Ched Evans

[beardy gull]

What has anyone done in this thread to make you feel ashamed? Men around the world murder, torture and brutally rape people millions of people, but it's the opinions expressed on here that suddenly make you ashamed to be a man.

And it's just men that are uneasy about the verdict is it? Is it bollox. I expect just as large a proportion of women have the same doubts.

I forgot I was only allowed to be ashamed by one thing at a time. Many apologies.

And whilst I'm of course aware there are women who have doubts about the verdict I don't expect they are equal in number. Certainly an equal amount do not seem to expressing some of the abhorrent views I've read about the case.

 

[drew]

If that same woman was drunk when she "rode him like Red Rum" and a jury decided that she was too drunk to give consent to sex and any belief that the man may have that she was sober enough to consent was unreasonable then he would be guilty of rape.

That doesn't make sense! On the one hand she is in control of her faculties enough to be able to 'ride him like red rum' but not capable of consenting. Drunken consent is still consent.

 

[beardy gull]

Fair enough but if you don't mind me asking, what is it that convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape?

You know I wasn't on the jury right? As I've said I've read extensivly about the case and haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there has been a miscarriage of justice. I understand you believe otherwise. We're not going to change each others minds on this.

 

[drew]

You know I wasn't on the jury right? As I've said I've read extensivly about the case and haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there has been a miscarriage of justice. I understand you believe otherwise. We're not going to change each others minds on this.

What an odd response.

 

[rippleman]

None of us were on the jury therefore we haven't heard all of the evidence first hand. We just have to trust the jury's decision. They found him guilty and unless or until that decision is overturned on appeal, that's more than good enough for me.

In the unlikely event that the conviction is over-turned Evans should be allowed back in the game. In fact he should be welcomed back.

But until that day, Evans, the convicted rapist, should continue to be ostracised from football.

 

[Triggaaar]

Nothing I have seen suggests there has been any error in the legal proceedings nor in the actions of the judge

Unless you're a legal expert, why would it have?

I would have thought that if the defence had grounds to support a claim that an error had been made then this would be public knowledge by now

It is - the case is being looked at.

The trial judge made the following comment when sentencing:-
"When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That was not the judges opinion, that was the judge acting on the verdict of the jury, as is his job. If a judge (in any case) disagrees with a jury, he's not going to say - 'I think you're innocent, but these muppets say you're guilty, so bad luck, down you go', he's going to say the jury's verdict as if it's gospel.

Just because Evans believes the girl was sober enough to give consent and that she gave that consent does not mean he is innocent

There could be circumstances where what you say there is correct (but not many - as you point out, the judge said "[the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") - but the point is, there are some (lots) circumstances where that is not correct. If a woman appears to be in control of herself, and asks to have sex with you, etc etc, then there's no way what the judge said ("you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") would be correct. How can you know it if someone seems so with it and willing!?

- it is the jury's judgement that either she did not give any consent or that if she did she was not in a condition to be able to do so and that any belief Evans had that she was simply was not reasonable.

Yes, it is their judgement, and it is for them to determine whether a person is guilty or not in the eyes of the law. But that doesn't mean they KNOW! They weren't there! If they were there, and witnessed a woman who appeared in control of her actions, asking for sex, then there's no way in hell they'd say she that the man should have known she wasn't capable of consent.

I've said earlier that personally I have doubts about the guilt of Evans but the bottom line is that it is not mine or anyone else's place to make that decision apart from the members of the jury whose verdict cannot be overturned unless there were facts they were not made aware of or errors in law were made at the trial.

I agree with all that. We're not making the decision, the jury did. But thankfully we live in a free society where we can talk about cases. And in some of those cases (not necessarily this one), the jury are wrong.

If that same woman was drunk when she "rode him like Red Rum" and a jury decided that she was too drunk to give consent to sex and any belief that the man may have that she was sober enough to consent was unreasonable then he would be guilty of rape.

No, he'd be 'found guilty of rape', which is not the same thing. You're not distinguishing between opinion and reality.

