Should Ched Evans be playing professional soccer?
- Thread starter doctorf
- Start date
SteveG
pfm Member
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's difficult to understand there is a difference between legal guilt and factual guilt. There are definitely cases where people are factually guilty but legally not guilty (in fact I suppose that's the case for everyone before they've been tried) and vice versa.
For example it's very likely that Jimmy Saville was factually guilty of any number of horrible crimes, but given he was never convicted of any of them he'd legally have to be regarded as not guilty. Me - I'm happy to make up my own mind and regard him as guilty, but you on the other hand would have to regard him as not guilty if you're sticking to your guns.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
You are going to be persuaded while drinking pints of beer by a one sided version of events by someone with an axe to grind? Come on.
lutyens10
pfm Member
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.
I am intrigued! This seems to follow the latest press comment that the person who started the petition about his signing suggests that he simply doesn't know what rape is. Well the trouble is that some of the people discussing this appear to want to 'downgrade' the severity of a rape from rape to just a nasty business. We are back to a man doing something he should have decided not to.
As the father of a daughter who has told me that she has had to submit to having sex with men in a couple of situations she would have preferred not to but 'no' would not have worked,I admit i am pretty prejudiced about this. In none of the cases was she 'incapable'. She knew fully what was happening. She simply felt that it was safer to submit than to say no and resist. It is only men who do this and i have no sympathy for anyone caught, and in this case convicted. Many more should be convicted but most of all men need to educated about what is acceptable behaviour. And acceptable behaviour is not what you get get away with but rather what is morally correct.
In this case it is the fact that he still doesn't think he did anything wrong and that people are defending this position that i find both demeaning and frightening.
I am intrigued! This seems to follow the latest press comment that the person who started the petition about his signing suggests that he simply doesn't know what rape is. Well the trouble is that some of the people discussing this appear to want to 'downgrade' the severity of a rape from rape to just a nasty business. We are back to a man doing something he should have decided not to.
As the father of a daughter who has told me that she has had to submit to having sex with men in a couple of situations she would have preferred not to but 'no' would not have worked,I admit i am pretty prejudiced about this. In none of the cases was she 'incapable'. She knew fully what was happening. She simply felt that it was safer to submit than to say no and resist. It is only men who do this and i have no sympathy for anyone caught, and in this case convicted. Many more should be convicted but most of all men need to educated about what is acceptable behaviour. And acceptable behaviour is not what you get get away with but rather what is morally correct.
In this case it is the fact that he still doesn't think he did anything wrong and that people are defending this position that i find both demeaning and frightening.
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
I met Gerry Conlon, of the Guildford 4, at The Wag and various parties. He was a nice bloke, but unfortunately died from lung cancer last summer.
Jack
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
Interesting question.
1 Any job they can live with, but probably not one where the offender is in close contact with women and/or girls. This is to prevent them feeling uncomfortable or anxious.
2 Pop stars banned from selling records for drug use. If it was a Justine Beiber type and he refused to condemn the activity then yes. Grown up pop stars like Pete Docherty then no except if he refused to say of course drugs are harmful look at me.
3 Drivers of vans etc - no. Nobody looks up to white van man, not even politicians who are the pretty much the lowest of the low.
SteveG
pfm Member
I'm not defending him by any means, however under the circumstances I can at least understand why he might well regard himself as not being guilty.
oldie
pfm Member
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
I share your view of some men and think it is very honest of you to put that on the forum.
In my younger days I often heard stories "down the pub" about the way guys behave with women who were drunk or just fancied the guy. Sexual humiliation is beyond me, but the general consensus is often it is just a bit of a laugh
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
A risible reply... I said hypothetical... ie both that you met him and he was able to persuade you.
SteveG
pfm Member
This is what the CPS website says about consent in situations like the Evans one:
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
Here's the details of the R v Bree case that's referred to there:
Bree went to visit his brother. They went out for the evening with his brother's friends, including the complainant. They all drank a considerable amount of alcohol. The complainant remembered little about getting home, but once home remembers being sick and that Bree and his brother washed her hair. The complainant remembered nothing after this until regaining consciousness and finding Bree penetrating her sexually. The complainant agreed that she had not said no', but contended that she had never consented. Bree accepted that the complainant was intoxicated but claimed that she was capable of consenting, had undressed herself and appeared willing. The jury convicted Bree of rape. Bree appealed on the basis that the judge had not made it clear that a person can consent to sexual activity even when intoxicated.
The Court of Appeal held that
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. (at 34)
The Appeal was allowed.
In fact not only was the appeal allowed it was successful - although it looks like it was successful on a technicality because the judge in the initial trial made a mistake and didn't understand that someone being intoxicated didn't mean that it they could automatically be regarded as not giving consent.
The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
Here's the details of the R v Bree case that's referred to there:
Bree went to visit his brother. They went out for the evening with his brother's friends, including the complainant. They all drank a considerable amount of alcohol. The complainant remembered little about getting home, but once home remembers being sick and that Bree and his brother washed her hair. The complainant remembered nothing after this until regaining consciousness and finding Bree penetrating her sexually. The complainant agreed that she had not said no', but contended that she had never consented. Bree accepted that the complainant was intoxicated but claimed that she was capable of consenting, had undressed herself and appeared willing. The jury convicted Bree of rape. Bree appealed on the basis that the judge had not made it clear that a person can consent to sexual activity even when intoxicated.
The Court of Appeal held that
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. (at 34)
The Appeal was allowed.
In fact not only was the appeal allowed it was successful - although it looks like it was successful on a technicality because the judge in the initial trial made a mistake and didn't understand that someone being intoxicated didn't mean that it they could automatically be regarded as not giving consent.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
This sounds the same as the Evens case to me and hence why I suspect that he is not guilty on exactly the same grounds.
Have non of us here had a drunken shag with an equally drunk lass in our younger days ...??? I believe it is a very common occurrence between young people..... Good thing we didn't hear a loud knock on the door the next day eh....
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
In the event of him being cleared I have this vision of Frazer in Dads Army "I never doubted ye fer a minute laddie" as managers try to snap him up...
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
Interesting. But what constitutes consent? Does it mean it has to be spoken or does it include actively participating in preparing for sex? If the girl is not active ie asleep before starts it would seem to be rape, but if she active in the act it would be consensual sex.
Daniel Quinn
Banned
It should be noted that part if the appeal was the case of bree was not highlighted to the jury.
Tony L
Administrator
Surely the judge, prosecution and Evan's no doubt very expensive defence team all fully understood the law regarding consent?
I do find it astounding there are so many arguing against the rape victim here. We are not dealing with some random chav with a fourth-rate legal-aid defence team, this is a millionaire footballer with access to the very best defence money can buy - if his team couldn't get him acquitted I'd say it was pretty safe to conclude he's guilty.
I do find it astounding there are so many arguing against the rape victim here. We are not dealing with some random chav with a fourth-rate legal-aid defence team, this is a millionaire footballer with access to the very best defence money can buy - if his team couldn't get him acquitted I'd say it was pretty safe to conclude he's guilty.
SteveG
pfm Member
In the R v Bree case it looks like the judge didn't.