrition from him and this is the sad thing .If he does have a PR man /agent i think he should get someone very different though .
there won't be. If he shows remorse then that is practically an admission of guilt and he is insisting he isn't guilty, except of cheating on his girlfriend that is.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
The most nauseating video I've ever seen. Stupid girlfriend sitting there not even looking at camera, He's done more damage with this than just saying nothing let legal process take its course.
Football will take him back this is the industry that re employed lee Hughes and Luke McCormack . And idiot parents sit there saying players are role models. Do me a favour
My issue with the “he shouldn’t be allowed to play again” demands is that it seems entirely arbitrary.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
True, but is his victim not suffering in perpetuity? She has to live the rest of her life with what happened, should he not have to live the same amount of time with some sort of consequence? He wants to go back to life as normal and resume his football career, should he not have something of, not equal but lesser (his football career), value taken from him as consequence for his actions? The punishment does not fit the crime.
While this is one side of my view, on the previous page I set out why I felt he should not be allowed to return to a position of influence and should be made to face the same restrictions as everyone else who committed a heinous crime such as rape. He should be rehabilitated but that does not mean he gets all his privileges back as if nothing happened.
But your answer supposes that being denied the chance to play football is "not equal but lesser (his football career), value" to being raped. How did you come up with that comparison ? How could one even compare the trauma of being raped to being stopped from working in a particular profession ?
And on what criteria could it realistically be applied across a legal system which has to set guidelines for the punishment of all offenders in this country not just Ched Evans ? If it couldn't then it is, again, an entirely arbitrary punishment that has been dreamt up for this particular case.
Exactly, I'm saying it isn't equal. The victim will suffer for the rest of her life, in no way does being banned from football compare to this.
My point is that he should face the same restrictions as every other rapist. If any other rapist applied to work at Sheffield United then their cv would go straight in the bin. Also, you said banning him from football was punishing him in perpetuity. I was trying to argue that was the victim not already suffering in perpetuity? Why should a rapist suffer less than his victim?
The sentence does not fit the crime. Rapists should face far more severe punishment for their crimes. But that is a discussion for another day.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Comments
She must have drunk a hell of a lot in between getting out the cab and the act taking place. I am not aware of the timescales in between each point.
This is from the CPS guidance:
Section 74 defines consent as 'if he* agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:
Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.
Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
The emphasis is mine but anyone who has sex with another person that is blitzed (whatever state they themselves might be in) is taking a risk. Everyone should understand that.
* for the sake of clarity, "he" in law means both he or she, it's not a typo.
I think there is a moral lesson for young men. Never shag a young lady you have only just met if she has had anything approaching a skinful. You could also say that young women should adopt the same moral stance despite the much lower risk of it constituting rape by them. In fact to be on the safe side forget the words after "if" because you wouldn't necessarily know if drugs had been taken with the effect that consent is not possible.
You could also add never do this at all if you already have a nice girlfriend.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
Evans did not have a key to the room, he was not invited to the room but by his own admission went to see who the girl was that his friend had brought back. Once that door closed and McDonald left we only have Evans word what happened. McDonald actually asked the porter to keep an eye on the girl after he left because he was worried about her and the state she was in.
On Evans website they actually admit that if Evans hadn't said he had sex with her then there would be no case as she couldn't remember the event. This is the main reason his case didn't even reach appeal last time. His team freely admit he slept with the victim who was in a state whereby she was not fit to give consent.
They also claim she was after a big pay day based off tweets sent when people were being prosecuted for violating her anonymity. This is wafer thin as the victim never went after Evans for compensation. She just tried to get away from it all, and Evans supporters still hound her.
There is no real case for appeal. She was in a state where she couldn't give consent. Evans needs her to say she was and did.
@DamoNorthStand this all comes from his website and coverage of the case at the time, all the news now focuses on Evans appeal so you have to dig back a few years to get info on the case now.
While this is one side of my view, on the previous page I set out why I felt he should not be allowed to return to a position of influence and should be made to face the same restrictions as everyone else who committed a heinous crime such as rape. He should be rehabilitated but that does not mean he gets all his privileges back as if nothing happened.
If we the public are only willing to accept the guilty verdicts that we want to then there is no place for a legal ssytem in this country.
Personally I find Evans' actions indefensible and if it was my decision, at the minimum I would have had him banned from football for the entire duration of his sentence, not merely the part of it he spent behind bars. Once that time is up, any club who wishes to employ him can do so, but I would think less of them whoever they were.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
My heart goes out to her.
And on what criteria could it realistically be applied across a legal system which has to set guidelines for the punishment of all offenders in this country not just Ched Evans ? If it couldn't then it is, again, an entirely arbitrary punishment that has been dreamt up for this particular case.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
He's done more damage with this than just saying nothing let legal process take its course.
Football will take him back this is the industry that re employed lee Hughes and Luke McCormack . And idiot parents sit there saying players are role models. Do me a favour
My point is that he should face the same restrictions as every other rapist. If any other rapist applied to work at Sheffield United then their cv would go straight in the bin. Also, you said banning him from football was punishing him in perpetuity. I was trying to argue that was the victim not already suffering in perpetuity? Why should a rapist suffer less than his victim?
The sentence does not fit the crime. Rapists should face far more severe punishment for their crimes. But that is a discussion for another day.