Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[belboid]

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.

It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see real rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. That's the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have studied the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.

 

[bluescreen]

Snippy snip:

Morals and law are not always the same thing.

 

[Sasaferrato]

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.

Pretty much. Memory isn't always present when you wake up, but it then returns. That is really pissed, been there, done that. Blackout is complete memory loss, no realisation of what you were up to the previous night. Only happened to me once, and that was after sixteen hours of continuous drinking. I was asleep in the middle of a country road, and was awakened by a policeman. I'd walked about four miles, with no recollection of the journey.

 

[Orang Utan]

orang utan no doubt

That's out of order

 

[Sasaferrato]

It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see real rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. That's the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have studied the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.

I have reported this post. I am not an apologist for rape, in any way shape or form. In accusing me of being so you are a liar.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's out of order

yeh. yeh, you're right.

 

[Teaboy]

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.

He's a rapey piece of shit. I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Athos]

It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see real rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. That's the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have studied the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.

Yes, and increased likelihood of conviction is a far bigger deterrent than increased punishment.

A lot of the arguments in this thread are thinly veiled suggestions that real rapists jump out of bushes in balaclavas. The corollary of which is that those who are upset by sex with anyone else have only themselves to blame.

 

[Sasaferrato]

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.

Do cite the case, or shut the fuck up. What I said was absolutely correct, and anyone who was not out to be deliberately argumentative would realise exactly what I was saying. Just to be clear, because the the man has the penis, the man must be absolutely certain that the act is consensual. There have been many cases where a man has been prosecuted for having intercourse with an unconscious woman, and rightly convicted of rape. My response was to try and get over to Bimble, that women do not get prosecuted for this offence (not sure if it is physiologically possible), but men do, therefore a man has an absolute responsibility to ensure that they are acting in both a legal and a moral manner.

 

[crossthebreeze]

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?

If a woman - or man - is so drunk (or under the influence of any substance) they can't walk, is drifting in and out of sleep, is very slurry, or has lost continence, then it doesn't matter how enthusiastically they are going along with, or even initiating, sex - they are too drunk/under the influence to consent - and if you are less drunk/off your head than them, or even if you are as pissed as them but notice that they are very drunk - then no matter if you are a woman or man - you should not be having sex of any sort with the very drunk person as it is (or should be) rape or sexual assault. Its not a case of never have sex with anyone who's a bit tipsy or slightly stoned or whatever, its usually pretty obvious, in my own experience, where sex should definitely not happen because the line could be crossed.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do cite the case, or shut the fuck up. What I said was absolutely correct, and anyone who was not out to be deliberately argumentative would realise exactly what I was saying. Just to be clear, because the the man has the penis, the man must be absolutely certain that the act is consensual. There have been many cases where a man has been prosecuted for having intercourse with an unconscious woman, and rightly convicted of rape. My response was to try and get over to Bimble, that women do not get prosecuted for this offence (not sure if it is physiologically possible), but men do, therefore a man has an absolute responsibility to ensure that they are acting in both a legal and a moral manner.

stop digging

 

[bimble]

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.

I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?

I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
I date from a time when it was 100% my job to determine whether or not I wanted to have sex. Meaning my behaviour growing up & still now is very much shaped by the idea that it's entirely my responsibility to police my self and to just not be around men whilst totally off my head, unless I'm sure I'd be ok with whatever happened come the morning. So I'm stuck with this idea that my safety far as possible is my responsibility, not yours.
And that's an unacceptable, heinously oldschool way of looking at things now, which I should probably be glad of but I'm just not quite there yet.

 

[BigTom]

That's not actually the test.

There's two things I said that could be the test

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.

and

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.

Could you elaborate please - the first is shaky I'm sure but I thought I had the law right in terms of the second bit so would appreciate being corrected

 

[Sasaferrato]

He's a rapey piece of shit. I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.

Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?

Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.

Did you read the transcript of the evidence in the post up the thread? If so, did it not raise a number of questions in your mind? On the facts as stated, the finding of the jury was more than somewhat inconsistent.

There is also a major inconsistency in the alcohol findings, for it to be zero after the claimed level of intoxication is strange. A seasoned drinker eliminates circa 20mg% per hour. The estimate was 2.5 times the drink/drive limit, about 200mg%, for the level to be zero, then the ingested amount must be less, ergo, it casts doubt on the ability to give informed consent.

