Commit a crime, stand trial, serve your time - That is how civilised society works. Once they have served their time, they get on with their lives.
Why should this case be any different? Are we to just assume that he will do it again and thus consign him to the margins of society? No, that is not what a civilised society does.
Yep. As much as the other side of me really wants to dispute, you're right, that's not how a civilised society should work.
The whole point of the penal system is that you are punished in accordance with what you've done and then you get released to carry on life and career.
Would you rather be paying for him to be on benefits for the next fifty years?
Why is it a difficult 1? If it was Joe public who worked in a shop before conviction would anyone be saying he shouldn't be allowed to work in a shop again? Think its just jealousy towards the supposed millionaire lifestyle that all footballers supposedly lead.
As for his conviction in the first place I'm unsure if the details but have heard of plenty of footballers targeted with rape claims from gold digging women.
Although i do hate the idea of a rapist just walking back into a career where he will get loads of money and will be looked up to, i do actually agree with this comment.
If we were to say he isn't allowed, we'd have to tell all rapists they cant have a job, which would ultimately mean were paying for them to live.
Though i don't agree with the last part, suggesting he may be innocent. He had been found guilty and its unfair to suggest the woman was lying based on absolutely no evidence.
Though i don't agree with the last part, suggesting he may be innocent. He had been found guilty and its unfair to suggest the woman was lying based on absolutely no evidence.
There was never a question of anybody lying, they both admitted straight away having sex with the girl but both insisted it was consensual and that she had capacity to consent and was enjoying herself (as far as they could tell)
She just said that she didn't have any memory of anything that happened after 3am and despite an expert reminding the court that a lack of memory after the event does not equate to a lack of capacity at the time, this was not accepted for Evans and he was convicted.
There was never a question of anybody lying, they both admitted straight away having sex with the girl but both insisted it was consensual and that she had capacity to consent and was enjoying herself (as far as they could tell)
She just said that she didn't have any memory of anything that happened after 3am and despite an expert reminding the court that a lack of memory after the event does not equate to a lack of capacity at the time, this was not accepted for Evans and he was convicted.
Yes that's what I remember from the court case too.
It was very seedy and dodgy but it was very much a grey area as to what happened.
While it is important to respect the outcome of court cases, people do have a gut feeling about things, and they will consult those feelings when forming an opinion.
So, for example, a court case found Pistorious innocent of murder.
Well, I have my own (very definite) gut feeling about that.
A couple of important points which must be repeated for clarity.
1. The victim never directly accused either of the two men of rape, she simply claimed not to remember the incident.
2. There is no suggestion at all that the victim was 'comatose' when Evans arrived. She was seen on CCTV entering the hotel with Mr McDonald at 4.15 am, described by witnesses as 'very drunk' but able to walk unaided and voluntarily accompanying Mr McDonald. Mr Evans arrived just fifteen minutes later.
A couple of important points which must be repeated for clarity.
1. The victim never directly accused either of the two men of rape, she simply claimed not to remember the incident.
2. There is no suggestion at all that the victim was 'comatose' when Evans arrived. She was seen on CCTV entering the hotel with Mr McDonald at 4.15 am, described by witnesses as 'very drunk' but able to walk unaided and voluntarily accompanying Mr McDonald. Mr Evans arrived just fifteen minutes later.
Oops, it was me that mistakedly used "comatose". I'd remembered incorrectly.
So if a man works in Tesco and goes to jail for rape can he not go back to work at Tesco?
Just because he's a footballer should not stop him going back to his job. Would you prefer him to go and benefits or potentially turning to a life of crime? There are footballers who have been to jail for killing people and came out and restarted there careers - no one made any 'petitions' against them
There was a long thread about this at the time of the trial.
As I understand it:
She went back to the hotel with the other player. As he spent time with her and talking to her, it was hard for the jury to be certain that he didn't believe that she had given him informed consent. Sorry about all the negatives. To find him guilty the jury would have had to believe that he had sex without informed consent. As he spent time talking to her, he might have believed he had that consent. The jury gave him the benefit of any doubt.
However, when Ched Evans arrived, (by sneaking in through a window, IIRC) she was already comatose. He did not spent time talking to her, so there was no way that he could have formed the opinion that she was giving informed consent to sex. Hence the guilty verdict.
