Ched Evans situation

[alice]

formal proceedings culminated with him being found guilty.

[aquarius moon]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone on here thinks the guy is a bastard and

> guilty as hell. He may well be but I'd rather wait

> for the formal proceedings to finish before

> deciding that. Not that it matters a hoot what I

> think.

I agree with you AM.

Like I said in my previous posts, the fact that he still maintains that he did nothing wrong, he still thinks he hasn't.

What if she did agree to it? How does anyone really know what went on in that room?

I just think all this has got a bit ridiculous. It just seems to have become an obsession by almost everybody to keep him out of football. If he was a bus driver/dustman he would have been allowed back after he served his time.

I was reading something in the paper today about Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, both footballers. One killed two children while drink-driving, the other killed someone through dangerous driving.

Both served their sentences and then returned to their jobs, as football players.

The report says that "Rape is a terrible crime but so too is the taking of innocent lives. Evans, a court has ruled did wrong. But surely he deserves the same chance as Hughes and McCormick to return to his job"

I'm inclined to agree.

*hides*

[Robert Poste's Child]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't understand why an appeal was denied.

>

This summarises the basis of the appeal and why it was rejected.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11/28/ched-evans-appeal-refused/

[Robert Poste's Child]

Lee Hughes has also been convicted since he came out of prison for a sexual assault, so hardly rehabilitated.

[Loz]

Having read through the evidence summary I came to one conclusion - I'm glad I wasn't on that jury. I think it must have been a close decision for both the accused. But, that is the purpose of juries. As far as I understand it no appeal will question the conclusion of the jury, only if they slipped up in applying the law or new evidence comes to light. So I doubt Evans has any real possibility of overturning the verdict.

What isn't healthy, IMHO, is this general feeling I get that society in general (and men in particular) should not be discussing the verdict on seeming basis it is a rape case, unless it is in nodding approval of the guilty verdict. And that is something can be felt in this very thread. Questioning the not-guilty verdict for McDonald seems to be OK, though. Had it been manslaughter or assault or most other crimes where the evidence was equally of shades of grey, I think we would probably happily having a healthy discussion and no one would worry too much. In fact, I think we did just that with the Oscar Pistorius case.

In fact, only last week the Guardian had a rather positive article on Ricky Tomlinson (Royle Family) regarding him continuing his long campaign to have his conviction in the 70s overturned. Yet it comes down hard on anyone daring to query the Evans verdict.

Why the double standard? (Not just the Guardian, but overall).

[Alan Medic]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Different circumstances it seems - mainly that she

> arrived with him and he left openly via the main

> reception, in the process asking the porter to

> keep an eye on her, so perhaps it was felt that he

> could more reasonably have believed her to have

> consented.

How could she have been in any condition to consent if she was so out of it?

[????]

Los - he,s a 'thick' white working class bloke...not an Assange or a Polanski

I,m also surprised that, whilst not a rapist, Brand is such a Nero of the Guardian et al given his general mysogony...but hey, he sticks it to the man eh

[Robert Poste's Child]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Different circumstances it seems - mainly that

> she

> > arrived with him and he left openly via the

> main

> > reception, in the process asking the porter to

> > keep an eye on her, so perhaps it was felt that

> he

> > could more reasonably have believed her to have

> > consented.

>

> How could she have been in any condition to

> consent if she was so out of it?

You may have to read the court report if you want to know all the evidence and how the judge directed the jury.

[ernesto]

Stsve bruce never fails to impress me with his mealy mouthed toss

[Jeremy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Had it been manslaughter or assault or most other crimes where the evidence

> was equally of shades of grey, I think we would probably happily having a healthy discussion and

> no one would worry too much.

I know what you mean. It does seem taboo to suggest that these things aren't always clear cut, or that there are varying degrees of seriousness. But I would think that as far as most of us are concerned, he was found guilty of rape in court, so we don't feel the need to question that.

Was just thinking back to the Mike Tyson case... funny how when he got out of prison, he didn't have any problems selling tickets and PPV buys.. I guess attitudes have changed for the better over the last 20 years.

[Otta]

Or people wanted to see him getting punched.

