I have heard the same argument for decades. Guess what the law is not perfect but either you understand the law or you do not. The act of penetration without consent is rape whether the victim is male or female.
The responsibility therefore can only rest with one party.
Obviously there are lesser acts which fall within the realms of sexual assault.
Regardless of your gender if you choose to put yourself in a situation where you are incapable of determining whether you are committing a crime be it driving your car drunk, putting a brick through a glass window or assaulting someone it is your responsibility.
That any other party is in no fit state to defend themselves by word or deed is irrelevant. You are not empowered to take advantage of such situation. It is a fundamental aspect of common law where citizens have a duty of care not to do harm to others.
I sometimes wonder whether law should be part of the school curriculum.
re. this thread - Very few people are qualified to comment on any of it. While that's not normally something to worry about on a football forum, in this case I find its quite uncomfortable reading when there's so much conjecture and speculation. Then there's stuff like:
"she's a bit of a slut"
"Just think what he could have been if he hadn't gone for sloppy seconds"
"Jessica Ennis whinging has cost United a good striker"
"I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?"
And that's just the last couple of pages.
There's a girl at the heart of this whose life has been completely fucked. She's been bullied and harassed by Evans' family and supporters. She's somebody's daughter. Sister. Friend. Imagine how it just feel to see "she's a slut" written by someone who has no clue who she is, let alone what she's done. And that's key - we don't know.
I'm not offended by this stuff, Brendan_O_Connell. Dismissing me in that way is lazy. I think there's some really poor taste comments here combined with would-be legal experts decreeing who is and isn't guilty. It's not a healthy debate, it's a shitty situation that hasn't done a single soul any favours beyond those who have enjoyed it as a form of entertainment. Like a real-life episode of Quincy.
I'm not overly PC. I don't get offended by much, if anything. I just find this thread is a bit shit, so I'll leave you all to it and try and resist coming back into it.
That's my comment. Not sure why you think I'm against the victim. Read the whole post
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an logical impossibility.
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an illogical impossibility.
She went back to the hotel with Clayton McDonald and so I believe there was more implied consent there (and less evidence of when it was given, and what state she was in at the time) and certainly reasonable doubt.
Ched Evans just turned up to the with the intention of strolling in, getting his end away and strolling off. She'd never met him before the hotel - if the evidence is there that she was too drunk in the hotel to consent, it's a reasonably simple guilty verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an illogical impossibility.
I haven't followed the case in exhaustive detail, but as far as McDonald is concerned, it could easily be that the reasonable doubt stems from when she is deemed to have consented to have sex with him. If it's at the point she agreed to go back to his room, then given it takes a while for alcohol to go through your system, it's perfectly possible she was sober enough to consent then, but had become too drunk to consent by the time Evans turned up.
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an illogical impossibility.
Strangely enough, I believe it is as simple as that. If she, or anyone else, is not in a position to give consent to a sexual act, whether due to alcohol, drugs, age, etc., the law is fairly clear.
As others have said, Clayton McDonald was found not guilty because, in his case, there was reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors.
Evans' actions, on the other hand, along with the other evidence, were sufficient to persuade the original jurors that a guilty verdict was appropriate.
The decision in the retrial may be different, but I would suspect that that will have something to do with the character assassination that Evans' legal team will have engaged upon as far as the alleged victim is concerned (sadly, an all too common factor in any trial of a sexual nature - on both sides - acquaintances in the legal professions suggest that defence teams will seek to be represented by female barristers because they will be seen in a less harsh light by juries for these tactics). The way in which those supporting Evans placed her name in the public domain after the original trial was absolutely shocking and reprehensible, as well as being a contempt of court.
If found guilty, I would expect that the judge will decide on the appropriate sentence (within the guidelines), which may be different from the first trial.
It is a retrial, rather than an appeal, so, other than the time served, the previous sentence handed down should not be considered.
A lot will depend on the judge's summing up, and the jury may acquit.
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an illogical impossibility.
She went back to the hotel with Clayton McDonald and so I believe there was more implied consent there (and less evidence of when it was given, and what state she was in at the time) and certainly reasonable doubt.
Ched Evans just turned up to the with the intention of strolling in, getting his end away and strolling off. She'd never met him before the hotel - if the evidence is there that she was too drunk in the hotel to consent, it's a reasonably simple guilty verdict.
But with the other guy not being convicted does this suggest that she would have been sober enough to consent with Evans?
The judge has done his summing up, so the jury is out, so to speak.
Evans has found a witness who has had sex with the woman and has used this against her. The bloke it seems is a friend of the family and who also picked up £50k for his troubles.
Evans didn't ejaculate has had a girlfriend and that would be wrong. Good to see romance isn't dead.
