Ched Evans

I haven't got a problem with the conviction (although being found guilty and being actually guilty can be two very different things) - but as others have commented, should his career be effectively over because of this one offence? Does that apply to all ex-cons and if so what are we meant to do with them all?

One other small point - surely the parents are to blame. How did they think a child called Ched was going to turn out?

 

For me it depends on what the ex-con did and whether, over time, he is a changed person. A convicted pedophile, serial racist, convicted murderer with no justification is a whole different territory to an individual who got involved in a fight in a town centre, a mugger who pick pocketed somebody etc etc

 

The trouble is that we do not really know what happened that night. But, if the girl said "Yes" to him, there is potentially no offence. As far as I know it is not an outright offence to have sex with a girl that is drunk. Yes, on balance of what the court heard they felt he was guilty where the only two people who were there at the time were influenced by drink and both had massive reasons to lie whilst knowing that they could not be proved 100% to be liars. It is clearly not a black and white situation, as that part of the sexual offence spectrum is grey and blurred, and is (in my opinion) completely different from a serial rapist, stalking rapist, etc, etc.

I have always felt so much more understanding for someone that commits an offence on the spur of the moment rather than plans and prepares for it. In this case, I feel uncomfortable that someone's life is being effectively ruined, based on a spur of the momentary decision in a hotel room, made whilst under the influence of drink, and where the real facts are unknown and where a jury themselves took far more than a spur of the moment to decide their verdict.

I just struggle to find so many people have made up their minds 100%, when there are so many unknowns in this case.

 

I am struggling to know why alcohol is being used as some sort of mitigation. Drunk drivers don't get to use it thus.

 

Round and round the garden
Like a teddy bear
One step, two step
Tickle you under there!

 

I'm hearing we're going to offer him a trial with a view to sign til the end of the season

thoughts?

 

I must have missed something here?

How can Evans possibly KNOW he is innocent?

He snuck into a hotel room, whilst stone cold sober and starting shagging a girl who was so drunk that witnesses testified she could barely stand. That is 100% rape by the letter of the law

Whether he doesnt 'understand' or 'disagrees' with the law and therefore wrongly believes himself to be innocent is a totally different question, but still doesn't change the fact that he was rightly convicted

 

This is totally incorrect im afraid, there are so many misconceptions about this case

Both Evans and McDonald were stone cold sober at the time of the offence, extremely predatory behaviour was displayed by both.

Another key misconception seems to be that the victim 'cried rape' for a payout. She never reported the rape to the police, she attended a police station saying she had woken up in a hotel with no memory and her belongings missing. It was the police investigation of CCTV and witness statements from hotel staff which led to Evans/McDonald being arrested and charged

 

Can you please post your source that evans was stone cold sober, meaning he hadn't had a single drink on his night out

 

So assuming they don't have CCTV in hotel rooms the police have only imagined that she was raped ... where the fck is the evidence?
The whole case rests on her word that she can't remember that evenings events and don't forget she'd already cried wolf on a previous occasion. I know I wouldn't give her any credit.

 

Her word. And McDonalds? And the other witnesses? And the CCTV?

 

There was the video filmed by Evans' lovely friends showing her having sex with them wasn't there? You may not give her any credit but a jury of her peers did.

 

So are you saying that anyone who is drunk when they are having sex, is being raped, because they cannot consent? I think that drink pays a very large part in peoples sex lives, but you are painting a picture where perhaps millions of people are rapists. A bit harsh I think!

This girl was not so drink that she could barely stand. She went to various establishments first and then walked to the hotel room, didn't she?

I was reading an article that was generally very anti Evans. The writer said...

"We're all adults here, and it's not difficult to tell when someone is too drunk to make a decision. A half muttered and barely coherent "yes" by a half-passed out person? No. A buzzy, happy, "rip my clothes off"! Yes. Let's not pretend we don't know the difference. Because rapists sure do."

...and that is my point. Only Evans knows what type of consent, if any, he was given. What happened before they reached the hotel room, and what was said the next morning is not really relevant when we are looking for 100% certainty.

 

How the hell would McDonald, the other witnesses and the CCTV know she couldn't remember anything? She was hardly likely to tell the police she let two strangers gangbang her when reporting her things missing was she? .... a massive point the Police, the CPS, the judges and the jury have all completely ignored.

