I think the question is, are convicted criminals rehabilitated by doing the time the courts set out for them to do, or not.

You assume our legal system is about rehabilitation (i.e. a left wing view) rather than punishment (a right wing view).

However, I work in I.T. if I was convicted (or even went to court) relating to illegal downloading I am pretty sure I would not be able to get a job in mainstream I.T. again.

Ched was convicted and by the sounds of it his website is guilty of continually harassing the poor girl.
So no I don’t think he should play major league footie again.

To all those who think he’s innocent – I presume you all think it’s ok to s**g a girl who’s paralytic.
If you were paralytic drunk how would you feel waking up with a sore backside and video footage of you being ‘pleasured’

Yes I am interested in the social media stuff _ i dont know her name and dont want to but how much proof is there he was involved?

genuine Q as it could, easily, change my mind on this

Junkyard – lazarus
Then campaign to change the law dont hound him because you dont like the law currently.

In case you missed it, I didn’t say I didn’t like the law. But I sure as hell don’t like Ched Evans so I’m happy to see him hounded out of football. Why shouldn’t an unrepentant rapist be hounded out of the game? It would take ages to change the law ffs. I can’t wait for that while a vile human being can go on a pitch to chants of “he **** who he wants” while young children are watching and listening.

I presume you all think it’s ok to s**g a girl who’s paralytic.
If you were paralytic drunk how would you feel waking up with a sore backside and video footage of you being ‘pleasured’

I dont but if I was there with my mate who s**ged her as well I would wonder why I was done for rape and he was acquitted.

That bit makes no sense to me they should both have the same sentence

Perhaps he could retrain as a satirical cartoonist

In case you missed it, I didn’t say I didn’t like the law

I quoted and it is someone else not you

Not his fault what fans chant and no one wants to hear or see that

I dont want to hear what I hear at Old Firm games though

Perhaps he could retrain as a satirical cartoonist

Too soon @winston

To all those who think he’s innocent – I presume you all think it’s ok to s**g a girl who’s paralytic.
If you were paralytic drunk how would you feel waking up with a sore backside and video footage of you being ‘pleasured’

Which is exactly what happened to the person I know (minus the recorded video) by two men. The police told him not to waste their time and it nearly broke up all relations between him and his family, fortunately all long-since resolved.

One thing I don’t buy is that he shouldn’t be able to work because being a football player is a “high profile” job. I’m not into football, and I can count the names I know on one hand (probably all for bad stuff they’ve done).

Among football fans, yes he will be high profile (and more hated than liked), but I’m not sure why this has anything to do with his conviction… he’s not a teacher of doctor, he kicks a ball around a field for a living. Being back at a club won’t suddenly give him access to loads of vulnerable women.

I think there’s a bit of “he’s a convict, so it’s not fair for him to earn tonnes of money a year while I earn peanuts” going on.

Either way, I don’t care much because he does sound like a ****t. I just don’t like the media controlling anything.

I dont but if I was there with my mate who s**ged her as well I would wonder why I was done for rape and he was acquitted.

read a bit about it, sounded to me like his mate “pulled” her and had spent some time previous with her so consent was assumed. Mate then called the lovely Mr Evans who came around to join in, presumably after girl was deemed too drunk to consent.

Could be 100% wrong but thats how it read to me.

The assumed consent from kopping off with and having several drinks with, still sounds dodgy to me tho.

P-Jay
I suspect he’ll go abroad to play in possibly a more enlighten country which believes in rehabilitation, but they’ll never let him play for Wales again.

In these more enlightened countries I wonder do they have rehabilitated rapist politicians, or rapists reading the news. Perhaps the have successful rapists topping the pop charts.

You can debate the “role model” point all you want but there is no denying he is a public figure. Football clubs make money from ticket sales and tv rights, ultimately paid for by ordinary fans. The fans and viewers and the public in general shouldn’t be made complicit in the payment of a wage to a convicted rapist. If anyone fails to see why that’s an issue then their moral compass is broken or non existent.

grenosteve
I think there’s a bit of “he’s a convict, so it’s not fair for him to earn tonnes of money a year while I earn peanuts” going on.

