Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[danny la rouge]

.

 

[danny la rouge]

.

 

[Spymaster]

Just realised why I can't see this thread.

?

 

[5t3IIa]

?

I meant what I said

 

[phildwyer]

A man who advocates the killing by stoning of Evans's victim.

When?

 

[likesfish]

The case is complicated, he was found guilty of rape as the woman he had sex with was too drunk to consent, the man who had sex with her minutes before Evans got stuck in was found not guilty. AFAIK Evan's girlfriend and her father are basing his innocence on this, in my mind it shows the guilt of the fella that got off.

Exactly not the worlds worst rape but scum like behaviour and his supporters a lynch mob

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

When?

Every day of his adult life.

 

[phildwyer]

Every day of his adult life.

Any chance of a link?

 

[Awesome Wells]

I don't think he should work add a professional footballer at all. Working behind the scenes perhaps.

 

[marty21]

I don't think he should work add a professional footballer at all. Working behind the scenes perhaps.

strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?

 

[William of Walworth]

he was a decent striker so even if Sheff Utd don't take him back (they cancelled his contract when he was sent down) another club will take him.

Is this definite, marty21 ?

Doesn't seem consistent with Sheffield United's owner trying to get him back, as suggested above.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Any chance of a link?

Doesn't need one. A Saudi prince can renounce his position, he chooses not to, in fact he takes it further by taking on government roles. ergo he's happy with the idea of stoning adulterous women.

 

[marty21]

Is this definite, marty21 ?

Doesn't seem consistent with Sheffield United's owner trying to get him back, as suggested above.

seem to remember them cancelling it when he got sentenced - maybe they have a new owner?

 

[SpackleFrog]

More detailed info from this site..

http://chedevans.com/

That's not really "info" is it?

 

[Lo Siento.]

strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?

There's quite a lot of jobs that convicted sex offenders are quite rightly not allowed to do. And whilst a footballer's primary function doesn't involve anything in which it might be an issue, it's not a massive stretch to see a bundle of stuff that footballers do around their job (press and community stuff mainly) for which his history would make him massively inappropriate.

That said, the main reason Sheffield United shouldn't take him back is because he's an unrepentant rapist piece of shit and it's obscene to have 20,000 people cheering him on every other weekend.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If he's being released after having served half his sentence (actually 56%, IIRC, rather than 50%), without having expressed remorse or having undergone an SOTP (sex offender treatment programme), it's likely to be because treatment was unavailable (a bigger and bigger problem not just with regard to sex offences, but with addiction treatment too), or because (just as likely) staff were unavailable to take him to and from his treatment appointments.
That's right. Our prison system is so poorly funded now that results with regard to rehabilitation and addiction treatment are worse now than they were 20 and 30 years ago. The likes of Grayling will claim it's not about funding, but it always has been and always will be about funding (and about Home Secretaries not wanting to fund rehabilitation in case they look "weak").

 

[William of Walworth]

That said, the main reason Sheffield United shouldn't take him back is because he's an unrepentant rapist piece of shit and it's obscene to have 20,000 people cheering him on every other weekend.

My views on this criminal In a nutshell.

 

[brogdale]

This is all just about shite sentencing.

Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment.

In principle, yes...but the assumption made with the word "their" can't be made in cases where the offence requires registration. And then, of course, it is in the hands of the employer.

 

[marty21]

did a search on twitter, lots of people tweeting the story about Sheff Utd having talks with the convicted rapist Ched Evans about signing him up, a lot of them don't seem to mention the fact that he is a convicted rapist - they seem more excited about getting the player back

 

[marty21]

I was reading about DJ Campbell, an ex premiership striker who was accused of match fixing but not charged in the end - he was let go by his last club and couldn't get a sniff of another league contract, so signed up for a non-league club (Maidstone) yet a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract

 

[littlebabyjesus]

strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?

Being a professional sports person is more a privilege than a right, imo.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'm not sure how a sex offender can protest their innocence, be released early and not be seen as a risk.

Anyone got any answers to this^^^? It seems a pertinent enough question.

 

[marty21]

Being a professional sports person is more a privilege than a right, imo.

personally I don't think he should be able to play again

 

[brogdale]

... a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract

with a Saudi owned company.

 

[telbert]

Fuck him.Cunt.

