Would you have Ched Evans?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green]

I realise that I am once again at danger of being perceived as an Evans apologist

If someone does not or cannot give consent, then it is rape. This includes someone who is clearly incredibly drunk.

I don't begrudge Evans having a career, in fact I hope he does. But his career doesn't have to be that of a professional footballer. Someone said earlier that it is unlikely a company would appoint someone to be their CEO if they had a rape conviction hanging over their head and the same principle applies to Evans. It is even more applicable to someone who is see as a role model and celebrated like a professional footballer.

To be honest, the FA need to establish a code of conduct for professional footballers, this will stop individual football clubs being required to make this judgement on individual players.

 

[Lowestoft Canary]

He must not be allowed to play again. To many young players are full of themselves, lots of money at a young age and girls chasing them they think they can do what they want.

Letting Evans wrought and set an example for future players

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

The sh*tstorm that has come from this demonstrates exactly why I said we shouldnt have him, purely becasue of the negative fallout that has come Sheffield Utds way. Ched Evans protests his innocence (if I'd been wrongly convicted - which is his position - I would continue to do this too) so people say this is a lack of remorse. The fact remains he has been convicted. This means to most people that the matter over whether it is consensual or not is closed and that he did it. This is the legal stance and what most people bring out when discussing the issue. What I would also say is that ok he has been found guilty, so from the same viewpoint he has also served his punishment and is a free man. You cannot point to the legal system in one instance and disregard it in another. The law says he has repaid his debt to society and is not a danger to it. Why is that up for debate when his guilt/innocence isnt?

If he has done his time then he is free to pursue whatever he wishes. I dont think he will be successful because of the reaction it will get, so its a bit of a non-starter for him. though in about 6 months time someone might be desperate. he might score the winning goal that gets someone promoted or saved and people then might think differently.

Interesting that someone highlighted Charlie Webster's hypocrisy on the rape issue, that she was perfectly happy to give Mike Tyson, also a convicted rapist, the time of day 

 

[Canaryboy]

That horse has long bolted the stable.

Not just an Evans apologist, but a rape apologist.

If someone does not or cannot give consent, then it is rape. This includes someone who is clearly incredibly drunk.

I object to being called a "rape apologist".

My point all along has been that it is literally impossible for any member of that jury or any member of the police, or prosecution, to know whether she was too drunk to consent. 

My entire argument is based upon both that fact, and the fact that she was no more drunk when sleeping with Evans than she was when sleeping with a man who was acquitted of the same charge. If she was too drunk to consent to intercourse with Evans, then she was too drunk to consent to intercourse with McDonald. She claimed not to remember either event. Why was one acquitted?

Either McDonald is also a rapist, or neither of them are. Your comment on that? McDonald is currently playing football. 

 

[Moosheep]

He must not be allowed to play again.

I take completely the opposite view, I say that he must be allowed to play again. Whether he would ever find a team who will employ him is a completely different matter, but if we respect our justice system then he must be allowed to reintegrate with society which includes being allowed to look for work as a footballer.

Moo

 

[Canaryboy]

Another debate that could easily be had is why are we releasing people half way through their sentences if they are deemed to be unrepentant? If we didn't release prisoners half way through their sentences then we wouldn't be having this debate and he'd be fighting his conviction from behind bars. 

 

[ZLF]

There are extremely clear differences between macfonald and Evans behaviour that night and.that is why macdonalds was rightly cleared and why Evans, on the basis of the evidence for the jury, was convicted.


The law is clear and in no way can it only be both or neither.


And having sat on a jury I can confirm that stating guilty for.such a.serious offence and it's implications is a burden taken heavily but with real belief in it being right beyond any doubt

 

[OldRobert]

Absolutely not. Convicted by a jury of his peers to be a rapist, and had various appeals turned down. A biased website set up by his mates won't convince me otherwise either. The worst thing is that he shows no remorse.

Agree with Splutcho, particularly regarding the lack of remorse.

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green]

I object to being called a "rape apologist", but you are welcome to your opinion. 

My point all along has been that it is literally impossible for any member of that jury or any member of the police, or prosecution, to know whether she was too drunk to consent. 