I’m not sure what the career prospects are like for convicted rapists but I imagine in ordinary life, for normal folk they must be limited. If I managed a McDonalds and one of my staff was convicted of rape I wouldn’t be holding his job for him till he gets back. I doubt his co-workers would be too thrilled either, especially the female ones.

I don’t see why he should automatically be entitled to work in his chosen career just because it was his chosen career.

I’m sure there’s a level of career out there suitable for rapists. I just can’t think what it is yet, pimp or drug dealer perhaps. He’d probably find plenty of customers from his previous profession.

he wont be allowed [ very unlikely] to go abroad whilst under licence/parole

The assumed consent from kopping off with and having several drinks with, still sounds dodgy to me tho.

That part happens the world over though doesn’t it. Haven’t we all pulled someone and got drunk before ‘consenting’? I know I have been in the position where I was the one that was too drunk too.

Ultimately the only real constraint on Ched Evans employment will be club sponsorship, any club employing him will have to consider the likelihood that major sponsors might end deals on the grounds that having their logo photographed on a shirt worn by a convicted rapist will damage their brand more than any positive image the rest of the team might confer.

Legally and from a regulatory point of view there’s nothing to say He can’t be employed as a footballer.

But club owners and directors would be wise to consider how sponsors might react to his employment, public backlash against any club will be noted.

It’s potentially quite a bad commercial decision to take him on…

To all those who think he’s innocent – I presume you all think it’s ok to s**g a girl who’s paralytic.

But how paralytic was she? She could walk around in high heels without falling over (as evidenced by CCTV in hotel), so obviously wasn’t completely blotto.

He comes across as a very unpleasant person, but I haven’t seen any evidence ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ that he raped the girl.

To all those who think he’s innocent – I presume you all think it’s ok to s**g a girl who’s paralytic.
If you were paralytic drunk how would you feel waking up with a sore backside and video footage of you being ‘pleasured’

This is where the Law seems unfairly weighted in favour of Women IMO – I don’t recall the case (I don’t like football so it didn’t appear in my radar until now) but given it was 4am, kebab queue etc that Ched and his mate were also plastered?

So they have to seek consent, being drunk is no excuse for being anything less than completely clear on it – removal of clothing and foreplay isn’t enough AND the Women simply stating that she was too drunk to remember is cause enough to call this into question – there is no basis in law whereby a Women could have used a Man’s intoxicated state to entice him into Sex and it be rape, because Women don’t have to seek consent.

As for your ‘bumming’ story – to be fair that would have had to have started with your victim agreeing with a man they’ve just met at 4am in a queue for a donner to go back to a hotel room and then consenting to having sex with them, and then having sex with a second man that you were too drunk to remember whether you agreed to it or not and thus you weren’t in a fit state to consent – not really the same thing is it?

He isn’t allowed to leave the country, part of the terms of being on license and on the sex offenders register, so playing abroad is not going to happen.

FAO the angry mob, here’s a list of sports people with criminal convictions so you can go and berate their potential employers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes

The way Oldham have handled this has been an absolute farce from start to finish. two botched announcements, then, despite massive opposition, including from their own fans, the decision to sign him anyway. I suspect that the sponsors will abandon them now (unless they fancy their logo associated with a convicted rapist, all over the front pages of every paper, when he plays his first match). And as a club which has been playing to a half full stadium of late, I doubt that this will be attracting many new fans

In any right thinking world, this will be a decision they’ll quickly regret. And most likely will. But as one of my Oldham supporting mates, who’s completely op[posed to the signing, has already observed: the damage is already done

I dont want to hear what I hear at Old Firm games though

Sorry, did I miss the bit where we were discussing sectarian chanting at Old Firm games and not chants in support of a convicted unrepentant rapist still serving his sentence?