He mat well be guilty, the jury will decide. But despite your absolute knowledge that he is guilty, he is entitled to correct challenge of the evidence, and an outcome based on the evidence.

As I said before, his behaviour was disgraceful, but he is entitled to justice. Were it you standing in his place, I suspect you would want an outcome based on the evidence, not a blind assertion that you were guilty.

 

[Sasaferrato]

stop digging

Go away, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?

I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
I date from a time when it was 100% my job to determine whether or not I wanted to have sex. Meaning my behaviour growing up & still now is very much shaped by the idea that it's entirely my responsibility to police my self and to just not be around men whilst totally off my head, unless I'm sure I'd be ok with whatever happened come the morning. So I'm stuck with this idea that my safety far as possible is my responsibility, not yours.
And that's an unacceptable, heinously oldschool way of looking at things now, which I should probably be glad of but I'm just not quite there yet.

No. You should not have to be constantly responsible for your safety. Fair enough, walking up a dark alley whilst pissed is stupid, and that goes for men and women, but it is up to the male part of the populace not to attack you if you are in a vulnerable state. No woman who is raped is ever to blame, never.

 

[butchersapron]

Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?

Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.

Did you read the transcript of the evidence in the post up the thread? If so, did it not raise a number of questions in your mind? On the facts as stated, the finding of the jury was more than somewhat inconsistent.

There is also a major inconsistency in the alcohol findings, for it to be zero after the claimed level of intoxication is strange. A seasoned drinker eliminates circa 20mg% per hour. The estimate was 2.5 times the drink/drive limit, about 200mg%, for the level to be zero, then the ingested amount must be less, ergo, it casts doubt on the ability to give informed consent.

He mat well be guilty, the jury will decide. But despite your absolute knowledge that he is guilty, he is entitled to correct challenge of the evidence, and an outcome based on the evidence.

As I said before, his behaviour was disgraceful, but he is entitled to justice. Were it you standing in his place, I suspect you would want an outcome based on the evidence, not a blind assertion that you were guilty.

What 'transcript of the the evidence'?

 

[Teaboy]

Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?

Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.

Did you read the transcript of the evidence in the post up the thread? If so, did it not raise a number of questions in your mind? On the facts as stated, the finding of the jury was more than somewhat inconsistent.

There is also a major inconsistency in the alcohol findings, for it to be zero after the claimed level of intoxication is strange. A seasoned drinker eliminates circa 20mg% per hour. The estimate was 2.5 times the drink/drive limit, about 200mg%, for the level to be zero, then the ingested amount must be less, ergo, it casts doubt on the ability to give informed consent.

He mat well be guilty, the jury will decide. But despite your absolute knowledge that he is guilty, he is entitled to correct challenge of the evidence, and an outcome based on the evidence.

As I said before, his behaviour was disgraceful, but he is entitled to justice. Were it you standing in his place, I suspect you would want an outcome based on the evidence, not a blind assertion that you were guilty.

I've read enough. I've made up my mind, for me that is rape and he is a rapist. The law is a constantly changing and adapting landscape it is far from perfect. In years to come people like him will be convicted every time for this sort of thing just as the peeds are going to jail rather then being protected now. Its not about a lynch mob, it matters not a jot to me (apart from if the vile rapist tries to join my club), the only lynch mob has been the one who has relentlessly gone after the victim. Any concerns for her or her family or does your cherished holding of the law to some sort of standard it has done little to deserve trump everything and everyone?

 

[BigTom]

I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?

I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
I date from a time when it was 100% my job to determine whether or not I wanted to have sex. Meaning my behaviour growing up & still now is very much shaped by the idea that it's entirely my responsibility to police my self and to just not be around men whilst totally off my head, unless I'm sure I'd be ok with whatever happened come the morning. So I'm stuck with this idea that my safety far as possible is my responsibility, not yours.
And that's an unacceptable, heinously oldschool way of looking at things now, which I should probably be glad of but I'm just not quite there yet.

