advertisement


Should Ched Evans be playing professional soccer?

Cav said:
You are guilty until the Appeal Court says differently - as they did.
Click to expand...

The definition for guilty is "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". If you're found guilty for something it doesn't mean you're actually guilty i.e. if there is a miscarriage of justice. Just as if you're found not guilty it doesn't mean you're actually not guilty i.e. if you're commited a crime but it couldn't be proven or you got off on a technicality.
 
SteveG said:
The definition for guilty is "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". If you're found guilty for something it doesn't mean you're actually guilty i.e. if there is a miscarriage of justice. Just as if you're found not guilty it doesn't mean you're actually not guilty i.e. if you're commited a crime but it couldn't be proven or you got off on a technicality.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
SteveG said:
The definition for guilty is "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". If you're found guilty for something it doesn't mean you're actually guilty i.e. if there is a miscarriage of justice. Just as if you're found not guilty it doesn't mean you're actually not guilty i.e. if you're commited a crime but it couldn't be proven or you got off on a technicality.
Click to expand...

So, guilty means "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".

So being found guilty does mean "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".

If that guilty verdict is subsequently found to be unsafe and/or unsatisfactory, one is then not guilty and never was "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". If an appeals fails then you are and always have been "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".
 
Cav said:
So being found guilty does mean "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".
Click to expand...

Nothing a court decides makes a difference to whether you actually did or didn't do the thing you were found guilty (or indeed not guilty) of. Hopefully most of the time being found guilty and actually being guilty are in alignment - however there is no question that miscarriages of justice do occur.
 
There are no doubt people convicted of crime who did not do what they have been convicted of. However a guilty verdict means in every way that effects your reputation or freedom that you did it just as a not guilty verdict means that you did not.
 
Cav said:
However a guilty verdict means in every way that effects your reputation or freedom that you did it just as a not guilty verdict means that you did not.
Click to expand...

Even if that was true (and in some cases I'd say it isn't - for OJ Simpson for example) it still doesn't affect whether you're actually guilty of the crime or not.
 
SteveG said:
Even if that was true (and in some cases I'd say it isn't - for OJ Simpson for example) it still doesn't affect whether you're actually guilty of the crime or not.
Click to expand...

Only God and you know whether you're actually guilty; in the real world we have to rely on judge, jury, and the appeals system.

Which reminds me of the bloke found guilty of a crime, who says to the judge: 'As God is my judge, Your Honour, I am not guilty of this crime', to which the judge replies: 'He's not, I am, you are. Six months. Take him down'.
 
Cav said:
So, guilty means "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".

So being found guilty does mean "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".

If that guilty verdict is subsequently found to be unsafe and/or unsatisfactory, one is then not guilty and never was "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". If an appeals fails then you are and always have been "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing".
Click to expand...

Or in the case of the Guilford 4 4 appeals-they were innocent before the 1st appeal.
 
The Court found that SOME of the evidence against them was unreliable.

So their convictions were "unsafe" .... and as such they were freed.
 
SteveG said:
Even if that was true (and in some cases I'd say it isn't - for OJ Simpson for example) it still doesn't affect whether you're actually guilty of the crime or not.
Click to expand...

To put it more simply: it does not matter, in law, whether one did it or not, the only significant issue is what the courts decide re guilt.
 
The courts have found him guilty so most of the discussion on here is just conjecture as only him and her actually know all of the facts.Everybody else, or those that are interested in this rather sordid episode only know what the lawyers have deem we should know. What the OP is about is, should a convicted rapist be allowed to participate in a game that the people who take part in are unfortunately held as Roll models. If it's OK for him to return to football, would it also be OK for Teachers that have been convicted for having sex with underage pupils to also return to Teaching ?

oldie
 
Oldie, that is a fatuous question, not least because they cannot whether they want to or not.

What employment is suitable for a rapist?

Should pop and rock stars convicted of drug offences be allowed to record or perform?

Should drivers convicted of motoring offences be allowed to work as drivers?

Should...etc.
 
Cav said:
To put it more simply: it does not matter, in law, whether one did it or not, the only significant issue is what the courts decide re guilt.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the law though - they decisions that courts make aren't always correct. Sometimes they'll find someone guilty when they're not, and sometimes they'll find someone not guilty when they are.

The Evans case is even more complicated than that - in his case he might actually be guilty but of rape (as UK law now defines it) but not realise it. That's because there is a subjective element to that particular law i.e. whether she was capable of giving consent and also whether he should have been aware that she was or wasn't capable.
 
It is not at all complicated. He is, until a successful appeal, guilty of rape whether he realises, accepts, or not.

The issue is whether a convicted rapist can be employed as a professional footballer.

I think he should be able to do so.
 
Cav said:
To put it more simply: it does not matter, in law, whether one did it or not, the only significant issue is what the courts decide re guilt.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical situation alert (and not just for Cav). Lets say you have the chance to meet Evens over a relaxed few beers and he tells you the while story in all the detail he can recall and convinces you that in fact he is indeed innocent.

Do you still consider him a rapist, a thug, a bad role model etc? Is he now guilty or not guilty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top