In a very weird bored moment in the pub the other night, I googled “Ched Evans chants”. Some really nice examples there. Of course, he’s entirely innocent of the crime of having chants made up to say “hey, it’s ok to be a bit rapey everyone” and I’d never dream of putting him through the ordeal of being tried for it.

He went for a plea of ‘innocent’, and has stuck by this – therefore he shouldn’t really be apologising for something he hasn’t done.

Given Evans is completely unrepentant

The Criminal Cases Review Commission are reviewing the conviction so I guess until that has run it’s course, he’s been advised not to make any comments either way.

AFAIK he can go be a footballer again, there is no law that says he can’t – whether he’ll find an employer who’ll employ him is another matter; and this is something faced by the majority of ex-criminals every day.

Exactly, unless we want to force fans to turn up and sponsors to keep sponsoring the club. The club can employ him but hey have no right to insist others help them do it.

Are these really friends and family, or just random internet ****?

Nine people were convicted with naming and harassing the victim, one was his cousin who also labeled her ‘a money grabbing slut’, refused to apologise and said that she didn’t want to pay her the court- mandated compensation. Another couple were friends and I think one was another professional footballer?

Then campaign to change the law dont hound him because you dont like the law currently.

I don’t think that is neccesary, with some jobs like Police or social services then yes they must restricted by law, in cases like this i think a moral decision by the clubs based on public opinion is sufficent. If football attracted as much media attention as bowls would anyone even notice? Probably not.

And by the way i haven’t hounded anyone, it’s just my opinon that he should take a low profile “ordinary” job, and seeing as i doubt he reads STW i don’t suppose he even knows that.

@jimjam – if they’ve served their sentence, why not?

People make mistakes, some people do truly evil things and are never allowed to mix with the public again – but we don’t believe in rehabilitation what’s the point of prison at all?

The Court / Judge, given all the facts of the case, and using all their skills and experience decided that he should serve a maximum of 5 years in prison for his crime – knowing full well that good behaviour AKA – signs of rehabilitation would mean he’s be allowed out sooner – that was the punishment that the people who we choose to decide on such things set – why do we now decide that we should use the media and public pressure to punish him more?

Thousands of criminals are released every year and we hope that they will get a job and become a productive member of society – the only difference here is envy that he will make more money than us because he’s a footballer.

I didn’t realise that former BBC Sports Personality of The Year runner up Phil Taylor had an indecent assault charge!

I’ll be quite interested to hear the songs opposition fans will come up with to sing at him.

That part happens the world over though doesn’t it. Haven’t we all pulled someone and got drunk before ‘consenting’?

well the court has to decide whether the victim gave consent, from the verdicts it would seem that the court believes evans’ mate had consent but evans did not. Bearing in mind (afaik) anyone can change their mind right up to midway through and seemingly the victim was too drunk to give consent, how does this work? Only way I can see is that the court were happy that buying someone a few drinks and snogging them earlier on in the night* gives some sort of consent in advance. Whereas (quite rightly) turning up after someone is too drunk to consent and having sex with them is bang out of order (to put it mildly).

but like I said I could be dead wrong – lots of presumption and reading between the lines in that.

But also yeah it does provoke some slightly discomforting thoughts if in the past you and your partner have gotten paralytic and frisky and the morning after either/both of you don’t have great recollection of the deed.

*assumption as I don’t remember that being explicitly written

The problem with the law is that there is a subjective element to it with regards to consent. 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.

Cokeaa has hit the nail on the head its the sponsors and fans reactions the clubs have to look out for. Its just like Michael Barrymore all over again with the TV companies trying to foist him on a public that was having none of it, and Barrymore wasn’t even convicted of anything (except shite patter)

My reading of why Evans was convicted and the other guy was not was that it was down to whether she was too drunk to give consent or not in either case – but that the jury thought the other guy he had a reasonable case for thinking that consent was given (as she asked to go with him back to his hotel) but that Evans didn’t.

