Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Grandma Death]

As I understand it, and as was covered extensively earlier in the thread, the two verdicts depended not on whether the victim actually gave consent (she couldn't remember giving consent to either) but on the legal question of whether each defendant could have had a reasonable belief that she consented.

If you go back and read the first few pages of the thread, it should be reasonably clear.

What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?

Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.

Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.

 

[brogdale]

Police are investigating after a Twitter user wrote that he hoped Ched Evans raped Jessica Ennis-Hill.

On Thursday the athlete said she would want her name removed from a stand named after her by Sheffield United if the club re-signs the convicted rapist.

Later in the day a tweet was sent, saying: "I hope he [Evans] rapes her".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30057936

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Thats dodgy territory surely? Evans may actually believe or has convinced himself of his innocence-in fact plenty of people plead their innocence-I dont think pleading your innocence is the basis for extending a sentence after already being sentenced by due process.

Unless of course one of the measures of rehabilitation is an admittance of guilt for the parole board?

He's been let out 1/2 way through his 5 year sentence.

He's a rapist.

He doesn't think that he's done anything wrong, other than cheat on his girlfriend.

Would you think it's safe to release a rapist early when he doesn't even acknowledge that he has raped?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?

Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.

Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.

Read the thread, carefully. This has all been covered.

 

[Grandma Death]

He's been let out 1/2 way through his 5 year sentence.

He's a rapist.

He doesn't think that he's done anything wrong, other than cheat on his girlfriend.

Would you think it's safe to release a rapist early when he doesn't even acknowledge that he has raped?

Its not what I think. Its what a parole board thinks. Spymaster seems to be suggesting because he's protesting his innocence he shouldnt have been released-Im not even sure if thats taken into consideration when a prisoner is released or not.

Im just questioning whether thats grounds enough to extend a sentence post conviction? I have no idea really

 

[Grandma Death]

Read the thread, carefully. This has all been covered.

I was hoping others could fill me in-I havent read the thread in it entirety

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Its not what I think. Its what a parole board thinks. Spymaster seems to be suggesting because he's protesting his innocence he shouldnt have been released-Im not even sure if thats taken into consideration when a prisoner is released or not.

Im just questioning whether thats grounds enough to extend a sentence post conviction? I have no idea really

It's not really what the parole board thing either. It's standard procedure and there must be extreme extenuating circumstances not to let him out 1/2 way through.

 

[Grandma Death]

It's not really what the parole board thing either. It's standard procedure and there must be extreme extenuating circumstances not to let him out 1/2 way through.

Like I say I have no idea.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Like I say I have no idea.

Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.

 

[Grandma Death]

Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.

That is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Rape is the one crime a perpetrator is highly likely to evade justice for and the entire narrative around rape really concerns me.

 

[Spymaster]

Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.

I don't advocate hanging rapists (unless they murder), but yes, as I said back in the thread, first offence 10 years, second offence life.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

the entire narrative around rape really concerns me.

Set aside an hour and read the thread, a number of people out themselves as quite rapey

 

[andysays]

What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?

Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.

Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.

I agree with your second paragraph 100%.

But in this specific case, there is no suggestion that the victim did say no - she can't remember if she gave consent or explicitly declined/withdrew consent. Therefore the conclusion of the jury, based on the info they had, was that it was reasonable for the first guy to think she had given consent but not for Evans to think that.

Whether we think the law is correct or not, I think it's important that we understand what the law currently is and how it was applied in this case, giving one guilty and one not guilty verdict.

 

[andysays]

Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that sentences for rape should be longer, I think in discussing this (or any) specific case it can be confusing to talk too much about what we think the law should be rather than what it actually is.

The position here appears to be that an unrepentant rapist, who is even in denial about the fact that he raped, has been released after the most minimal amount of time served. Possibly the fact that sex offender programmes are in short supply has contributed to this (as ViolentPanda has suggested), but even with current sentencing policy, I'm struggling to see how he could have been released so early.

 

[Athos]

Only Evans, McDonald and possibly their two mates know that.

