I agree with this. I was deeply disappointed when she effectively held the victim responsible for what happened.
I don't understand how people can't see that a drunk person's consent carries no weight. If no one trusts a drunk person to drive them home, how could anyone expect a drunk person capable of giving informed consent?
I also can't see how could one enjoy having intercourse with a person who's so drunk that they won't remember next day. Where's self-respect?
Wasn't there a similar outburst from Ceelo Green a couple of weeks back? where he said some thing along the lines of' it's not rape if they are unconscious'? .
Wasn't there a similar outburst from Ceelo Green a couple of weeks back? where he said some thing along the lines of' it's not rape if they are unconscious'? .
Yes, he did. From a Hollywood Reporter article:
TBS' decision to cancel The Good Life comes as the former The Voice coach is mired in controversy following tweets over the weekend about the nature of rape.
The musician/TV personality has since deleted the tweets in which he implied that women can only be raped if they are conscious. He also compared rape to a home invasion. "If someone is passed out they're not even WITH you consciously! So WITH implies consent," Green wrote. "People who have really been raped REMEMBER!!!" he added.
Green pleaded no contest in August to a felony count of furnishing ecstasy to a woman. He faced sexual assault charges in 2012.
Isn't it funny how the same people calling for the club not to take him back are a lot of the same people who extol the virtues of a justice system built upon rehabilitation and allowing a person to get on with their lives after they have served their time.
I think she worded what can be a valid point badly.
All rape is bad, and rapists should clearly be punished via jail time. Some rapes are more serious/violent/definition of your choice and therefore deserve higher sentences. This is not one of those cases.
Once released, people who have served their time must be able to make a living, otherwise the whole system has failed. There may be restrictions on what jobs they can do, based on the nature of the crime, such as a convicted fraudster not being an accountant, for example.
I fail to see how this crime would prevent Evans from being employed as a professional footballer - that is down to the individual clubs involved.
Isn't it funny how the same people calling for the club not to take him back are a lot of the same people who extol the virtues of a justice system built upon rehabilitation and allowing a person to get on with their lives after they have served their time.
I guess that is only acceptable for some crimes.
I wonder if they are the same people that whine on at length about the benefits culture and paying people who are out of work JSA?
Not much, but asking that the foofender who has served his sentence should not be permitted to follow to return to his profession, would probably result in a period of unemployment.
Not much, but asking that the foofender who has served his sentence should not be permitted to follow to return to his profession, would probably result in a period of unemployment.
Not much, but asking that the foofender who has served his sentence should not be permitted to follow to return to his profession, would probably result in a period of unemployment.
Got ya (I'm tired). Yes, one must ask the question, do we really want a person who has served their time to continue being a drain on the state or do we want them to go back to contributing?
I think she made her first comment without thinking. She probably meant no punching etc when she said no violence. Not so sure about him being able to return to the club though, even if no punching/slapping wasn't used. Why should being violent during a rape affect if you're allowed to return to your football club? I dunno, that way of thinking's a bit weird.
I agree with this. I was deeply disappointed when she effectively held the victim responsible for what happened.
I don't understand how people can't see that a drunk person's consent carries no weight. If no one trusts a drunk person to drive them home, how could anyone expect a drunk person capable of giving informed consent?
I also can't see how could one enjoy having intercourse with a person who's so drunk that they won't remember next day. Where's self-respect?
Clearly if someone is passed out its wrong, but there are many stages of inebriation before that. At what point is someone too drunk? How are we supposed to know, short of a breath test? Almost makes me glad I'm not a randy young footballer.
I agree with this. I was deeply disappointed when she effectively held the victim responsible for what happened.
I don't understand how people can't see that a drunk person's consent carries no weight. If no one trusts a drunk person to drive them home, how could anyone expect a drunk person capable of giving informed consent?
I also can't see how could one enjoy having intercourse with a person who's so drunk that they won't remember next day. Where's self-respect?
The expert who gave evidence at the trial made the assertion that an alcohol related loss of short-term memory after the event does not automatically equate to a lack of decision-making capacity at the time, and it is that which was called into question. A drunk consent is still consent, and according to McDonald (the guy who took her back to the hotel and was subsequently acquitted) when Evans showed up, she was asked if he could participate and she said "Yes". According to Evans, she was enthusiastic, appeared to be enjoying herself and even asked (Evans) to perform oral sex on her. She didn't even make a complaint about either of them with regards the rape claim, it seems as if it were simply concluded when both men were interviewed and, believing they had engaged in a legal (if tacky) night of sex with the girl, they admitted having intercourse with her.
I think her view is a valid one, but I think where she went wrong was declaring that the rape wasn't violent and the victim hadn't suffered(paraphrased)
She can make her point about the offender returning to work after a sentence has been served,without being so dismissive of the effects on the victim.
Yeah, this basically.
I agree that he should be able to return to work and whatever club wants to sign him well that is their business and it's for them to decide.
