Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bluescreen]

What's 0.057*0.15...not very much is it. Which means there surely is a pretty bloody significant problem.

The law has got better over the last twenty/thirty years, as has law enforcement. The latter are probably a bigger problem still now, imo. And 'wider society in general' - I dont like using the phrase 'rape culture', but it isn't a million miles from the truth - is probably an even bigger problem still.

No question it's got better. No one I knew at university in the 70s wanted to report rape if they weren't a virgin. Back then, the argument seemed to be that if you had sex outside marriage at all, you'd be willing to have sex with anyone except perhaps someone who leapt out of the bushes brandishing a knife. The police generally deal with it better now, one thing Ian Blair deserves credit for. (Yeah, I know.) But there is still very prejudicial cross-examining and awful judges who allow that.

 

[belboid]

McDonald did not get drunk with her.

He knew her, they were friends, but she was already pissed when they met that evening.

Not true. No evidence they were friends, he picked her up, they had more drink.

 

[Athos]

McDonald did not get drunk with her.

He knew her, they were friends, but she was already pissed when they met that evening.

The jury can only have inferred that, because she'd gone to the room with him etc., there was nothing to gainsay (beyond reasonable doubt) his evidence that he believed she'd consented, even though, at the time of the sex, they found she hadn't actually consented, because she lacked the capacity so to do by virtue of her intoxication. And that they didn't believe that Evans had a reasonable belief that she'd conserned to sex with him - not unreasonably in the circumstances as they've been reported.

 

[Pickman's model]

Neither have I and I'm guessing it's because we haven't actually blacked out as opposed to passed out.I have done rehab however and as you can imagine a certain amount of boasting goes on,them "have you ever pissed the bed" me "no" them "well you are not a real alcoholic then,me "??? I don't have wet brain either but I do have an alcohol problem".This page has a section on blacking out (don't know how legit just a page at random):
Alcohol in the Body - liver - brain - fetal alcohol syndrome - hangover
also the PDF on alcohol blackouts and crime linked underneath is worth a read.
One thing I'm pretty certain about is that you can't have consensual sex in that state.
The pissing in drawers,wardrobes and on the floor thing is quite common and is more to do with sleepwalking rather than blacking out.

mate believe me i've blacked out
i have also had consensual sex i cannot recall: or at least i couldn't recall it but the other, less drunken, partner had some recollection.

 

[Spymaster]

Not true. No evidence they were friends, he picked her up, they had more drink.

Why do you think this?

Where did you get it from?

 

[Athos]

The odds are roughly evens. The CPS won't bring (or re-bring) charges if they reckon there isn't at least a 50% chance of winning, and the Court of Appeals won't find for a re-trial unless they see the defendant as having at least a 50% chance of winning.

That's on law. Factor in the jury, and the legal odds can fly out of the window.

I'm not sure that's the test the Court of Appeal apply.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why do you think this?

Where did you get it from?

orang utan no doubt

 

[belboid]

Why do you think this?

Where did you get it from?

Having followed the case. None of which has stated the victim was a friend of CM.

Where do you get your claim from?

 

[butchersapron]

Why do you think this?

Where did you get it from?

How about posters go back and refresh their memory before posting further? This is going to be a joke otherwise.

 

[peterkro]

mate believe me i've blacked out
i have also had consensual sex i cannot recall: or at least i couldn't recall it but the other, less drunken, partner had some recollection.

Fairy muff,although I don't think memory loss and having sex you can't remember is necessarily blacking out.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fairy muff,although I don't think memory loss and having sex you can't remember is necessarily blacking out.

blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.

 

[Spymaster]

Having followed the case. None of which has stated the victim was a friend of CM.

Where do you get your claim from?

The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt. They may have drink more but she was already utterly fucked when she met McDonald.

McDonald had been on the piss with Evans and others, not her. He got separated from the group and bumped into her when she was already shit faced.

 

[peterkro]

blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.

Ye s it's all a bit unclear as far as I can see the difference with a "black out" is that the memory loss is irreversible which is different from the usual "I was so pissed I can't remember what I did.

 

[Pickman's model]

The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt. They may have drink more but she was already utterly fucked when she met McDonald.

McDonald had been on the piss with Evans and others, not her. He got separated from the group and bumped into her when she was already shit faced.

have you had a couple?

 

[BigTom]

You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So.. are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?

If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.
The drunkenness scale is that of being tried by a jury of your peers - if your peers come to the conclusion that it is beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the other person was not in a state to give consent and (b) it is reasonable to think that you should have been aware that the other person was not in a state to given consent, then you'll get convicted. If they don't, you won't.