This is where the judgement seems inconsistent to me. She could consent to McDonald while drunk, but not to Evans while in the same state. In sentencing, the judge said this: '
"The complainant was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. She was in no condition to have sexual intercourse."

But from what I can tell, that was not the verdict of the jury. The verdict of the jury was that she did consent to McDonald while that drunk, or at least he had good reason to think she had.

She woke up not knowing where she was, not remembering going to the hotel, and convinced her drink had been spiked. She had not experienced an alcohol blackout before, but her drinking the night before is consistent with having had one - four double vodkas and a sambuca in quick succession is a recipe for a possible blackout.

That doesn't say much either way about the state she had been in in the hotel room. But even by Evans' version, these two used her and threw her away. Taking her to a hotel for sex then abandoning her there was a despicable thing to do. Then he rather sealed his own fate, I think, by trying to make out she was a liar in court. At the very, very least, there is a big problem with the attitude towards women displayed by Evans, McDonald and their two mates. Even their version of events shows them to have acted in a very nasty way.

You need to remember that, to secure a conviction, there are two essential elements; both must be present. So, the fact that the jury found Evans guilty means they concluded (beyond reasonable doubt) that she had not consented to sex with him (presumably because she lacked the capacity to do so, as a result of voluntary intoxication), and that he did not reasonably believe that she had consented to sex with him. The fact that they found McDonald not guilty does not mean they concluded that the victim was capable of consenting to sex with him (in fact, it's almost inconceivable that they could have come to that conclusion, given the very short time between the two instances of sex), but, rather, that (regardless of the lack of actual consent) he had reasonably believed that she had consented. In short, from all the circumstances McDonald was entitled to think she wanted sex with him, but that Evans had no reason to believe she wanted to have sex with him, too; why would he? She hadn't gone home with him - he just happened to sneak into the room! There is no inconsistency in those two positions.

Though I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that McDonald was entitled to think she'd consented to sex simply because she'd gone back to his room, given that it appears that the jury believed that her level of intoxication was so high as to have negated her capacity to consent to sex with Evans a short time later. (Strictly speaking, there's the possibility that their verdict was based on the fact that she had not even purported to consent, but that would be an odd conclusion in the light of the evidence of the two defendants that she had, and absent any evidence from her to the contrary.)

 

[toggle]

Yes, I know. It still doesn't really square up for me. Sounds to me that the judge had prepared to sentence both of them. We're in dangerous territory here with the idea that merely agreeing to go to a hotel with someone is taken to be consent to sex.

that's the way it's been like for a long time. rapoists have gotten away with it on far, far dodgier grounds.

 

[spanglechick]

It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.

And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too. But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.

 

[toggle]

It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.

And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too. But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.

depends. I think the fact she didn't remember is the reason there was a conviction. so there's none of the case that was he said/she said so the defence couldn't effectively push the line she was a liar, as happens in so many cases.

 

[CyberRose]

I

It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.

And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too. But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.

I think her answering to pretty much all questions in court was "I can't remember"

Many a times have I woke up after a night out not knowing how I'd gotten home or where the kabab strewn across the floor came from, it certainly doesn't mean I'd passed out at any stage

 

[likesfish]

Get pissed pick up a girl simply pissed fall into bed one thing
Letting your mate have twos up totally diffrent

 

[hash tag]

Hopefully, a major factor in taking him back or not is money. As I understand, 2 spinsors have said they would play no further part. This could also influence other sponsors. As I said a day or two back, i have written to the head honch at addidas urging them to seriously consider their position.
The arrogance is unbelievable...3 hifh profile patrons have pulled out, the world famous jess ennis has said she would follow. 2 sponsors have said they will walk, 160,000 have signed a petition...what will it take for him/the club to get the message?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

depends. I think the fact she didn't remember is the reason there was a conviction. so there's none of the case that was he said/she said so the defence couldn't effectively push the line she was a liar, as happens in so many cases.