Not sure what the new evidence other than the paid witness.
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Well it isn't as simple as that. McDonald was not convicted and had been with the woman 5 minutes earlier. Did she become miraculously drunk within 5 minutes? I don't understand how one is guility and one is innocent - surely an illogical impossibility.
She went back to the hotel with Clayton McDonald and so I believe there was more implied consent there (and less evidence of when it was given, and what state she was in at the time) and certainly reasonable doubt.
Ched Evans just turned up to the with the intention of strolling in, getting his end away and strolling off. She'd never met him before the hotel - if the evidence is there that she was too drunk in the hotel to consent, it's a reasonably simple guilty verdict.
But with the other guy not being convicted does this suggest that she would have been sober enough to consent with Evans?
No, at least that's not what the original jury felt was the case.
If they had believed she was in a position to consent when Evans arrived in the room, he would not have been convicted.
McDonald's defence rested on the fact that he and she spent an amount of time together before she went with him to his hotel room - the prosecution could not persuade the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, so they did not convict.
So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
As far as I am aware yes.
North Wales Police could end up looking very bad over all of this if he is not found guilty the second time round. Regardless of your opinion or views on the facts and events as currently in the public domain, their handling of the case has raised serious questions. Now this farce is going to carry on for even longer.
So how many lives have been ruined by this? If you have not already I suggest looking into the multiple failings made by the police prior to the first trial. This is almost entirely their fault and should never have gotten this far to be honest.
I imagine the owners of Chesterfield will feel that they won the lottery, getting a player of his undoubted quality for free, and on probably low wages
I imagine the owners of Chesterfield will feel that they won the lottery, getting a player of his undoubted quality for free, and on probably low wages
Be interesting to see what happens to him in January
Especially if he regains the form he had at the beginning of the season...
i would just like to point out that he is still a scummy cunt!
why?
I guess the fact still remains that he cheated on his Girlfriend
indeed he did, but that happens regularly throughout the country daily and both ways.It doesnt make it right but i wouldnt call him a scummy cunt for just doing that
Comments
The responsibility therefore can only rest with one party.
Obviously there are lesser acts which fall within the realms of sexual assault.
Regardless of your gender if you choose to put yourself in a situation where you are incapable of determining whether you are committing a crime be it driving your car drunk, putting a brick through a glass window or assaulting someone it is your responsibility.
That any other party is in no fit state to defend themselves by word or deed is irrelevant. You are not empowered to take advantage of such situation. It is a fundamental aspect of common law where citizens have a duty of care not to do harm to others.
I sometimes wonder whether law should be part of the school curriculum.
Taking advantage of someone who's incapable of thought through alcohol is clearly wrong, and deserves the full force of the law.
Most situations aren't that clear cut though. Clearly this is case had enough ambiguities to merit a retrial
I hope even more so that one girl's life isn't being ruined by one man's lack of self control.
I just hope one man's life isn't being ruined because of one girls lie.
It's a fudged up situation and only two people know the actual truth.
The whole thing now leaves a nasty taste in ones mouth
Lives have been ruined now whatever the new verdict is
Ched Evans just turned up to the with the intention of strolling in, getting his end away and strolling off. She'd never met him before the hotel - if the evidence is there that she was too drunk in the hotel to consent, it's a reasonably simple guilty verdict.
As others have said, Clayton McDonald was found not guilty because, in his case, there was reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors.
Evans' actions, on the other hand, along with the other evidence, were sufficient to persuade the original jurors that a guilty verdict was appropriate.
The decision in the retrial may be different, but I would suspect that that will have something to do with the character assassination that Evans' legal team will have engaged upon as far as the alleged victim is concerned (sadly, an all too common factor in any trial of a sexual nature - on both sides - acquaintances in the legal professions suggest that defence teams will seek to be represented by female barristers because they will be seen in a less harsh light by juries for these tactics). The way in which those supporting Evans placed her name in the public domain after the original trial was absolutely shocking and reprehensible, as well as being a contempt of court.
It is a retrial, rather than an appeal, so, other than the time served, the previous sentence handed down should not be considered.
A lot will depend on the judge's summing up, and the jury may acquit.
Evans has found a witness who has had sex with the woman and has used this against her. The bloke it seems is a friend of the family and who also picked up £50k for his troubles.
Evans didn't ejaculate has had a girlfriend and that would be wrong. Good to see romance isn't dead.
Not sure what the new evidence other than the paid witness.
If they had believed she was in a position to consent when Evans arrived in the room, he would not have been convicted.
McDonald's defence rested on the fact that he and she spent an amount of time together before she went with him to his hotel room - the prosecution could not persuade the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, so they did not convict.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial?client=ms-android-sonymobile
Especially if he regains the form he had at the beginning of the season...