It is interesting however that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, even though the result of the crime is the same (and certainly no less distressing for the victim's family/friends).
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
The distinction relates tothe intention at the time of the crime.
How do you rape someone by accident?
Im going to share an example of what I think NYA means.
In most crimes you have 2 elements, the intent (mens rea) and the action (actus reus). So murder, you dont need to intend to kill someone, you can intend to commit GBH and if they die as a result (without an intervening cause) then you have comitted murder. so your pub example could be enough depending on a variety of factors such as what you believed the effect of that punch would be, but if you thought you would commit GBH and the victim dies, then according to common law you are a murderer.
What is the intent of rape? To intend to have penetrative sex without the other`s consent. This is in flux and Evans is a high-water mark in terms of how far the accused has to go to verify the capacity of the victim to consent. The actus reus is penetrative sex BY FORCE. (although this force doesnt need to amount to more than the force required to achieve penetration)
Your accident example could mean that you were genuinely under the belief that sex was consensual but that, objectively assessed, you didnt do enough to verify this. Evans is a high-water mark in law in terms of the role of alcohol and the fact that the judge has said drunk people dont have the capacity to consent.
personally, i think any move to increasing the duty of care to enquire as to consent is a good move. Its not hard is it and lads that go around shagging totally plastered girls on 1 night stands should be aware that they could be labelled a rapist no matter how it appeared at the time.
think the thread title needs to be chaged as this has nothing to do with Sheffield United anymore
Understand your intention to be fair to the Blades but considering they continued to play him after the event then they have no right to be complaining.
But he didn't just have a one night stand with a plastered girl, his mate did that and got found not guilty.
He went round, cheated his way into the hotel room, had sex with her, with no prior consent from anyone then snuck out via the fire escape.
hi stu. I deliberately tried to avoid commenting on Evans specifically because I havent read that full case judgment. The last paragraph I wrote refers to how the law of consent in relation to alcohol seems to be at this state of time.
It is interesting however that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, even though the result of the crime is the same (and certainly no less distressing for the victim's family/friends).
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
The distinction relates tothe intention at the time of the crime.
How do you rape someone by accident?
You can't (although you might not realise it at the time) - I wasn't supporting the 'grades of rape' argument but just pointing out that in the eyes of the law by contrast there are 'grades of killing someone' (murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving etc.)
The grades of killing someone are nothing to do with how the act takes place and everything to do with the intention at the time of the act.
It cannot be the same for rape as no one can suggest they didn't know they was raping someone, or didn't mean to.
I'm also not sure how you can rape someone without realising it, some of the posts (yours certainly not being the worst) make me think I must have lived a very, very sheltered life.
With respect that is simply untrue due to the complex legal nature of the offence.
In short, you can be unaware you have raped someone yet have raped them (and quite correctly feel the full force of the law). This is quite different from say murder or robbery.
But as i stated, ignorance of the law is no defence in the eyes of the law. You cannot accidently rape someone, as in accidentally killing them, however you can unknowingly rape them due to your (and many others) ignorance of the law.
I completely agree - the 'unknowing' part was what I was trying to describe (albeit not very eloquently!)
In the absence of signed written consent however (which in my limited experience can appear somewhat unromantic), it is going to remain a complex and (for some 'unknowing' men) potentially dangerous area especially where alcohol is involved.
I would have found the behaviour of Evans abhorrent on the night in question even if the victim had never filed a complaint, but I suspect it would never have crossed McDonald's mind that he might become embroiled in a rape case (yet the CPS concluded that he should be). Regardless of whether he did or did not rape the victim (the jury concluded he didn't), that should be fairly terrifying for any young lothario.
As you say, ignorance of the law is no defence, and in 2015 the idea that a man has no idea of the laws and basic social requirements of consent from a sexual partner is insane.
just read a very poignant quote from an Oldham fan
'I will be there Saturday but I won't be taking my 9 year old son as I don't think a football game is the place to be explaining what a rapist is. '
This is one of the main reasons why I don't think sex offenders should be allowed to work in a field like pro football. Like it or not they are role models that kids (and adults) look up to and admire and are very, very aware of their actions.
Being a nonce prohobits you from many jobs, this should be one of them.
think the thread title needs to be chaged as this has nothing to do with Sheffield United anymore
Understand your intention to be fair to the Blades but considering they continued to play him after the event then they have no right to be complaining.