Would a jury convict two drunk teenagers who slept together? I doubt it. Would they convict a more-or-less sober teenager who slept with a very drunk teenager? Probably yes and so they should - predatory fucks who go out looking for wasted women are not exactly uncommon. Two people who get drunk, meet in a nightclub, shag and can't remember it will never ever be convicted under this law. We know that because Clayton McDonald was acquitted, due to the circumstances in which he met the woman in this case, whilst Ched Evans was convicted, due to the - wildly different - circumstances that he met her.

 

[Spymaster]

have you had a couple?

Not yet. You?

 

[belboid]

The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt.

An excellent summary of the case.

It doesn't state they were friends. You are confusing the applicant and the complainant.
R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) :: Crimeline

 

[bluescreen]

blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.

(((Pickman's)))

 

[Sasaferrato]

Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?

I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not yet. You?

sadly not since 2002

 

[Spymaster]

An excellent summary of the case.

It doesn't state they were friends. You are confusing the applicant and the complainant.
R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) :: Crimeline

Yes, you're right about the friends thing.

But the point is she was well pissed when she met McDonald. They did not get pissed together as you stated.

 

[belboid]

Yes, you're right about the friends thing.

But the point is she was well pissed when she met McDonald. They did not get pissed together as you stated.

ohh, so the point you thought was less important earlier was now actually the central one? Do fuck off, you bullshitting fuckwit.

 

[bluescreen]

Is it just me who notices the way people are so ready to identify with the poor misunderstood and wrongly accused Ched Evans?
No, of course no one is doing that: they are rationally considering the evidence, scientifically evaluating it and objectively dismissing prejudiced opinion. Thank goodness for the dispassionate mind.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I dont give a shit if you 'listen' or not. You're arguments are shit and incoherent

Is rape apologism, no more no less. You can attempt to make as much fudge as you like, but that is what it is.

Do go away and sober up, or recover what other substance is fogging your brain.

If you weren't such an incoherent pillock, I could take offence to assertion that I was a rape apologist.

I am on record on this board, on a number of occasions, having stated that I think that rape is an absolutely vile crime, and would see rapists going to jail for the rest of their natural lives, with great pleasure. It is my view that rape is on terms with murder in its seriousness, it is not just the apalling experience of the rape, it it is the unease that the victim can have for the rest of their lives, even in their own home. Rape is a despicable crime which destroys lives.

Now, stop being a dickhead.

 

[Spymaster]

ohh, so the point you thought was less important earlier was now actually the central one?

Lol, you lying cunt!

The central point, very obviously, was to refute your claim the she and McDonald got pissed together, and you know it.

They didn't.

Now suck it up you wriggling fucking chancer.

 

[Athos]

I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.

You know when I said one of your previous posts on this thread was the most fatuous 'argument' I'd ever read? It's just been relegated to second place.

 

[bluescreen]

Do go away and sober up, or recover what other substance is fogging your brain.

If you weren't such an incoherent pillock, I could take offence to assertion that I was a rape apologist.

I am on record on this board, on a number of occasions, having stated that I think that rape is an absolutely vile crime, and would see rapists going to jail for the rest of their natural lives, with great pleasure. It is my view that rape is on terms with murder in its seriousness, it is not just the apalling experience of the rape, it it is the unease that the victim can have for the rest of their lives, even in their own home. Rape is a despicable crime which destroys lives.

Now, stop being a dickhead.

Whew. We've cleared that up, then!

PS. It's not about you.

 

[Athos]

How about posters go back and refresh their memory before posting further? This is going to be a joke otherwise.

Going to be?

 

[Athos]

If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.
The drunkenness scale is that of being tried by a jury of your peers - if your peers come to the conclusion that it is beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the other person was not in a state to give consent and (b) it is reasonable to think that you should have been aware that the other person was not in a state to given consent, then you'll get convicted. If they don't, you won't.

Would a jury convict two drunk teenagers who slept together? I doubt it. Would they convict a more-or-less sober teenager who slept with a very drunk teenager? Probably yes and so they should - predatory fucks who go out looking for wasted women are not exactly uncommon. Two people who get drunk, meet in a nightclub, shag and can't remember it will never ever be convicted under this law. We know that because Clayton McDonald was acquitted, due to the circumstances in which he met the woman in this case, whilst Ched Evans was convicted, due to the - wildly different - circumstances that he met her.

That's not actually the test.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Is it just me who notices the way people are so ready to identify with the poor misunderstood and wrongly accused Ched Evans?
No, of course no one is doing that: they are rationally considering the evidence, scientifically evaluating it and objectively dismissing prejudiced opinion. Thank goodness for the dispassionate mind.

If he is guilty, he deserves more than he got. If he is not guilty, then he does not deserve what he got. Justice demands that he gets the correct outcome, according to the evidence.

His behaviour was dreadful, whether he is innocent or not. No one is 'defending' him, legally he may be innocent, but morally he is absolutely disgusting. Morals and law are not always the same thing.