IIRC, the other player had phoned or texted Evans to come round for sex with the woman, so he didn't come out of this smelling of roses, but he was acqitted of rape.
But he didn't sneak in through a window. Having arrived at the Premier Inn 10 minutes after McDonald and the complainant, Evans entered the reception area. He obtained a further keycard for Room 14. He said to the night porter that his friend had decided not to come back to the room and as the room had been booked on his credit card he had decided to use the room himself.
It's also worth remembering that the night porter also gave evidence about what was happening in the room. He had become concerned because he thought the occupancy of the room was exceeding the hotel rules. So he listened outside room 14 after Evans had arrived. The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex. When pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner. How much credence you can give to this is debatable, but he obviously didn't think a rape was in progress.
As others have said, the young woman didn't lie. She just claims not to remember what had happened after leaving the take-away. Without the evidence freely volunteered by Evans and McDonald there wouldn't have been a case at all. In fact, neither of the accused had ejaculated during sex as a result of which the police had no forensic evidence to link either man to any sexual act, nor did the police have a complaint of rape. They could just as easily have said they went back to the room for a game of scrabble.
I believe he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, so absolutely he should be able to continue his football career. The woman has "no memory" of the alleged incident despite saying she was tipsy but not out of control, there was no forensic evidence or evidence of injury, she bragged about "winning big" on Twitter, and has allegedly made previous unsuccessful rape allegations against other sportsmen.
He was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, no miscarriage of justice.
That piece of scum raped a woman and no woman should be left one in his company and even if I was a footy fan there is no way I'd accept or pay to see that play for my team.
I find it very telling that the judge at the original trial ordered the rapist to remain on the sex offenders register indefinitely.
If he was a bricklayer say, no one would be quibbling on whether he should be able to resume working as one.
He should be able to play for any club that is willing to employ him. He'll have to show what he's made of on a weekly basis because of the barracking he'll get from opposition supporters.
Agree with this. He's done his time and should be allowed back into the normal world until any such time that he reoffends (which I'm not saying he will).
He might be a nasty piece of work but that isn't a criteria against someone being employed in their chosen career.
But, as you say, he'll need to grow a very thick skin as the oppositions crowds will certainly be rather vocal in their view
Everybody saying 'I wouldn't want him at my club' is nonsense, it's easy to say because it's Ched Evans but if it was Messi and he was released by Barca and wanted to come to your club you would be dancing in the street
I know if it was my favourite player I would welcome him back.
There are two questions here, really. Should a convicted criminal be allowed to go back to work? Yes, of course (except in cases of, for example, teachers convicted of child abuse, or soldiers convicted of war crimes. They should probably find another career). Does any club have a responsibility to take him back? No. And it's they who will make the final decision on this, which is as it should be.
I didn't read anything in that appeal summary that suggested she was comatose. It said that McDonald was already in sexual activity with her when he arrived and asked her could Evans join in to which she said "Yes". She then asked Evans to perform oral sex on her after McDonald left. She was apparently lucid, enthusiastic and appeared to be enjoying herself by his testimony. None of this was denied, she just maintained that she couldn't remember.
Her state was clearly obvious to him, as he asked the night porter to keep an eye her after he'd done the deed.
There are wide variances between sober and comatose, and the trial explored that in detail, and found as they did.
Her state was clearly obvious to him, as he asked the night porter to keep an eye her after he'd done the deed.
There are wide variances between sober and comatose, and the trial explored that in detail, and found as they did.
Being pissed and even throwing up still doesn't remove capacity for decision making by default. There wasn't any further drinking on return to the hotel by all accounts, so her drunken state didn't get worse as time wore on, yet she was apparently able to consent and even (according to McDonald's testimony) initiate the sexual activity. She also, according to his testimony was verbally able to agree to Evans' participation and (according to Evans) asked Evans to perform oral sex on her.
If this is true, how did they come to stand trial for rape?
I thought for someone to be tried for rape, they had to be accused of it first.
The morning after the incident the victim woke up in the hotel room, unable to remember a thing. I'm not sure why she want to the police, but it could have been because some of her belongings were missing (a handbag). The police presumably identified Evans and McDonald from the CCTV footage, they were interviewed and admitted to having sex with her. They were charged on the basis that she was too drunk to consent.