P-Jay – Member

@jimjam – if they’ve served their sentence, why not?

People make mistakes, some people do truly evil things and are never allowed to mix with the public again – but we don’t believe in rehabilitation what’s the point of prison at all?

Thousands of criminals are released every year and we hope that they will get a job and become a productive member of society – the only difference here is envy that he will make more money than us because he’s a footballer.

You’re working off the assumption that rehabilitation works in most or all cases. A heroin addict robbing houses to feed his habbit can get clean, maybe. Someone with violent tendencies may be able to be reformed through coaching to control their temper, maybe not.

Prison is there to remove people who are no longer fit to be a part of decent society.

Someone who thinks it’s okay to sexually violate another person and who remains unrepentant is clearly not rehabilitated or fit for decent society.

The money is an entirely ancillary issue which people are trying to make the entire issue. He’s famous. He’s a public figure. There is no getting away from this. Exchange the word footballer for MP or soap star or singer or model or any other career in the public eye and you will have the same controversy.
You would see the same reaction at local level if people found out they were dealing with a rapist in any public role, whether it’s pulling pints or collecting rubbish. I’m curious to know if you’d hire a plumber or spark to work at your house if you knew they’d done time for rape? Or whether you be happy to know your local postman was a reformed pedophile?

well the court has to decide whether the victim gave consent, from the verdicts it would seem that the court believes evans’ mate had consent but evans did not.

That was my point – that was exactly *why* the original guy wasn’t convicted but Evans was. If it was any other way we would all be in all sorts of problems because I would say to a wo/man we’ve all done it to some extent haven’t we.

Every day hundreds of criminal return to their employment.

If you have your own business or are in some dodgy activity maybe, but most people do not just walk back into a job after a serious criminal offense. This might be unfair in many cases, as criminals can often all get tarred with the same brush in the eyes of employers.

Typically, something like being convicted of rape will ruin someone’s career, and rightly so IMO if they are guilty.

Why this should be any different for a t**t who plays football is beyond me.

Typically, something like being convicted of rape will ruin someone’s career, and rightly so IMO if they are guilty.

Why this should be any different for a t**t who plays football is beyond me.

But the point is that several clubs considered him as a fit employee but media attention forced them to pull out.

johndoh

But the point is that several clubs considered him as a fit employee but media attention forced them to pull out.

Which just shows you how morally barren the sport is.

Which is great. Football is a morally bereft sport and as such, it’s hardly surprising that they would put cash (from results, I understand that he’s a decent player and would likely improve many clubs’ scorelines) ahead of any kind of morals. Luckily people in general are a little more interested in the moral aspect of hiring him and don’t like that.

So, let’s assume for the moment he is guilty, let’s also assume that as he is unrepentant he is not considered in any way rehabilitated. With that info, lets try and find a job for him that will keep the wider society safe from him re-offending.

You want a job where:
He will have minimal contact with females, non of which will be unsupervised.
His face will be well known (so people can avoid him) and he will find it very difficult to change his appearance without thousands of people noticing.
Him taking the job means his time away from work will also be closely observed.
He will earn enough that he will not be a burden on the tax payer.

Hmm, that sounds very much like going back into football would be a very good thing for everyone surely?

he got 5 years for rape on the basis the girl was too drunk to have consented to sex with him.

yet was sober enough to consent to sex with his friend?

I’ve skipped from the first page to here so apologies if someone has already raised this point, but he hasn’t yet served his sentence. He is out on license and will return to prison if he breaks the terms of his release.

That was my point – that was exactly *why* the original guy wasn’t convicted but Evans was.

I can see their thinking, I just think the consent in advance thing is a bit dubious and at odds with the anyone can change their mind at any time ethos. It’s not that long ago, IIRC, that marital rape was criminalised, before that if you were married to and cohabited with someone you had pretty much signed a 24/7 consent form.

Also, the original guy may have had “prior” consent but phoning a friend is still a pretty dodgy move in itself.