I don't need to imagine how messy and confusing stuff gets when drugs and alcohol are concerned. I think that the vast majority of people have been drunk and know how blurry things can get. There needs to be a law to convict the predatory fucks who seek out wasted women of rape, my understanding of the law as it is framed and has played out in this case, is that it is a pretty decent law to do that without causing the problems you are putting forward. That understanding is pending Athos' correction of my thoughts of course.

 

[keybored]

Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Pickman's model]

Go away, you are embarrassing yourself.

My very point: this is your unfinest hour

 

[BigTom]

Do you have a source for that?

Have there been any such convictions? Pretty sure someone was challenged earlier in the thread to find some and never did.
Assuming my understanding of the law is correct, do you think that if person A was considered to be in a state where they were unable to give consent, and person B was in the same state, that it would be possible for it to be reasonable for person B to understand person A is not able to consent? I don't, hence it won't happen, and it hasn't happened, even though plenty of mutually drunk people sleep together every weekend, and the law has been in place for years.

 

[keybored]

Have there been any such convictions? Pretty sure someone was challenged earlier in the thread to find some and never did.
Assuming my understanding of the law is correct, do you think that if person A was considered to be in a state where they were unable to give consent, and person B was in the same state, that it would be possible for it to be reasonable for person B to understand person A is not able to consent? I don't, hence it won't happen, and it hasn't happened, even though plenty of mutually drunk people sleep together every weekend, and the law has been in place for years.

Not necessarily saying I doubt you (I agree with your point); here's why I ask. I know someone who is on police bail waiting to find out if he is to be charged with sexual assault. At the time of the alleged incident (back in January), he was so drunk he barely remembers what happened. The complainant was also drunk, but drunk less throughout the evening leading up to the incident and apparently has more recollection of what happened, enough to make a complaint the next day. An arrest followed, then unconditional police bail until the end of this month. He recently got a letter saying the bail is extended to sometime in September, apparently the CPS are still deciding whether they can make a case.

His solicitor made no mention of the thing you said, I don't know if it's any kind of defence to say "I was so drunk I can't recall whether consent was given".

 

[bimble]

No. You should not have to be constantly responsible for your safety. Fair enough, walking up a dark alley whilst pissed is stupid, and that goes for men and women, but it is up to the male part of the populace not to attack you if you are in a vulnerable state. No woman who is raped is ever to blame, never.

Righto. That's an easy banner to get behind. But.. did you see the abuse recently heaped upon Chrissie Hynde by well-meaning people when she wrote in her autobiography that she felt partly responsible for what happened to her aged 21 ?
She was violently villified by people shouting that she had every right to be off her head and to follow the hells angels guys home but has no right at all to claim any agency in / responsibility for what happened next.
I was thinking this is a generation gap thing, but if so then you Sasaferrato are kind of an incongruous frontliner.

 

[BigTom]

Not necessarily saying I doubt you (I agree with your point); here's why I ask. I know someone who is on police bail waiting to find out if he is to be charged with sexual assault. At the time of the alleged incident (back in January), he was so drunk he barely remembers what happened. The complainant was also drunk, but drunk less throughout the evening leading up to the incident and apparently has more recollection of what happened, enough to make a complaint the next day. An arrest followed, then unconditional police bail until the end of this month. He recently got a letter saying the bail is extended to sometime in September, apparently the CPS are still deciding whether they can make a case.

His solicitor made no mention of the thing you said, I don't know if it's any kind of defence to say "I was so drunk I can't recall whether consent was given".

I don't think it is - but the defence in this case is that she did consent, not that he was too drunk to remember if she consented. The questions are whether she was able to give consent, and if she wasn't able to give consent but did, was it reasonable for him to know that she wasn't able to give consent. Anything I've said is in that context, I haven't really thought about how this law might apply to different situations, I think the person you know is in a different position to the one I was considering.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

He's a rapey piece of shit. I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.

^^^ This.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

At last some sense

 

[Spymaster]

At last some sense

Old.

You need to come up with some new material, mate.

 

[bimble]

if she wasn't able to give consent but did

So even if a woman says yes, enthusiastically, even if she lets say puts prince on the hifi and does a strip tease on the coffee table etc, its the man's job to second guess whether or not she's in a position to be taken at her word, to add up how many units of alcohol she's consumed and detract them from her apparent behaviour etc.
*gets coat*