Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Lo Siento.]

probably so, it's not my specialist subject, never claimed it was. But just confused, or entirely wrong?

As a specialist in the field, are there many other similar cases to this since Bree (or prior to it), where the defendants have been found guilty on the basis of the womans level of intoxication alone, but not where she was actually passed out or close to it or had been spiked?

Would you agree that this case is a little unusual in that the entire case hinges on how drunk the woman is assessed as being, not on whether she consented, or her statement about what happened etc.

And following this case, how are people supposed to be able to assess if a woman who's wanting to have sex with them is potentially going to be judged to have been too drunk to consent if in the morning she can't actually remember what happened?

Basically how's the concept that drunken consent is still consent supposed to survive this case? as I really don't get where the line is supposed to be drawn any more.

Bearing in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to be pretty lucid at the time, but still not actually remember it in the morning (and in this field I have a lot of experience both personally and professionally).

The jury was specifically instructed on exactly that matter. Specifically told that lower inhibitions wasn't enough, she had to be incapable of making a decision. How on earth is that too low a bar for you?

 

[Lo Siento.]

Like, if in doubt, just don't have sex. Having sex or not of an evening is not that important, roll over and go the fuck to sleep. Et voila, no rape trials.

 

[free spirit]

For what it's worth, I've researched the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have been teaching it for the past four years. I'd say that Athos' analysis on this thread has been pretty much spot on. Yours, by contrast, is very confused.

If I may ask you in a different way, do you agree that the guidance, and now this case law, on the subject of the difference between drunken consent, and being judged as being too drunk to have the capacity to consent is pretty much a confusing minefield in which anyone who ends up 'pulling' a woman while out on the piss could end up stepping on a mine without realising it?

The CPS guidance

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.

so if someone is drunk then they can consent, but if they're drunk to the point where the police / CPS might consider that they're too drunk to consent then it could be a rape charge even if the woman did consent, but nobody will actually put their necks on the line and define what too drunk to consent means so cases such as this happen. It looks as clear as mud to me.

If this case is to set that bar at what is too drunk to consent (which I'm assuming it must at least to some degree, in the absence of other clear definitions of what is and isn't too drunk), then it's setting it at a bloody low level given the amount that a lot of women drink when out on the town at weekends (ie binge drinking). She'd certainly not drunk an unusual amount by that score, though maybe she had drunk it a bit quicker than normal.

For reference, she's listed as having drunk 2 glasses of wine after work around 11pm, then gone home to shower, then gone back out and drunk 4 double vodka and mixers (IIRC), and even she'd said to the police that this wasn't as much as she usually drank. That's something like 13 units in total, but her body would have got rid of maybe 4 of those in the 5 hours since she started drinking, so effectively she had about 9 units inside her at the time this all happened, which really is pretty low down the scale of inebriated states women (and men) regularly get into when on a pissed up night on the town... although she had drunk the last 8 units pretty fast.

I just don't understand how they've decided in this specific case that she's too drunk for her consent to count, when she's not really any more drunk / probably less drunk than a good percentage of people who go out on the piss every weekend at the end of the night. And I've seen far more than my fair share of pissed up people at the end of the night to know what I'm talking about on that.

 

[free spirit]

Like, if in doubt, just don't have sex. Having sex or not of an evening is not that important, roll over and go the fuck to sleep. Et voila, no rape trials.

so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.

what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.

 

[Das Uberdog]

from what i understand (just from reading this thread) she never made a rape complaint - she made an inquiry after a missing handbag. she has expressed no opinion either way on whether or not she was raped/did or did not consent, she has only said she doesn't remember. no-one seems to have actually disputed this.

no-one on this thread has accused the woman of lying - as she's said nothing either way. no-one has even taken Ched's testimony as truth. free spirit has been repeatedly arguing that he/she has taken issue with the fact that this case has legally ruled out the importance of whether or not the woman consented - de facto - by placing the decision to prosecute entirely in the hands of a next-morning police assessment that she had been unable to consent due to her drunkenness - regardless of her opinion on the matter. the issue is now, that a verdict of rape can be granted without a complaint from the victim whatsoever, totally on the basis of the potentially prudish judgement of the 'legal classes' of judges and policemen and what they consider to be acceptable levels of drunkenness.

would like to concur with littlebabyjesus that in the context of this discussion the conduct of some (the majority) on this thread has been hysterical and frankly disgusting.

 

[BigTom]

Doesn't the fact that one guy was acquitted show that the courts didn't just consider the woman's state at the time, but also the men's, and that the person who picked her up in a fairly usual way was let off means the chances of someone pulling on a Friday night getting done under this law is vanishingly small (even in the context of how small the chances are of someone being done for rape in any circumstances)?
I've not read anything except this thread since the case but it seems like the men's mindset is as important here and that the jury judged Evans should have known she wasn't in a state to consent but did it anyway. His actions seem very different to me to someone on the pull in a club and it's his actions, not hers, that make it rape.

