D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
A lot of sex offenders get an extended licence - which can be up to life. Evans might be on licence for a few years past his original Sentence Expiry Date
Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison
- Thread starter Bahnhof Strasse
- Start date
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
i understand that, but you can't stop people who can afford it doing it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Of course it matters. There would be no relevance to this case, so it has no relevance to this thread. You might as well ask about what the Queen is having for tea?
Practise then, you might get better at it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
True, but my point was that the fact he only served half the sentence in prison is the norm.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Don't be daft. The thread is as much a discussion of legal principle as it is this specific case.
Pfft.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Just think about it for a moment. As long as there's some semblence of equality before the law, even the rich and poweful have an interest (albeit self-interest) in seeing fair play. The more freely an acquittal can (in practical terms) be bought, the less those with wealth i.e. the people with power over the system, are motivated to ensure that the standards of fairness apply equally to all. Who wouldn't be uneasy about that?!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Wasn't that SAS bloke with the gun at home convicted after a retrial, following the original verdict being quashed. And the bloke who murdered three generations of one family in Wales. Can't recall the details, though - get googling!
D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
Yeah - you have to be slightly more violent than Charles Bronson for them to keep you past your conditional release date these days
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
no it isn't, or if it is, it is about very specific legal principles related to rape. Why would anyone want to muddy such a discussion with a complete derail onto a wholly separate subject?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Show them were tough on crime by doubling sentences. Ok. Shit, the prisons are full. What we gonna do? Let's let everyone out after half their sentence. Genius.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I know the half the time thing but I was under the impression for a sex crime you had to have accepted your guilt wheras evans never did. Must have got my wires crossed somewhere
Athos
Well-Known Member
Nah, I think you might be confusing it with indeterminate sentences, where there's no set release date, but a tarrif, after which time the parole board will consider it. They will take into account whether you have shown remorse etc., which requires you to admit you did it.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
After today's decision maybe he was right in never accepting his guilt!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I wasn't trying to "muddy" the discussion intentionally and don't think it's a derail really. I'm on the cusp of being prepared to let it go, or telling you to fuck right off.
Athos
Well-Known Member
He'd have got a third off his sentence; that'd mean two years inside, rather than three. Regardless of whether you were guilty or not, I can understand why somone (particularly someone without kids) would gamble one year in prison against the rest of his life being ruined by the stigma of conviction and the end of his career.
Last edited:
RubyBlue
faded and jaded
Is that what you misunderstood my post to mean?
trashpony
Hag
Oh do shut up.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Why?
His conviction has been overturned! So right now in the eyes if the law he is innocent!
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
No. I understand you think everyone should be able to exhaust all lines of enquiry!
trashpony
Hag
Yes! Right now! Although he's going to have another trial! So I suppose that the CPS thinks he's probably guilty!
Is that enough exclamation marks?
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
It doesn't matter what the CPS think. It's the 12 members of the next jury that matter. Until they decide, he's an innocent man.
Might of been missed but I posted a link to an Independent piece that states Don Hale was employed early on to do investigative work for Evans.
D-day for Ched Evans as Court of Appeal rules on rape conviction
"There has been a less publicised side to the efforts to demonstrate justice. In the early days after Evans’s conviction, the freelance investigative journalist Don Hale was quietly sought out by the player’s family to begin some of the evidence-gathering that may prove significant on Thursday. It was typically thorough work by Hale. He worked in the same painstaking way to secure new witness statements when he secured a re-examination of the case of Stephen Downing, the 17-year-old council worker convicted in 1974 of the murder of a legal secretary at a graveyard in Bakewell, Derbyshire. Downing was acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2002."
Hale also worked on the Barry George case.
trashpony
Hag
Well it does inasmuch as they think they still have a case. So he's the accused rapist right now. And also he admits fucking a comatose woman because he's too fucking dim to understand what consent is. So he's a piece of scum who I wouldn't grace with my dog's shit. Still, each to their own. If you want to paint him as a wronged victim, you wouldn't be changing my opinion of you one iota.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I agree that he's a piece of shit. But he doesn't admit to shagging a comatose victim. Drunken consent is consent. She was still able to consent and evidently shout how much she enjoying it. If she had been comatose would agree he was a rapist, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the evidence!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
He's accused of rape right now.
No. He's always claimed that she consented to oral and vaginal sex.
Come on! If he's a rapist I'd want his bollocks kicked-in.
But there's a very fair chance that he isn't.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
This is not true.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's generally not the law but rather the lawyers who are asses, but in the case of sexual offences, the law is too piecemeal to deliver consistent results, and is therefore an ass. No Home Secretary that I can recall has undertaken a thorough review of laws around sexual offences, and it shows.
For example, here new legislation has been introduced to facilitate evidence from vulnerable witnesses etc, some judges (because it's within their discretion) will veto screens and video evidence.
Some judges still allow forceful questioning about a victim's prior sexual history, even though it's long not been deemed a valid path evidentially, and serves mostly to prejudice jurors against victims.
Constant re-categorisation of various sex offences, in terms of the ambit of particular offences, and of sentencing guidelines, also have an effect, with judges having to rely on their clerks to keep them informed as to current practice.
It's all a big clusterfuck, and one that disproportionally affects women and children, but you won't find any Home Secretary willing to take on the issue because it's not a surefire vote winner.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
You may like to look at the summing up in first trial and guidance given by judge which contradicted case law. I believe that is one of the areas used in appeal.
Similar threads
