Would you have Ched Evans?

[crabbycanary]

I agree Splutcho

 

[Canaryboy]

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

Oh yeah, and I've definitely said that haven't I 

I haven't stated my belief that Evans is innocent, only that nobody can be sure that he isn't.

Perhaps people should read my OP again?  

 

[crabbycanary]

The jury (backed by the British judicial system)  are sure.

With your background you have seen doubts etc in convictions, but you haven't seen all the facts with this, so we have to rely on the system.

Unless you want to become a Judge/Lawyer/Law maker etc then you are amongst us Builders, Bakers and Candlestick makers in having to have faith in those that have sat through it all 

 

[Canaryboy]

The jury (backed by the British judicial system)  are sure.

With your background you have seen doubts etc in convictions, but you haven't seen all the facts with this, so we have to rely on the system.

Unless you want to become a Judge/Lawyer/Law maker etc then you are amongst us Builders, Bakers and Candlestick makers in having to have faith in those that have sat through it all 

I'm not claiming any legal expertise or career aspirations at all, just a bit of an interest. 

But forget all that, I've just read through this entire thread and I'm trying to work out how somebody could justify calling me a "rape apologist". Those are strong f*cking words, and that has me rattled. 

 

[Watling the Gnome]

It is frankly nonsesnsical to label someone a "rape apologist" because he questions one specific conviction. Worse than that, it is the kind of extreme labelling that dissuades people from engaging in open debate.

I think the Evans conviction is dubious and although he is a convicted rapist, there is a world of difference between his offence and someone who rapes a woman (or man) at knifepoint or under threat of violence etc. You can't lump all crimes under the umbrella of "rape" together and say to question one is to apologise for them all.

 

[Moosheep]

there is a world of difference between his offence and someone who rapes a woman (or man) at knifepoint or under threat of violence etc. You can't lump all crimes under the umbrella of "rape" together and say to question one is to apologise for them all.

I understand the point that you are trying to make but tread very carefully. Kenneth Clarke tried to make the same point a few months back and got shot down in flames for it. I think the point that campaigners try to make is that all rape is an horrendous experience and to differentiate between violent and non-violent rape can be seen as belittling the experience of some victims. Aggravating factors such as violence will allow judges to pass higher sentences but ultimately there is only one crime of rape.

Moo

 

[Canaryboy]

I understand the point that you are trying to make but tread very carefully. Kenneth Clarke tried to make the same point a few months back and got shot down in flames for it. I think the point that campaigners try to make is that all rape is an horrendous experience and to differentiate between violent and non-violent rape can be seen as belittling the experience of some victims. Aggravating factors such as violence will allow judges to pass higher sentences but ultimately there is only one crime of rape.

Moo

It is actually a very good point though, and the perfect example. In the US it would indeed be the case that use of a knife (life being threatened) would be 1st degree rape. In the US a conviction of Ched Evans' nature (too drunk to consent) is 3rd degree rape.

So it does already happen in practice in some countries, where crimes are graded by seriousness. Which is what I was getting at here... 

 

Some are more terrible and clear cut than others though. But we probably shouldn't take this conversation in that direction.

 

[Moosheep]

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

Of course it doesn't, and I don't think anyone is saying that it does. But you also have to concede that somebody (be it a jury, judge, the media or whoever) saying that you are guilty also does not make it so. If you didn't steal the chocolate bar, no matter what happens after that, even if you are found guilty by the Pope, the Queen and Elton John himself, the truth is and will always remain that you did not steal the chocolate bar. The system CAN get it wrong. It does happen. I am not saying that it has in this case (I have been careful not to get involved in that particular argument) but I absolutely defend the right of people to contemplate the possibility without having abuse thrown at them.

Moo

 

[Canaryboy]

An excellent comment from a reader of The Independent which conveys my stance more eloquently than I could write it...

If he believes himself innocent, then he's quite entitled to protest his innocence.

The term "convicted rapist" is unfortunate and political. Ched Evans has been convicted of rape but a conviction for rape does not make one a rapist. Committing rape makes one a rapist. If one commits rape and is acquitted, one is still a rapist. Conversely, if one did not commit rape but is convicted, one is not a rapist.

Ched Evans has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. His application may be rejected or his case may be referred to the Court of Appeal and his conviction subsequently found to be unsafe. Who knows. But the legal process should be allowed to take its course.