 

She says she can't remember it. How do you propose to make her prove a negative?

 

Oh, I thought the onus of proof was on the prosecution. I just fail to understand how they could do that (beyond all reasonable doubt), in this case.

 

By relying on the law and the evidence in the case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/74

So a victim can only consent if they have capacity. There will be plenty of case law which touches on intoxication and its effect on capacity. Apply the case law to the evidence and the jury decide. The same way our courts have run for centuries.

 

There is no need to be patronising, I have worked in that environment for many years - and have seen first hand where the jury has absolutely made the wrong decision several times. When I say the wrong decision, I mean that perpetrators have been found not guilty when they did actually do it, and vice versa.

Tell me what evidence there is that she was too drunk to consent in the hotel room. Is there any physical evidence? Are there any witnesses?

 

I thought there were witnesses. The hotel staff and his friends e.t.c

 

But not in the hotel room. The jury felt that she was sober enough to consent to McDonald, after the hotel staff and others saw her, but that she then became too drunk to consent to Evans. Why, and how do they know for certain? Where is the evidence?

 

It's funny. I post a factual position with no tarting up and a link to boot and you tell me I'm patronising. Here's another patronising comment for you: the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.

The jury obviously decided it was reasonable to assume that her sex with McDonald was on balance consensual, even though she was drunk, because of the prior meeting, travelling with him back to the hotel and going with him to his room. They equally must have considered she was however too drunk to make an on the spot decision to have consensual sex with Evans. You're after evidence. The whole documented version of events for that night, corroborated by witnesses and CCTV, is evidence. You're absolutely right that the jury system isn't infallible. It's sometimes worrying how such decisions can essentially come down to believability of witnesses on the stand but it does.

 

I don't ... but she had every reason to lie and her word on this should be discounted ... especially in the light of her previous but bogus rape claim; she's already been proved a liar once.

 

i'm going to ignore everything you just said and say 'having sex while drunk is great!' which is a reasonable summation of this entire case

 

Has she? Link?

 

Seeing we're now back on the verdict rather than rehabilitation my question is this. UEA is of course right that, having heard all the evidence presented over eight days, Ched Evans was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers. But how could they possibly come to a logical conclusion that, given there is no evidence that she consumed any more alcohol after leaving the nightclub, she was capable of giving consent to one man and then, having had nothing further to drink, is incapable of giving consent to another? How is she less capable of answering the question with a yes or a no even if asked unexpectedly in a hotel room? The cctv evidence suggests she was more drunk and incapable at the kebab shop than she was on arriving at the hotel where she wasn't falling about at all i.e. she was, relatively speaking, sobering up.

I suggest this. The jury didn't like the idea of a second man turning up at the hotel room and they thought it was sleazy and predatory given that it was Ched that had booked the room and had been alerted by Clayton that she was there. Maybe it was. But that's not a crime. But the jury then let their prejudices compromise their reason. Either that or the entire jury must have been educationally sub-normal if they thought their verdict was otherwise logical.

 

.

Go for it.

 

Ok, that's one way of accounting for things. The jury heard from all three participants. Obviously she was a much better/more convincing witness than the naysayers give her credit for and if Evans was considered sleazy and predatory then he clearly exuded that aura in the witness box. And if the rest of his behaviour was sleazy and predatory in appearance that night is it really that much of a leap of faith to assume the bit in contention was too? Crown Courts juries are not exactly notorious for being the rape victim/accuser's friend so if they saw fit to unanimously convict him that certainly adds weight to their decision.

 

Fair enough, if you believe that a court never reaches an incorrect decision.

In reality of course, there are massive injustices in both directions. These are more likely when the the case is in the public eye, the defendant is famous, or the offence is of a particular nature.

 

Getting back to rehabilitation. Many on here have argued that Ched Evans shouldn't have gone back to training with the Blades. Others have said they wouldn't employ him if the decision was theirs. However, none of those have said anything at all about what employment should be open to him. The silence in response to my simple questions at #331, #332 and molly's #351 is deafening.