In an ideal world, he probably wouldn't be allowed to play again, but if football welcomes back those convicted of crimes like Marlon King & Lee Hughes back, why would anyone expect the powers-that-be to take exception to someone like Evans?
A couple of important points which must be repeated for clarity.
1. The victim never directly accused either of the two men of rape, she simply claimed not to remember the incident.
2. There is no suggestion at all that the victim was 'comatose' when Evans arrived. She was seen on CCTV entering the hotel with Mr McDonald at 4.15 am, described by witnesses as 'very drunk' but able to walk unaided and voluntarily accompanying Mr McDonald. Mr Evans arrived just fifteen minutes later.
I know people who are able to consume vast amounts of alcohol yet show none of the obvious signs of intoxication - ie stumbling, slurring their words - it's more their behaviour that is affected - they make choices and say things they wouldn't do while sober. They often seem to forget making these decisions the next day, either conveniently or because the amount of alcohol destroyed enough brain cells that they genuinely have no memory of the event. I have a close friend who drinks heavily and unless you knew her well you would have no idea how drunk she actually is - I can only tell because I know her well and recognise when her behaviour/speech changes. It might be hard for someone who didn't know her to realise just how pissed she actually is. So while I think Ched's behaviour was totally disrespectful both to the girl in the hotel and to his own girlfriend I'm not totally comfortable with it being called 'rape'. She might have seemed to have been well up for it at the time - drunken girls often are.
If this had happened to me when I was younger I would have been more pissed off with the first guy for pimping me out to his mate than to the second for taking advantage.
Being pissed and even throwing up still doesn't remove capacity for decision making by default. There wasn't any further drinking on return to the hotel by all accounts, so her drunken state didn't get worse as time wore on, yet she was apparently able to consent and even (according to McDonald's testimony) initiate the sexual activity. She also, according to his testimony was verbally able to agree to Evans' participation and (according to Evans) asked Evans to perform oral sex on her.
Actually alcohol levels continue to rise in the body after a person stops drinking, so a condition can worsen without further drink.
We can pick and choose which bits of the evidence we like, but luckily the courts hear it all, and decide on all of it. Consent cases are difficult to prove in the main when drink is involved, as we've said, but here the jury, and the Appeal Court felt a conviction was correct.
Comments
Yep. As much as the other side of me really wants to dispute, you're right, that's not how a civilised society should work.
Would you rather be paying for him to be on benefits for the next fifty years?
Although i do hate the idea of a rapist just walking back into a career where he will get loads of money and will be looked up to, i do actually agree with this comment.
If we were to say he isn't allowed, we'd have to tell all rapists they cant have a job, which would ultimately mean were paying for them to live.
Though i don't agree with the last part, suggesting he may be innocent. He had been found guilty and its unfair to suggest the woman was lying based on absolutely no evidence.
There was never a question of anybody lying, they both admitted straight away having sex with the girl but both insisted it was consensual and that she had capacity to consent and was enjoying herself (as far as they could tell)
She just said that she didn't have any memory of anything that happened after 3am and despite an expert reminding the court that a lack of memory after the event does not equate to a lack of capacity at the time, this was not accepted for Evans and he was convicted.
Yes that's what I remember from the court case too.
It was very seedy and dodgy but it was very much a grey area as to what happened.
While it is important to respect the outcome of court cases, people do have a gut feeling about things, and they will consult those feelings when forming an opinion.
So, for example, a court case found Pistorious innocent of murder.
Well, I have my own (very definite) gut feeling about that.
1. The victim never directly accused either of the two men of rape, she simply claimed not to remember the incident.
2. There is no suggestion at all that the victim was 'comatose' when Evans arrived. She was seen on CCTV entering the hotel with Mr McDonald at 4.15 am, described by witnesses as 'very drunk' but able to walk unaided and voluntarily accompanying Mr McDonald. Mr Evans arrived just fifteen minutes later.
Oops, it was me that mistakedly used "comatose". I'd remembered incorrectly.
So if a man works in Tesco and goes to jail for rape can he not go back to work at Tesco?