The assumption by politicans and commentators that Evans committed rape is unfounded. They weren't in the hotel room on the night in question. Evans may have raped. He may not have.

Surely the only decent thing to do is to allow the CCRC to rule and, if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal, allow the court to rule on the safety of the conviction.

 

[Monty13]

"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."

If our justice system only works on facts, then why do we need jury's? Surely someone is either guilty of a crime or not and 12 individuals interpretation of the evidence is irrelevant? It is precisely because the facts have to be interpreted that people get away with crimes and also unsafe convictions occur and may get overturned.

Also, no one is making excuses for the act of rape, they are questioning the safety of the conviction. Something which is done in many criminal cases (not just rape) and has also lead to many convictions being overturned. The two are not the same thing. To say Evans definitely did it, but then make excuses for his actions, would be to be a rape apologist. As far as I can see, no one is doing that.

The views of many people I would have assumed to be of a liberal persuasion from their posts has surprised me.

 

[Canaryboy]

One thing that has annoyed me is that by expressing doubts or concerns (or even slight skepticism) at the verdict or the safety of the conviction, I am told that I'm not respecting our justice system, which has determined that he is a rapist. 

But the very same people, who are asking me to respect the law of the land and the justice system, are those who are participating in mob justice. Having been released into the public the same justice system has determined that his sentence has been served. That is his punishment in accordance with our legal system, and the sentence handed down by the judge, based upon the verdict of the jury. 

At no point did our justice system rule that a private company should not be permitted to employ him, or that he wasn't allow to be employed by a specific private company, or indeed that he was required to apologise to his victim as a condition of his release. Mob rule is handing out its own version of what it perceives as justice, by determining that there should be limits to what he should be permitted to do with his life or how much money he should earn. If they do believe that these measures should be taken in the future then they need to be lobbying government for a change in the law, or the FA for a change in their regulations, not wielding pitch forks outside Brammall Lane and shouting "burn the witch!". 

Whilst it has always been the case that consumers can vote with their pockets, so companies wouldn't want to do something which damages their business, it is particularly interesting that the wider public feel that they have a right to a say on what Sheffield United can or cannot do based on their own perception of morality, rather than based on any existing laws, or based on their status as a stakeholder in that business (which in many cases, they are not, how many of these vocal commentators are Sheffield United customers?).  

So perhaps it is actually those who seek further vengeance and punishment for a man who has served his sentence who are not respecting the law of the land or sentence given by our justice system? Particularly those who seem to feel that this particular convict doesn't have the right to pursue a review board application, which is a right afforded to every other person convicted of an offence?

By supporting the right of any convicted criminal to challenge a conviction, whether that conviction is for stealing from a corner shop or something much more serious, perhaps I'm actually respecting our legal system more than some others? I certainly didn't expect to be called a "rape apologist" for supporting the right of all convicts to pursue a challenge against their conviction. Who knows, perhaps somebody on this forum will one day be convicted of a crime and want to exercise their right to challenge their conviction.

I'm glad that Sheffield United have spoken out about this "mob justice" actually. If I were a Sheffield United fan, I wouldn't actually support the permanent signing of Ched Evans at this stage (or at any stage, unless he does successfully get his conviction overturned). But his right to train and stay fit? Whilst he maintains his innocence and pursues his right to appeal a conviction, a right that is afforded to all of us should we ever be a convicted of a crime that we either did or did not do? No, I can't see the problem with that at all. That's a matter for Sheffield United, their coaching staff and their players. Their fans can object and discontinue their patronage if that upsets them. 

In fact, these patrons who have resigned, and these sponsors who have withdrawn as a result of recent pressure, they claim to have resigned due to Ched Evans merely training with Sheffield United. They haven't said that they will be offering him a contract. Only, he has been training for them on day release for months. So tell me that they have walked out on principle, and not as a result of mob pressure? If it were the principle of him training with the club they would have walked out months ago. In fact, he was previously training with them as a convicted rapist who had not yet completed his sentence! 

 

[Canaryboy]

That horse has long bolted the stable.

Not just an Evans apologist, but a rape apologist.

Bethnal, are you honestly willing to call me a rape apologist without any further explanation or debate? Please attempt to justify it.

I'm actually genuinely upset by this. The fact that a moderator could like the post with such an insult in it upsets me more, considering the supposed ethos of this forum and the fact that it is the type of language and insult which should be moderated, but then again his knuckles have been dragging on the ground throughout the thread.