The talking about it being non-violent and saying that there had been no bodily harm is where Judy went wrong IMO. It did sound like she was belittling the long lasting effects of rape on a woman just because no "bodily harm" was caused.
I feel sorry for the guy. She has no recollection of the "rape".
The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was no complaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.
Donaldson was aquited.
How many footballers have been accused of this.
This is why you never , ever, ever talk to the police , no matter how nice and friendly they are without a Solicitor present. He seemed to have talked himself into a very unsafe Rape conviction with the help of very expert Police interviewers.
He's done his time , leave him alone to get on with his life
I agree with this. I was deeply disappointed when she effectively held the victim responsible for what happened.
I don't understand how people can't see that a drunk person's consent carries no weight. If no one trusts a drunk person to drive them home, how could anyone expect a drunk person capable of giving informed consent?
I also can't see how could one enjoy having intercourse with a person who's so drunk that they won't remember next day. Where's self-respect?
That isn't the law, though. It was held in R v Bree (2007) that being drunk does not automatically invalidate consent.
This is the current law on the subject (from the Bree case).
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
And this is how the judge directed the Jury in Evans' case.
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
That isn't the law, though. It was held in R v Bree (2007) that being drunk does not automatically invalidate consent.
This is the current law on the subject (from the Bree case).
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
And this is how the judge directed the Jury in Evans' case.
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
Yes, nice to have some proper law on this , but as you know in court we will always end up with a very brief snapshot of what happened, but this guy talked himself into a rape conviction and the Police knew they needed a confession as to sex having taken place as there was absolutely no other evidence.
Yes, nice to have some proper law on this , but as you know in court we will always end up with a very brief snapshot of what happened, but this guy talked himself into a rape conviction and the Police knew they needed a confession as to sex having taken place as there was absolutely no other evidence.
Yes you're right, the victim never directly accused either of them of rape. It's a very strange case all round, I am surprised that the case didn't go to the Court of Appeal to further clarify the law on drunken consent.
Comments
Yes, he did. From a Hollywood Reporter article:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tbs-cancels-cee-lo-greens-729557
Well done for remembering his name, though. I couldn't remember the idiot's name when I read another poster's response earlier.
I guess that is only acceptable for some crimes.
All rape is bad, and rapists should clearly be punished via jail time. Some rapes are more serious/violent/definition of your choice and therefore deserve higher sentences. This is not one of those cases.
Once released, people who have served their time must be able to make a living, otherwise the whole system has failed. There may be restrictions on what jobs they can do, based on the nature of the crime, such as a convicted fraudster not being an accountant, for example.
I fail to see how this crime would prevent Evans from being employed as a professional footballer - that is down to the individual clubs involved.
Relevance?
Freudian
Got ya (I'm tired). Yes, one must ask the question, do we really want a person who has served their time to continue being a drain on the state or do we want them to go back to contributing?
Clearly if someone is passed out its wrong, but there are many stages of inebriation before that. At what point is someone too drunk? How are we supposed to know, short of a breath test? Almost makes me glad I'm not a randy young footballer.
The expert who gave evidence at the trial made the assertion that an alcohol related loss of short-term memory after the event does not automatically equate to a lack of decision-making capacity at the time, and it is that which was called into question. A drunk consent is still consent, and according to McDonald (the guy who took her back to the hotel and was subsequently acquitted) when Evans showed up, she was asked if he could participate and she said "Yes". According to Evans, she was enthusiastic, appeared to be enjoying herself and even asked (Evans) to perform oral sex on her. She didn't even make a complaint about either of them with regards the rape claim, it seems as if it were simply concluded when both men were interviewed and, believing they had engaged in a legal (if tacky) night of sex with the girl, they admitted having intercourse with her.
Yeah, this basically.
I agree that he should be able to return to work and whatever club wants to sign him well that is their business and it's for them to decide.
The talking about it being non-violent and saying that there had been no bodily harm is where Judy went wrong IMO. It did sound like she was belittling the long lasting effects of rape on a woman just because no "bodily harm" was caused.
who is forcing her to?
her boss I'd imagine, though he/she should also be apologising, if you employ morons don't be surprised if they talk bollocks on your tv channel
My thoughts exactly.
This is why you never , ever, ever talk to the police , no matter how nice and friendly they are without a Solicitor present. He seemed to have talked himself into a very unsafe Rape conviction with the help of very expert Police interviewers.
He's done his time , leave him alone to get on with his life
That isn't the law, though. It was held in R v Bree (2007) that being drunk does not automatically invalidate consent.
This is the current law on the subject (from the Bree case).
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
And this is how the judge directed the Jury in Evans' case.
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
Yes, nice to have some proper law on this , but as you know in court we will always end up with a very brief snapshot of what happened, but this guy talked himself into a rape conviction and the Police knew they needed a confession as to sex having taken place as there was absolutely no other evidence.
Why do you have to be "easily upset" to find her comment disgraceful?
Yes you're right, the victim never directly accused either of them of rape. It's a very strange case all round, I am surprised that the case didn't go to the Court of Appeal to further clarify the law on drunken consent.