Just because he's a footballer should not stop him going back to his job. Would you prefer him to go and benefits or potentially turning to a life of crime? There are footballers who have been to jail for killing people and came out and restarted there careers - no one made any 'petitions' against them
I would be very surprised if Sheffield United or the Welsh national team took him back again and he might have to change his career now.
But he didn't sneak in through a window. Having arrived at the Premier Inn 10 minutes after McDonald and the complainant, Evans entered the reception area. He obtained a further keycard for Room 14. He said to the night porter that his friend had decided not to come back to the room and as the room had been booked on his credit card he had decided to use the room himself.
It's also worth remembering that the night porter also gave evidence about what was happening in the room. He had become concerned because he thought the occupancy of the room was exceeding the hotel rules. So he listened outside room 14 after Evans had arrived. The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex. When pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner. How much credence you can give to this is debatable, but he obviously didn't think a rape was in progress.
As others have said, the young woman didn't lie. She just claims not to remember what had happened after leaving the take-away. Without the evidence freely volunteered by Evans and McDonald there wouldn't have been a case at all. In fact, neither of the accused had ejaculated during sex as a result of which the police had no forensic evidence to link either man to any sexual act, nor did the police have a complaint of rape. They could just as easily have said they went back to the room for a game of scrabble.
He was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, no miscarriage of justice.
That piece of scum raped a woman and no woman should be left one in his company and even if I was a footy fan there is no way I'd accept or pay to see that play for my team.
I find it very telling that the judge at the original trial ordered the rapist to remain on the sex offenders register indefinitely.
Agree with this. He's done his time and should be allowed back into the normal world until any such time that he reoffends (which I'm not saying he will).
He might be a nasty piece of work but that isn't a criteria against someone being employed in their chosen career.
But, as you say, he'll need to grow a very thick skin as the oppositions crowds will certainly be rather vocal in their view
As were many other innocent people.
I know if it was my favourite player I would welcome him back.
If this is true, how did they come to stand trial for rape?
I thought for someone to be tried for rape, they had to be accused of it first.
Her state was clearly obvious to him, as he asked the night porter to keep an eye her after he'd done the deed.
There are wide variances between sober and comatose, and the trial explored that in detail, and found as they did.
Being pissed and even throwing up still doesn't remove capacity for decision making by default. There wasn't any further drinking on return to the hotel by all accounts, so her drunken state didn't get worse as time wore on, yet she was apparently able to consent and even (according to McDonald's testimony) initiate the sexual activity. She also, according to his testimony was verbally able to agree to Evans' participation and (according to Evans) asked Evans to perform oral sex on her.
The morning after the incident the victim woke up in the hotel room, unable to remember a thing. I'm not sure why she want to the police, but it could have been because some of her belongings were missing (a handbag). The police presumably identified Evans and McDonald from the CCTV footage, they were interviewed and admitted to having sex with her. They were charged on the basis that she was too drunk to consent.
That was McDonald, not Evans.
I know people who are able to consume vast amounts of alcohol yet show none of the obvious signs of intoxication - ie stumbling, slurring their words - it's more their behaviour that is affected - they make choices and say things they wouldn't do while sober. They often seem to forget making these decisions the next day, either conveniently or because the amount of alcohol destroyed enough brain cells that they genuinely have no memory of the event. I have a close friend who drinks heavily and unless you knew her well you would have no idea how drunk she actually is - I can only tell because I know her well and recognise when her behaviour/speech changes. It might be hard for someone who didn't know her to realise just how pissed she actually is. So while I think Ched's behaviour was totally disrespectful both to the girl in the hotel and to his own girlfriend I'm not totally comfortable with it being called 'rape'. She might have seemed to have been well up for it at the time - drunken girls often are.
If this had happened to me when I was younger I would have been more pissed off with the first guy for pimping me out to his mate than to the second for taking advantage.
Actually alcohol levels continue to rise in the body after a person stops drinking, so a condition can worsen without further drink.
We can pick and choose which bits of the evidence we like, but luckily the courts hear it all, and decide on all of it. Consent cases are difficult to prove in the main when drink is involved, as we've said, but here the jury, and the Appeal Court felt a conviction was correct.
I agree with them.