This has actually made me completely question the point in this forum existing, there are other places that Norwich fans can go to have any attempt at debate stifled with insults and extreme language. 

Here's an excerpt from an article in The Scotsman:

There seems to be a move to shut down any discussion of the finer points of the case; for example, it seems reasonable to question why McDonald was acquitted and Evans wasn’t, given she had consumed the same amount of alcohol when having sex with each of them. But saying so in the wrong company is liable to see you branded a rape apologist.

Rather apt don't you think? 

 

[Watling the Gnome]

Surprised the "rape apologist" comment was allowed to pass through moderation. I thought this was somewhere we debated rationally and without insult?

 

[Moosheep]

I'm glad that Sheffield United have spoken out about this "mob justice" actually.

Have they? Can you provide a link to this? The only comment I have seen in them condemning the abuse given to Jessica Ennis and others who have threatened to withdraw their support/patronage of the club.

Only, he has been training for them on day release for months.

Again, where did you hear this? Ched Evans was held in HMP Wymott, a category C prison. You can't get 'day release' from a category C prison. He could have applied for release on temporary licence (ROTL) but this would have only been granted in exceptional circumstances (eg on the death of a close relative), and certainly not for something as trivial as training. In fact very few sex offenders are granted ROTL (which I suspect is due to the fear that the justice system has of the media outcry which would occur if someone was to commit an offence on temporary licence) with most having to attend family funerals handcuffed to at least one prison officer.

If I were a Sheffield United fan, I wouldn't actually support the permanent signing of Ched Evans at this stage (or at any stage, unless he does successfully get his conviction overturned).

I'm intrigued by this statement as it seems to undermine your previous argument. You believe that under our legal system Ched Evans has served his punishment and therefore has a right to seek employment with a professional football club.....so long as it isn't the one that you support? If you are worried about how the signing of this player would affect the image of the club then surely you are bowing down to the 'mob justice' you have been so rightly (imho) speaking out against. Personally, I think any club would be crazy to sign Ched Evans; he has, as one paper wrote, become too toxic. However if Norwich City decided to stick their heads above the parapett and make that decision I would support it as I believe that this person, all people in fact, deserve a second chance.

Moo

 

[Canaryboy]

Have they? Can you provide a link to this? The only comment I have seen in them condemning the abuse given to Jessica Ennis and others who have threatened to withdraw their support/patronage of the club.

Yes I can. 

http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx

Did you look on their website? 

 

[splutcho]

 

I'm actually genuinely upset by this. The fact that a moderator could like the post with such an insult in it upsets me more, considering the supposed ethos of this forum and the fact that it is the type of language and insult which should be moderated, but then again his knuckles have been dragging on the ground throughout the thread.

1. I didn't "like" the post with the rape apologist comment in it, I liked the follow up post because I agreed with a lot of what was said.

2. You made no complaint about the comment to me. It passed me as part of the debate.

3. You could quite easily have confronted me about this rather than the "knuckle dragger" comment, as far as I can see I haven't thrown any insults your way. If all I've done to receive them from you is to not agree with you, then you are more than welcome to remove me as a moderator.

 

[Canaryboy]

Again, where did you hear this? Ched Evans was held in HMP Wymott, a category C prison. You can't get 'day release' from a category C prison. He could have applied for release on temporary licence (ROTL) but this would have only been granted in exceptional circumstances (eg on the death of a close relative), and certainly not for something as trivial as training.

It just took me about 30 seconds to ascertain that ROTL and Day Release are exactly the same thing. 

 

[Canaryboy]

1. I didn't "like" the post with the rape apologist comment in it, I liked the follow up post because I agreed with a lot of what was said.

2. You made no complaint about the comment to me. It passed me as part of the debate.

3. You could quite easily have confronted me about this rather than the "knuckle dragger" comment, as far as I can see I haven't thrown any insults your way. If all I've done to receive them from you is to not agree with you, then you are more than welcome to remove me as a moderator.

What on earth would be the point in removing you as a moderator, having already expressed my intention to relinquish ownership/control of the forum?

Well this is fun.

 

[splutcho]

Didn't see the second "rape apologist" at the bottom of the one I liked, so fair enough, I assumed you meant the one that's constantly being quoted, because as far as I can see, it has no likes. 

Until you relinquish control, it's still your site.

 

[splutcho]

I've now removed both references to rape apology, can we all play nice now?