He was innocent at the point they were playing him.
think the thread title needs to be chaged as this has nothing to do with Sheffield United anymore
Understand your intention to be fair to the Blades but considering they continued to play him after the event then they have no right to be complaining.
He was innocent at the point they were playing him.
Doesnt matter, should have been suspended until the trial was resolved, like anyone else formally charged with that crime would have been IMHO
I've been arguing with a few mates recently about the Ched Evans topic and whether he should be allowed back into Football. There is one big distinction I've noticed which seems to be consistent with which side of the fence someone sits on from the arguments I've heard so far...
A lot of those in the "he should come back, he's served his time camp" typically follow big sides - Chelsea, United etc. They don't regularly attend games and in their own words "don't really care" about what he does.
Those who I've spoken to who are firmly in the camp that he shouldn't be welcomed back are those who support lower league sides, who go to games and have a precious relationship with a smaller club that represents their community. The big difference being that those people can imagine what it would be like if it happened to their side and they as a fan had to deal with it week in and week out.
As a fan of a lower league club, I feel a little bit ashamed as it truly does indicate that all morals of the game we love have completely gone out of the window. That was the case for the Premier League a long time back, but the Football League has a different sense of pride and tradition that is unmatched.
The previous Hughes and McCormack scenarios were a little bit hard to swallow, but allowing a rapist back in really does stamp all over any kind of pride left in the English game.
I know it has become a corporate, money ridden cringe fest full of diving cheating merceneries, but I genuinely didn't think the game would stoop as low as this.
a panel of proffesional footballers have reviewed the Evans case---they have determined he didnt cheat on his girl friend or rape the pissed out of her head woman it was simulation
I think Ched Evans is being very badly advised. I will be surprised if the Oldham v Doncaster game is played on Saturday, without major protest and disruption. I'd expect marches and possibly a pitch invasion.
I think Ched Evans is being very badly advised. I will be surprised if the Oldham v Doncaster game is played on Saturday, without major protest and disruption. I'd expect marches and possibly a pitch invasion.
I am extremely glad that Oldham are signing Ched Evans. Not giving into the medias and public demands.
The amount of people signing that petition to stop him play aren't football fans.
Interesting viewpoint
In order to more objectively assess how you feel though, consider if it was your daughter/mum/sister who'd been out and had too much to drink, got pulled by McDonald and ended up being raped by a bloke he knew, who conned his way into the hotel, committed the act then fucked off out via fire exit.
Now consider that, despite all these facts, the attacker continued to protest his innocence loudly and publicl - to the extent that your daughter/mum/sister (and, by association, you) had to then change your name and move house to try and avoid being persecuted.
Still think you'd stand by your 'moral principles' of not giving into media and public demand?
I think Ched Evans is being very badly advised. I will be surprised if the Oldham v Doncaster game is played on Saturday, without major protest and disruption. I'd expect marches and possibly a pitch invasion.
All 12 Oldham fans having a march
No. I'd anticipate there being an organised demonstration from objectors (including some Oldham fans). Let's face it, the majority anti Ched objectors aren't Oldham fans.
the two people who have just flagged my comments on proffesional footballers reviewing the Ched Evans case should fuck and read all my comments of what i think of him and the various other shit comments on these threads about "various" forms of rape---flagged do fuck off
the two people who have just flagged my comments on proffesional footballers reviewing the Ched Evans case should fuck and read all my comments of what i think of him and the various other shit comments on these threads about "various" forms of rape---flagged do fuck off
I have to admit, I read GH's comments as pure sarcasm against the football community and supportive of anti Ched Evans.
The problem i have with the Ched Evans case is the sentencing as surely we should not be discussing wether he should be allowed to play again as he should be banged up still. Unfortunately you get a bigger sentence for nicking, robbing money than you do for rape which is quite bizarre.
I am extremely glad that Oldham are signing Ched Evans. Not giving into the medias and public demands.
The amount of people signing that petition to stop him play aren't football fans.
Interesting viewpoint
In order to more objectively assess how you feel though, consider if it was your daughter/mum/sister who'd been out and had too much to drink, got pulled by McDonald and ended up being raped by a bloke he knew, who conned his way into the hotel, committed the act then fucked off out via fire exit.