 

[Batboy]

from what i understand (just from reading this thread) she never made a rape complaint - she made an inquiry after a missing handbag. she has expressed no opinion either way on whether or not she was raped/did or did not consent, she has only said she doesn't remember. no-one seems to have actually disputed this.

no-one on this thread has accused the woman of lying - as she's said nothing either way. no-one has even taken Ched's testimony as truth. free spirit has been repeatedly arguing that he/she has taken issue with the fact that this case has legally ruled out the importance of whether or not the woman consented - de facto - by placing the decision to prosecute entirely in the hands of a next-morning police assessment that she had been unable to consent due to her drunkenness - regardless of her opinion on the matter. the issue is now, that a verdict of rape can be granted without a complaint from the victim whatsoever, totally on the basis of the potentially prudish judgement of the 'legal classes' of judges and policemen and what they consider to be acceptable levels of drunkenness.

would like to concur with littlebabyjesus that in the context of this discussion the conduct of some (the majority) on this thread has been hysterical and frankly disgusting.

If you read through what you've said above and cross reference with the fact 1) Evans admitted having sex 2) Evans lied in saying the girl wasn't drunk when clearly from CCTV he was. 3) The girl has consistently said she doesn't remember what happened thus reaffirming the fact she was drunk and therefore oblivious to any way of consenting or knowing what was going, you then can see the police got it right to make the decision themselves to bring charges and for the CPS to prosecute.

I think they got it right in Evans case. I'm just surprised the other guy got off.

I can see some grey areas in what you are saying and no doubt there will be some dubious cases, but equallyEvans conviction was correct and if nothing else it might make some idiot people think twice in pursuing sex with someone who is comatose especially egoistical stupidly rich footballers.

 

[likesfish]

Falling into bed with someone you Picked up and having drunk sex one thing.
Seeing your mate finish and decide 2nd ups for a laugh is completely different especially if said women is in no state to consent.

The 1st one you could argue she consented. In chedd case unless your living in porno world does just not fucking happen.

 

[belboid]

from what i understand (just from reading this thread) .

Read something else before commenting you brain dead dickhead.

 

[mentalchik]

Falling into bed with someone you Picked up and having drunk sex one thing.
Seeing your mate finish and decide 2nd ups for a laugh is completely different especially if said women is in no state to consent.

This is the whole crux of it imo !

 

[Lo Siento.]

If I may ask you in a different way, do you agree that the guidance, and now this case law, on the subject of the difference between drunken consent, and being judged as being too drunk to have the capacity to consent is pretty much a confusing minefield in which anyone who ends up 'pulling' a woman while out on the piss could end up stepping on a mine without realising it?

The CPS guidance


so if someone is drunk then they can consent, but if they're drunk to the point where the police / CPS might consider that they're too drunk to consent then it could be a rape charge even if the woman did consent, but nobody will actually put their necks on the line and define what too drunk to consent means so cases such as this happen. It looks as clear as mud to me.

If this case is to set that bar at what is too drunk to consent (which I'm assuming it must at least to some degree, in the absence of other clear definitions of what is and isn't too drunk), then it's setting it at a bloody low level given the amount that a lot of women drink when out on the town at weekends (ie binge drinking). She'd certainly not drunk an unusual amount by that score, though maybe she had drunk it a bit quicker than normal.

For reference, she's listed as having drunk 2 glasses of wine after work around 11pm, then gone home to shower, then gone back out and drunk 4 double vodka and mixers (IIRC), and even she'd said to the police that this wasn't as much as she usually drank. That's something like 13 units in total, but her body would have got rid of maybe 4 of those in the 5 hours since she started drinking, so effectively she had about 9 units inside her at the time this all happened, which really is pretty low down the scale of inebriated states women (and men) regularly get into when on a pissed up night on the town... although she had drunk the last 8 units pretty fast.

I just don't understand how they've decided in this specific case that she's too drunk for her consent to count, when she's not really any more drunk / probably less drunk than a good percentage of people who go out on the piss every weekend at the end of the night. And I've seen far more than my fair share of pissed up people at the end of the night to know what I'm talking about on that.

Your assumption that the quantity of alcohol the woman reports having drunk is of anything more than marginal relevance is flawed here. Firstly, because not all human bodies metabolise alcohol at the same rate. Secondly, because it's a very easy thing to misreport. Thirdly, because for all we know her story that she was spiked could be true.

There is no indication that the jury evaluated her state by totting up units of alcohol. They had CCTV footage and eyewitness statements from which to do so. They were also specifically directed not to convict if they thought the woman was simply disinhibited (ie. Drunkenly consented). It simply isnt the case that the decision they made was that drunk consent doesn't count.

 

[Lo Siento.]

so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.

what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.

No. I'm saying that whenever consent may be in doubt or consent may not be possible, men should refrain from sex. This is not a hard thing to guage.

 

[ddraig]

And that does go back to the burden of proof, tbf. I haven't read everything, but a few posters here have been assuming that she was either unconscious or semi-conscious.