My entire argument is based upon both that fact, and the fact that she was no more drunk when sleeping with Evans than she was when sleeping with a man who was acquitted of the same charge. If she was too drunk to consent to intercourse with Evans, then she was too drunk to consent to intercourse with McDonald. She claimed not to remember either event. Why was one acquitted?

Either McDonald is also a rapist, or neither of them are. Your comment on that? McDonald is currently playing football. 

In the eyes of the law and a jury of his peers, Ched Evans is a rapist and Clayton McDonald is not. That is all that really matters in this situation at this moment.

Football clubs can't start going around saying 'Well... We don't really agree with the ruling so we are going to sign him'. Both men presented their case in court and one was found wanting. As neither of us were there to see/hear the evidence, so to speculate on what may or may not have swayed the jury is irresponsible and certainly not our place. That is why we have courts, judges and juries.

If Evans has his conviction overturned on appeal then so be it and he can move on with his life - if the police decide to reopen the case against McDonald and he is found guilty then so be it. Until either of these things happen we shouldn't sit here and postulate on their innocence or guilt.

We can only work on facts, and the facts are Evans is guilty and convicted.

 

[Lowestoft Canary]

Norwich is a family club with a great character why would we want a rapist at the club?

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Agree with Splutcho, particularly regarding the lack of remorse.

He has been convicted as a rapist, and so must be considered to be one until any such point that his conviction is reversed. My question on the 'lack of remorse' though - Just for the sake of argument, enter the assumption that you were wrongfully convicted of rape (dont debate this point, just for the sake of argument - you had consensual sex with someone but were convicted of rape). Would you not continue to protest your innocence? How could you admit to a crime or show remorse for something you KNOW you did not do?

If you take the verdict as absolute then it can only be a lack of remorse, but then this is what Canaryboy was getting at - its a difficult position for him to be in.

Its like psychics like Sally Morgan who have an act where they claim to talk to the dead (and even put on voices to talk like little children). I am a stone-cold atheist - so I believe this is totally impossible - which leaves me with only one possible conclusion - they are fabricating the entire thing and are sick sick individuals - emotional vampires profiting from peoples grief and preying on the vulnerable. If everyone felt the same way as me these individuals would be strung up - but they dont. Other people believe it.

My point here is that some people will say he's been convicted, the system is infallable - there is no doubt he is a rapist. Others will consider there may have been a miscarriage of justice. I am applying this purely to the remorse argument. His position is that he didnt do it - is that the same as admitting you did it but not giving a f*ck?

Rape is a very difficult  case because unless there is evidence of forceful penetration or the like, its essentially one persons word against another and there will always be rapists who get away with it and innocent men sent to jail depending which way the jury fall.

 

[Canaryboy]

There are extremely clear differences between macsonald and Evans behaviour and.that is why macdonalds was rightly cleared and why Evans was convicted.

The law is clear and in now way can it only be both or neither.

And having sat on a jury I can confirm that stating guilty for.such a.serious offence and it's implications is a burden taken heavily but with real belief in it

I have never sat on a jury as I had a 10 year exemption from jury service for working in a civil service position related to criminal justice, and that exemption only expired only this year. But the basis of the prosecutions case was that the victim was "too drunk to consent", that was their argument. 

What does McDonalds behaviour and Evans behaviour have to do with whether she was "too drunk to consent" or not? Either she was or she wasn't? 

I'm not going to participate any further though. I have serious doubts about the safety of the conviction, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were overturned, but if I'm honest I'm a bit p*ssed off at having been called a "rape apologist". 

 

[Canaryboy]

To make excuses for rapists is to be a rape apologist.

I am not making excuses for rapists.

I'm a bit wound up, so I'm going to log off and will perhaps expand on that another time. 

 

[crabbycanary]

Why hasn't Evans come out and said something regarding the Webster/Sponsors/Ennis-Hill statements?

What have Sheff Utd done about this over the last couple of days? Have they asked Evans to go home and run round his local park and kick a ball against a wall?