[Otta]

That's the difference with boxing, people love a bad guy to cheer against and it sells tickets. Floyd Mayweather is a master of trash talk and arrogance and he knows a lot of people want to see him get knocked out. Tyson was the ultimate bad guy.

[Jeremy]

I think Tyson still had an awful lot of fans, even after he was convicted of rape...

[Robert Poste's Child]

He was even in the first Hangover film.

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Tyson still had an awful lot of fans, even

> after he was convicted of rape...

No doubt, but his PR team played it well and it all added to his "Baddest man on the planet" moniker.

[RosieH]

You're wrong if you think that Mike Tyson hasn't been protested in the UK - he has, several times, and had appearances cancelled.

I found it sickening that he was lauded in The Hangover, and then also in How I Met Your Mother (which was bizarre and horrifying). But I think the fact that he's US rather than UK has a part to play, as well as the fact that attitudes seem, at long last, to be changing - so you're seeing more in the mainstream press these days.

And Quids, Assange and Polanski - not everyone applauds them regardless. Many of my friends refuse to believe Assange could be guilty of rape because he's a "good guy" - they think it's a stitch up. Of course it could be, and no one wants to think one of the good guys could be a rapist, but of course he could. In spite of my screaming Guardianista credentials, I'd like to see him stand trial.

As for Polanski, people have a choice whether or not to watch his films. Of course, Oldham fans could have voted with their feet, but in the case of Ched Evans, you're imposing him onto a team, and removing an element of that choice.

As for Russell Brand, I think he's dick. Hot, though.

[JohnL]

Whatever you think of him - Assange is locked up - looks like for life too.

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whatever you think of him - Assange is locked up - looks like for life too.

Not really. Holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy is not 'locked up for life' and nor has he been tried and/or convicted.

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Tyson still had an awful lot of fans, even after he was convicted of rape...

Even more bizarrely, an awful lot of female fans. Possibly more than he had before the conviction.

[legalbeagle]

I wonder how many young men and young women actually know that drunk women cannot legally consent to sex?

I think we are missing a very good opportunity at the moment to educate people on how to behave in these situations. We are very good at giving women advice on how to keep safe (and long may that continue). But we are not so good at educating young men and women on what the law is with regards to sex and alcohol, and how you should treat a drunk woman you do not know. However enthusiastic she might seem to be.

Unfortunately I suspect there are a lot who think "she's up for it and so what if she's a bit pissed". They lack respect for women, but do they really believe they are rapists? I'm sure they don't. The OP's point is a good one, Evans probably genuinely thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

OF COURSE he did - she was far too drunk to consent. But how has he arrived at that mindset (assuming he has).

How many "borderline" cases are there, when the women seemed more or less alright and the men were happy to get what they could? If we started to teach boys that these are not "borderline" situations, but in fact it is never acceptable to have sex with a woman you do not know and who is drunk, we might start to change our culture?

Just a thought.....

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder how many young men and young women actually know that drunk women cannot legally consent to sex?

Erm, that sentence as it is written just not correct. Quite wrong, in fact.

And the law regarding consent (as applied to rape and sexual assault) applies to both men and women.

[Alan Medic]

So without doing a test to check if someone is under the limit before having sex, you may be accused of rape. Is that the gist of it? Bit of a romance killer.

[legalbeagle]

Well I put the emphasis on women since the OPs question was partly about whether Evans thought he'd done wrong. Clearly the law applies to both men and women.

The sentence you object to is not meant to be a definitive guide to the law, more an indication of likely outcome. If a person is drunk, and you do not know them and have sex with them, and they then state that they did not give consent due to intoxication, you are at risk of being accused of rape. Regardless of whether you think of yourself as a rapist. I'm not sure how many people know this, or take the risk very seriously. That was my real point.

For those interested, the CPS guidelines are below:

"In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.

Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident."

[legalbeagle]

Well Alan I guess anyone MIGHT be.... but the point is more, can you tell that the person has lost the capacity to consent due to alcohol. The courts have stated that this may happen well before someone passes out.

I don't think a person would get far reporting a rape on the basis they were tipsy. But "drunk" is a very difficult area.

[reggie]

I'm surprised that knowing or not knowing the defendant is an issue in this case. Surely most rapes occur between people who know each other?