 

[PandaCola]

seem to remember them cancelling it when he got sentenced - maybe they have a new owner?

As far as I am aware- he was sent down right at the end of the season- and his contract was about up. The contract wasn't cancelled, it just ran out just after he was sentenced.

 

[Cid]

I think it's also to do with the fact that Clayton wasn't convicted. They both penetrated her so Ched Evans' supporters are saying it doesn't make sense that one is convicted and the other not.

Maybe it doesn't make sense but the victim went back to the hotel with just Clayton. Evans joined them later and walked in on them. Two friends watched through a window. I think the jury decided she consented to have sex with Clayton but since Evans turned up later the whole "well you went home with him" thing didn't really apply.

There's a detailed report on the trial here. It's more to do with whether either defendant could reasonably believe she had consented. The mens rea element of rape is intention to penetrate and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim would consent. No mens rea, no crime... The jury is able to take into account all the circumstances in establishing a reasonable belief in consent. In McDonald's case she came back to the hotel with him, apparently voluntarily - her conduct might indicate that it was reasonable for McDonald to believe she was consenting. It's not difficult to distinguish that from Evans who came to the flat later, the only evidence given that she consented in that case is the defence stating that she said 'yes' and was willing.

The appeals are based on the possibility that she did in fact consent (i.e that she had the capacity to do so and did). This was also an issue decided by the jury who seem to have been properly directed by the judge. On the facts they decided that she was not capable of consent, hence why McDonald had to rely on reasonable belief. Decisions by a properly directed jury are very difficult to appeal, which is why this (seemingly correctly) has not been allowed. The report doesn't say she was unconscious btw.

 

[likesfish]

If the guy had shown remorse fair enough but he hasn't still thinks he was hard done by so fuck him and his so called supporters

 

[Fez909]

There's a detailed report on the trial here. It's more to do with whether either defendant could reasonably believe she had consented. The mens rea element of rape is intention to penetrate and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim would consent. No mens rea, no crime... The jury is able to take into account all the circumstances in establishing a reasonable belief in consent. In McDonald's case she came back to the hotel with him, apparently voluntarily - her conduct might indicate that it was reasonable for McDonald to believe she was consenting. It's not difficult to distinguish that from Evans who came to the flat later, the only evidence given that she consented in that case is the defence stating that she said 'yes' and was willing.

The appeals are based on the possibility that she did in fact consent (i.e that she had the capacity to do so and did). This was also an issue decided by the jury who seem to have been properly directed by the judge. On the facts they decided that she was not capable of consent, hence why McDonald had to rely on reasonable belief. Decisions by a properly directed jury are very difficult to appeal, which is why this (seemingly correctly) has not been allowed. The report doesn't say she was unconscious btw.

Just read that report and I have to say I agree with the conviction 100%. I can see why McDonald was acquitted but it could have easily gone the other way for him, too. If she was unable to consent to sex with Evans, then she was unable to consent to sex with him, surely?

Evans leaving by an emergency exit wasn't seemingly a factor in the jury's decision but it seems pretty important to me. Why do that unless you're trying to hide something?

 

[Dr. Furface]

I was reading about DJ Campbell, an ex premiership striker who was accused of match fixing but not charged in the end - he was let go by his last club and couldn't get a sniff of another league contract, so signed up for a non-league club (Maidstone) yet a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract

To be fair that probably has more to do with Campbell's age - he's 32 - and the fact that he's a journeyman striker who's never been all that good, so I don't think the comparision with Evans is relevant. You mentioned Lee Hughes in a previous post and that's a far more pertinent comparison, given the nature of his crime and the fact that he was able to resurrect his career after serving his prison sentence (albeit at a lower level than before).

FWIW I wouldn't want Evans playing for my club because of the negative publicity it would attract and the inevitable crowd reaction at every game for the forseeable future, but even so I'd argue he deserves the chance to play now he's served his time - it makes no difference at all whether I think he was guitly as charged or not. I liken it to when my NFL team the Philadelphia Eagles hired Michael Vick a few years ago after he'd served time for being involved in a dog fighting sysndicate - he hadn't played for the Eagles previously but had been a star player for another team (Atlanta). At the time I wasn't pleased that my team had taken him on but at the same time I accepted that they had every right to do so and that in some ways they could even be commended for giving a talented guy a second chance when other teams wouldn't have.