Like many have said, anybody with half a brain cell ,could see that this situation would turn out like it has with protests etc, but like I said the arrogance of Football, seems to have taken over

Plenty of other footballers and better options/Gyms etc, about

 

[OldRobert]

He has been convicted as a rapist, and so must be considered to be one until any such point that his conviction is reversed. My question on the 'lack of remorse' though - Just for the sake of argument, enter the assumption that you were wrongfully convicted of rape (dont debate this point, just for the sake of argument - you had consensual sex with someone but were convicted of rape). Would you not continue to protest your innocence? How could you admit to a crime or show remorse for something you KNOW you did not do?

If you take the verdict as absolute then it can only be a lack of remorse, but then this is what Canaryboy was getting at - its a difficult position for him to be in.

Its like psychics like Sally Morgan who have an act where they claim to talk to the dead (and even put on voices to talk like little children). I am a stone-cold atheist - so I believe this is totally impossible - which leaves me with only one possible conclusion - they are fabricating the entire thing and are sick sick individuals - emotional vampires profiting from peoples grief and preying on the vulnerable. If everyone felt the same way as me these individuals would be strung up - but they dont. Other people believe it.

My point here is that some people will say he's been convicted, the system is infallable - there is no doubt he is a rapist. Others will consider there may have been a miscarriage of justice. I am applying this purely to the remorse argument. His position is that he didnt do it - is that the same as admitting you did it but not giving a f*ck?

Rape is a very difficult  case because unless there is evidence of forceful penetration or the like, its essentially one persons word against another and there will always be rapists who get away with it and innocent men sent to jail depending which way the jury fall.

Can't argue with that GMD.  There presumably is the point that he's hardly going to suddenly 'change his plea' as it were, and show remorse for something even if he did do it..............  So he's not going to show remorse either way, if that makes any sense. :lol:

 

[Canaryboy]

We can only work on facts, and the facts are Evans is guilty and convicted. To make excuses for rapists is to be a rape apologist.

In the year 2003 whilst working in an administrative position for the Crown Prosecution Service I was required, as part of my training, to sit through a rape trial at a Crown Court and listen to the evidence associated with the case. I also witnessed the verdict and the sentencing. The lenience of the sentence, and the gravity of the crime, as well as the age of the victim, were enough for me to leave my job soon after. I can still remember the details of that case today, as a teenager at the time it affected me greatly. 

I've always had a fair bit of interest in criminal justice though, have two policemen in my family, and dated the daughter of a policeman for three years too. If people can't see that my interest in this case evolves primarily around the safety of the conviction, which I feel I've emphasised consistently, and instead perceive me as a misogynistic "rape apologist" who thinks that Dapper Laughs is a comedy genius, then so be it. It would be quite far removed from reality though.

The words "beyond reasonable doubt", and "burden of proof" used to form the basis of a British legal system which was the envy of the world and replicated all over the world. It served this country well for hundreds of years, but for this particular offence no longer seems to apply, and that is a very recent development which has resulted in hundreds of unsafe and overturned rape convictions. I'm an advocate of a legal system which continues to adhere to (or returns to) those basic principles, not a rape apologist. This will be the last time I contribute to this topic, for a while at least. 

 

[crabbycanary]

Well for half an hour at least CanaryBoy

Seriously though, you would appreciate, I am sure, that every case is different

 

[Moosheep]

We can only work on facts, and the facts are Evans is guilty and convicted. To make excuses for rapists is to be a rape apologist.

It is true that Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who was found guilty and therefore should be treated as such. I would argue however that being found guilty and being guilty are two different things. When I was a kid I once had my pocket money stopped for three months because my parents decided I was guilty of stealing something that I did not. I was found guilty, but I was not guilty. Two very different things. Trivial example I know but as TGMD has just said, how can one show remorse (and why would one) if they truly believe* that they are innocent.

It is wrong call Canary Boy a rape apologist, he is questioning the safety of Evans' conviction. It is absolutely possible to do this without making excuses for or belittled the crime of rape and the effect that it has on victims. I can understand why he is so upset.

Moo

 

[crabbycanary]

There are plenty of cases that the 'Guilty' have appealed, and said they didn't do it, and then still been found guilty.

The other side of the coin? 

 

[splutcho]

Somebody saying they are not guilty does not make it so.