If she had said yes to his joining them, that does leave us with something other than rape. Sleazy as fuck behaviour by these two men, yes. But is it rape if she said ok? This thread's become polarised between those who won't accept that Evans isn't guilty - giving his conviction as proof, which doesn't stand up if you're questioning the conviction - and those who are questioning the verdict.

It's really shitty, bullying behaviour to accuses anyone questioning it of being a rape apologist or worse - as both Athos and Ddraig did - implying that they are rapists themselves. That's really fucking vile behaviour. You should both be fucking ashamed of yourselves for saying that.

And selectively applying the 'jury knows best' attitude is wrong too. Do you also apply that to the clearly absurd jury decision in the Mark Duggan case? Juries get stuff badly wrong sometimes. Hiding behind the system and pretending that it doesn't royally fuck up sometimes is silly.

nowhere have i done this!!
please retract right now
well out of order and very disingenuous

 

[killer b]

You did ask a fucking snide question insinuating it tbf ddraig. You're the one being disingenuous.

 

[ddraig]

You did ask a fucking snide question insinuating it tbf ddraig. You're the one being disingenuous.

no i asked if he felt he had wrongly been accused, a bit different no boss?

e2a and completely different to implying that someone is a rapist

 

[belboid]

so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.

what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.

you really are a fucking moron. The very fact that you can make yourself write 'so are both actually now rapists' shows you are deliberately) failing to understand the hole concept of rape. You have consistently been (again, deliberately) confusing the separate cases of McDonald and Evans and have been consistently ignoring the utterly key fact that the jury found that Evans lied about the state of the victim. This means that any claims he makes about the victim consenting should be ignored, as he is proven to be a liar. And if there is no question of informed consent being given, you are guilty of rape.

 

[belboid]

no i asked if he felt he had wrongly been accused, a bit different no boss?

e2a and completely different to implying that someone is a rapist

bollocks. Free spirit is a grade a shit, and an apologist shit at that, but you were well out of order

 

[ddraig]

I did not accuse/imply him of being a rapist as lbj has claimed, fact

 

[killer b]

Don't come all innocent with us ddraig. Its your standard MO.

 

[ddraig]

Don't come all innocent with us ddraig. Its your standard MO.

i know you don't like me but please don't try and twist this to have a pop
i did not imply what lbj has posted and it is well out of order

 

[killer b]

Give over, its nothing to do with whether I like you or not. Don't be so fucking precious. You asked a snide insinuating question, lbj was right to pull you up on it.

 

[belboid]

I did not accuse/imply him of being a rapist as lbj has claimed, fact

yes you did

wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?

 

[ddraig]

Give over, its nothing to do with whether I like you or not. Don't be so fucking precious. You asked a snide insinuating question, lbj was right to pull you up on it.

i did not whatsoever imply what lbj is saying and you are backing him up on and i feel it is dangerous to suggest so.
in work so don't have time to answer all this, what a load of shit, left this fucked up thread ages ago and only responded to that.

 

[ddraig]

yes you did

how does that imply that? seriously
if i'd thought that i'd have said it

 

[belboid]

how does that imply that? seriously
if i'd thought that i'd have said it

because that is that, you disingenuos twat. you are trying to play the same game as free spirit, trying to hide between mealy mouthed statements and crap wordplay. and you are just as bad as him at it.

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[ddraig]

fuck off you disingenuos twat. you are trying to play the same game as free spirit, trying to hide between mealy mouthed statements and crap wordplay. and you are just as bad as him at it.

When did you stop beating your wife?

well out of order, how dare you compare me to him

off this thread, well done

 

[belboid]

well out of order, how dare you compare me to him

off this thread, well done

coward and liar

 

[ddraig]

i am neither
have fun on the thread, just the mens left now
great work

 

[belboid]

what does asking (only asking, ohh yes guv) [do] 'you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past?' to mean then?

 

[Das Uberdog]

Read something else before commenting you brain dead dickhead.

you are a total cunt - anything i say there not correct? i invited correction numerous times if i'd got the wrong end of the stick.

If you read through what you've said above and cross reference with the fact 1) Evans admitted having sex 2) Evans lied in saying the girl wasn't drunk when clearly from CCTV he was. 3) The girl has consistently said she doesn't remember what happened thus reaffirming the fact she was drunk and therefore oblivious to any way of consenting or knowing what was going, you then can see the police got it right to make the decision themselves to bring charges and for the CPS to prosecute.

I think they got it right in Evans case. I'm just surprised the other guy got off.

I can see some grey areas in what you are saying and no doubt there will be some dubious cases, but equallyEvans conviction was correct and if nothing else it might make some idiot people think twice in pursuing sex with someone who is comatose especially egoistical stupidly rich footballers.

i don't have a particular opinion on the Evans case i just don't think free spirit should be being roasted in this way when imo there's clearly a discussion here to be had. i am not whatsoever convinced that it can ever be good for police to be able to pursue rape complaints without the participation of the person alleged to have been attacked, regardless of the perceived circumstance. sexual assault is a particular and not easily generalised event, subjective experiences from those involved are particularly important in ascertaining the nature of what went on and in their absence do we trust the plod and judiciary to fill in the gaps?