Now consider that, despite all these facts, the attacker continued to protest his innocence loudly and publicl - to the extent that your daughter/mum/sister (and, by association, you) had to then change your name and move house to try and avoid being persecuted.
Still think you'd stand by your 'moral principles' of not giving into media and public demand?
Victim has had to change her location FIVE times because of the abuse, and was unable to spend Christmas with her family this year.
And yet still the only 'remorse' Evans has shown is towards his girlfriend for 'cheating'
I can't be the only one that thinks something ain't right here
All very good points, of course I wouldn't want charlton to sign him but I wouldn't expect half the uk to start having a say as well on what a club should do.
how can you stop a man from working when both lee Hughes and luke McCormick KILLED innocent people and are currently playing?
If they weren't stopped from playing why should ched Evans be stopped from playing?
Comments
In most crimes you have 2 elements, the intent (mens rea) and the action (actus reus). So murder, you dont need to intend to kill someone, you can intend to commit GBH and if they die as a result (without an intervening cause) then you have comitted murder. so your pub example could be enough depending on a variety of factors such as what you believed the effect of that punch would be, but if you thought you would commit GBH and the victim dies, then according to common law you are a murderer.
What is the intent of rape? To intend to have penetrative sex without the other`s consent. This is in flux and Evans is a high-water mark in terms of how far the accused has to go to verify the capacity of the victim to consent. The actus reus is penetrative sex BY FORCE. (although this force doesnt need to amount to more than the force required to achieve penetration)
Your accident example could mean that you were genuinely under the belief that sex was consensual but that, objectively assessed, you didnt do enough to verify this. Evans is a high-water mark in law in terms of the role of alcohol and the fact that the judge has said drunk people dont have the capacity to consent.
personally, i think any move to increasing the duty of care to enquire as to consent is a good move. Its not hard is it and lads that go around shagging totally plastered girls on 1 night stands should be aware that they could be labelled a rapist no matter how it appeared at the time.
He went round, cheated his way into the hotel room, had sex with her, with no prior consent from anyone then snuck out via the fire escape.
'I will be there Saturday but I won't be taking my 9 year old son as I don't think a football game is the place to be explaining what a rapist is. '
Being a nonce prohobits you from many jobs, this should be one of them.
A lot of those in the "he should come back, he's served his time camp" typically follow big sides - Chelsea, United etc. They don't regularly attend games and in their own words "don't really care" about what he does.
Those who I've spoken to who are firmly in the camp that he shouldn't be welcomed back are those who support lower league sides, who go to games and have a precious relationship with a smaller club that represents their community. The big difference being that those people can imagine what it would be like if it happened to their side and they as a fan had to deal with it week in and week out.
As a fan of a lower league club, I feel a little bit ashamed as it truly does indicate that all morals of the game we love have completely gone out of the window. That was the case for the Premier League a long time back, but the Football League has a different sense of pride and tradition that is unmatched.
The previous Hughes and McCormack scenarios were a little bit hard to swallow, but allowing a rapist back in really does stamp all over any kind of pride left in the English game.
I know it has become a corporate, money ridden cringe fest full of diving cheating merceneries, but I genuinely didn't think the game would stoop as low as this.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/sponsor-severs-ties-with-oldham-over-imminent-signing-of-convicted-rapist-ched-evans-9962777.html
The amount of people signing that petition to stop him playing aren't football fans.
In order to more objectively assess how you feel though, consider if it was your daughter/mum/sister who'd been out and had too much to drink, got pulled by McDonald and ended up being raped by a bloke he knew, who conned his way into the hotel, committed the act then fucked off out via fire exit.
Now consider that, despite all these facts, the attacker continued to protest his innocence loudly and publicl - to the extent that your daughter/mum/sister (and, by association, you) had to then change your name and move house to try and avoid being persecuted.
Still think you'd stand by your 'moral principles' of not giving into media and public demand?
Let's face it, the majority anti Ched objectors aren't Oldham fans.
Unfortunately you get a bigger sentence for nicking, robbing money than you do for rape which is quite bizarre.
And yet still the only 'remorse' Evans has shown is towards his girlfriend for 'cheating'
I can't be the only one that thinks something ain't right here
how can you stop a man from working when both lee Hughes and luke McCormick KILLED innocent people and are currently playing?
If they weren't stopped from playing why should ched Evans be stopped from playing?