My understanding is that they tried to make out she was a liar in any case. She's the one person whose testimony makes complete sense, tbh. I have precious little time or sympathy for Evans, whatever her state of consciousness at the time. He and his mates are a bunch of entitled wankers who did not think about the woman's wellbeing for one second. There are certain aspects of this conviction that do sit uneasily with me - and his version of events does at least appear to be plausible - but really it couldn't have happened to a nastier guy. And given that Evans went down, McDonald was very fucking lucky not to follow him.

If (and please note the if - I'm not saying I believe him) what Evans is saying is true, perhaps if he hadn't left a drunk woman alone in a strange hotel after fucking her, if he'd done the decent thing and made sure she got home ok, maybe none of this would have happened.

 

[Betsy]

Have just seen on the BBC paper's programme that The Sun is claiming an exclusive in tomorrow's edition saying that "Rapist Ched Evan's bid to re-join Sheffield United will be axed this weekend after the furious response to his planned comeback"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You need to remember that, to secure a conviction, there are two essential elements; both must be present. So, the fact that the jury found Evans guilty means they concluded (beyond reasonable doubt) that she had not consented to sex with him (presumably because she lacked the capacity to do so, as a result of voluntary intoxication), and that he did not reasonably believe that she had consented to sex with him. The fact that they found McDonald not guilty does not mean they concluded that the victim was capable of consenting to sex with him (in fact, it's almost inconceivable that they could have come to that conclusion, given the very short time between the two instances of sex), but, rather, that (regardless of the lack of actual consent) he had reasonably believed that she had consented. In short, from all the circumstances McDonald was entitled to think she wanted sex with him, but that Evans had no reason to believe she wanted to have sex with him, too; why would he? She hadn't gone home with him - he just happened to sneak into the room! There is no inconsistency in those two positions.

Though I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that McDonald was entitled to think she'd consented to sex simply because she'd gone back to his room, given that it appears that the jury believed that her level of intoxication was so high as to have negated her capacity to consent to sex with Evans a short time later. (Strictly speaking, there's the possibility that their verdict was based on the fact that she had not even purported to consent, but that would be an odd conclusion in the light of the evidence of the two defendants that she had, and absent any evidence from her to the contrary.)

I know what the conviction was based on. I'm guessing I have rather less faith in the judicial system than you. In this case, I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly. But far more often, rapists have got away with it by portraying the victims as sluts, etc. Those cases where the rapist got away with it were also weighed up in this sententious manner.

 

[butchersapron]

I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly

Over and over and over

 

[Athos]

I know what the conviction was based on. I'm guessing I have rather less faith in the judicial system than you. In this case, I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly. But far more often, rapists have got away with it by portraying the victims as sluts, etc. Those cases where the rapist got away with it were also weighed up in this sententious manner.

On what basis do you think the conviction may have been harsh?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On what basis do you think the conviction may have been harsh?

His story is plausible. She doesn't remember. Another jury may have found differently. Such is the crap shoot that passes for a justice system.

 

[Athos]

His story is plausible. She doesn't remember. Another jury may have found differently. Such is the crap shoot that passes for a justice system.

Almost every rapist could cobble together a story that is plausible. And on the basis that another jury might have acquitted, you can say that it's possible that any conviction was harsh. But the fact is that the jury (which, unlike you, heard all of the evidence) were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know why you'd want to undermine that by suggesting the jury may have got it wrong when you haven't heard the evidence they did.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As I said, you appear to have far more faith in the system than I do. Tell that to Mark Duggan's mother. Courts and juries get shit wrong all the time. 'the jury found this and we should trust them' doesn't wash with me. And it shouldn't with you.

 

[Athos]

As I said, you appear to have far more faith in the system than I do. Tell that to Mark Duggan's mother.

Because the power dynamic between this young woman and a premiership footballer is the same as the power dynamic between the MPS and a black man alleged to be a criminal?! (Not to mention the entirely different nature of, and standard of proof in, coronial proceedings.)