I once worked very closely for a government minister (of a different political persuasion to me) and it gave me a respect for politicians that isn't widely held. That's because a political decision is always a complex one. It's so much easier to give a simple answer when you're part of a lobby group for one side of an argument. So, on rehabilitation in general, it's a major plank of an attempt to turn convicts away from a life of crime. Criminals often come from a family and community background of crime and then enter the prisons community which many regard, with some justification, as 'universities of crime'. Probably the only way out of that is rehabilitation through employment. So I'm afraid that if you deny an employment opportunity without offering an alternative then you're copping out and are compicit in the self-fulfilling prophecy of a vicious circle of criminal activity for the individual concerned.

This is not specifically pertinent to the Ched Evans rape case of course. But I can't see how the nature of the crime should make any difference to prospects for rehabilitation (Halfwayline #352). The more serious the crime, the heavier the prison sentence, so the severity of the crime is already taken care of by sentencing. It's open to everyone to argue for heavier sentences generally and for specific crimes, for less remission and to build more prisons. But it's entirely negative if you deny convicts a full range of employment possibilities on their release. And that includes a convicted rapist, previously sentenced to a five year prison term, being able to resume his footballing career.

 

I totally agree with this. I argue for stiffer sentences, harsh prison conditions, etc, but I fully acknowledge the importance of rehabilitation.

I honestly can't see that he should be stopped from playing football. If the court believes that he should be kept away from the public, then he should have been locked up for longer in the first place.

 

Let's just say somebody chatted up your sister when she was drunk and went home with her. Slightly predatory, but at least she had multiple chances to gather her thoughts, as alcohol clearly impedes your judgement somewhat.

Now say another man received a text 'got one' or whatever it said. He immediately went straight to the hotel.

He had clearly already decided he was shagging her before he even got there.

On the way he texted his friends, who arrived with camera phones to film the event.

He then makes the receptionist give him the key. Why wouldn't he knock? Because knocking and being let in would require even the tiniest bit of consent. The receptionist was clearly worried by Evans behaviour which seemed quite forceful. So much so that he later went up and checked on the room.

Evans lets himself into a hotel room, with a drunk and probably naked vulnerable girl and shags her.

I don't know about you, but I would think McDonald is an absolute pr*ck, but I would certainly what Evans did rape if it happened to somebody I cared about. Even if the words 'okay' came out of her mouth.

This isn't about picking up drunk girls. McDonald's behaviours was not deemed rape. Letting yourself into a hotel room when you know two people are probably having sex/ have just had sex should be a crime in itself. It puts the girl in an incredibly horrible situation, whether she agrees to it or not.

I hear what you are saying about juries. But there is a ridiculously low conviction rate for rape, 25% I think, and that is just of those cases which even make the courtroom. For the jury to give a unanimous guilty verdict, the details given in court must have been pretty damning.

And as for what should happen now?

What Ched did was definitely wrong. But he cannot accept that, for two reasons.

Rape might be rape, but all rape certainly isn't the same. You cannot treat him in the same way you treat somebody who grabs a girl in the girl in the street and violently assaults her in the bushes.

The mob are now trying to determine justice. People, of whom many know nothing about the case, are stopping him from seeking further employment after he has served his sentence. The people are emotive, and crime and punishment cannot be, otherwise people would still be lynched in the streets.

The club were just, as his former employers, allowing him to train so he may have a chance at rehabilitating himself. They hadn't even offered him a contract. Twitter has done many fantastic things, but it has also created a mob culture. And mob culture is so clearly wrong.

 

Yep. But I also reckon 5 years was about right for the crime he committed in the circumstances he committed it, notwithstanding that we both argue his innocence.

I seem to be saying that quite a lot recently - the sentence seems about right!

 

I agree that the circumstantial evidence builds up a picture in which the crime could be committed. But that doesn't prove it was committed, in my view. Imagine, if all your circumstancial events had occurred and then, at the crucial time, Evans felt that she was not consenting and didn't go ahead, then there was no offence. It is the events in the hotel room that matters most - and we only Evan's version of events to tell us what happened.

Having said that I totally understand about the poor rape conviction rates can make this more emotive, but that should not have the slightest effect on the verdict which, of course, should be based on the evidence.

Also, if my sister had got into the same position, I would have as much scorn for her letting that develop over several hours on a night out where a court has to decide whether she is consenting or not.

 

Where does 25% come from? I once read that the conviction rate for sex crime is nigh on 100% as per then secretary of state for justice Jack Straw's stated wish. Needless to say a lot of innocents must have been locked up 'just to stay on the safe side'.