And whilst I'm of course aware there are women who have doubts about the verdict I don't expect they are equal in number.

I think you'd be surprised.

Certainly an equal amount do not seem to expressing some of the abhorrent views I've read about the case.

That's because it's mostly men talking about it the case. I can probably come up with more men that have denounced Evans, than you can women.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Unless you're a legal expert, why would it have?
It is - the case is being looked at.

That was not the judges opinion, that was the judge acting on the verdict of the jury, as is his job. If a judge (in any case) disagrees with a jury, he's not going to say - 'I think you're innocent, but these muppets say you're guilty, so bad luck, down you go', he's going to say the jury's verdict as if it's gospel.

There could be circumstances where what you say there is correct (but not many - as you point out, the judge said "[the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") - but the point is, there are some (lots) circumstances where that is not correct. If a woman appears to be in control of herself, and asks to have sex with you, etc etc, then there's no way what the judge said ("you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") would be correct. How can you know it if someone seems so with it and willing!?

Yes, it is their judgement, and it is for them to determine whether a person is guilty or not in the eyes of the law. But that doesn't mean they KNOW! They weren't there! If they were there, and witnessed a woman who appeared in control of her actions, asking for sex, then there's no way in hell they'd say she that the man should have known she wasn't capable of consent.

I agree with all that. We're not making the decision, the jury did. But thankfully we live in a free society where we can talk about cases. And in some of those cases (not necessarily this one), the jury are wrong.

No, he'd be 'found guilty of rape', which is not the same thing. You're not distinguishing between opinion and reality.

I think you'd be surprised.
That's because it's mostly men talking about it the case. I can probably come up with more men that have denounced Evans, than you can women.

You don't seem to have a grasp of how law works in the UK.

 

[Triggaaar]

You don't seem to have a grasp of how law works in the UK.

I'm pretty sure I do Herr Tub, but feel free to say which bits you disagree with and why. 'All of it' and 'because it's wrong' won't help.

 

[Husty]

None of us were on the jury therefore we haven't heard all of the evidence first hand. We just have to trust the jury's decision. They found him guilty and unless or until that decision is overturned on appeal, that's more than good enough for me.

In the unlikely event that the conviction is over-turned Evans should be allowed back in the game. In fact he should be welcomed back.

But until that day, Evans, the convicted rapist, should continue to be ostracised from football.

So never question anything ever or hold your own view on anything? Got it.

 

[beardy gull]

And whilst I'm of course aware there are women who have doubts about the verdict I don't expect they are equal in number.

I think you'd be surprised.

Surprise me then.

Oh right, you can't. It's just your opinion.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Sorry to disagree with you but that's not the case. I'd draw a parallel with the law of statutory rape in the US. My understanding of that is that a person under a certain age cannot give consent. Therefore it matters not one bit if they give it, they could say it, video it, write it down, whatever but you would still be done for rape as they are deemed incapable of giving it. Same here- at a certain point in someones drunkenness they become incapable of giving valid consent.

 

[Triggaaar]

Surprise me then.

Oh right, you can't. It's just your opinion.

Shucks - what gave it away, was it that I said 'I think'?

 

[The Merry Prankster]

That doesn't make sense! On the one hand she is in control of her faculties enough to be able to 'ride him like red rum' but not capable of consenting. Drunken consent is still consent.

Possibly you don't have experience of blackout drinking. I do, lots. One of my more extreme examples was I once blacked out totally for five days in New York. Some how I managed to function, not get hurt and even managed to change hotels but I cannot remember a single moment of it. Any decision I made during that time was not a rational one and any consent I gave for something could not be described as valid. I'd also point out that I had sex in that condition many times.

 

[Triggaaar]

Drunken consent is still consent.

Sorry to disagree with you but that's not the case.

Yes it is, it's clear if you read the notes on the case.

I'd draw a parallel with the law of statutory rape in the US. My understanding of that is that a person under a certain age cannot give consent. Therefore it matters not one bit if they give it, they could say it, video it, write it down, whatever but you would still be done for rape as they are deemed incapable of giving it. Same here- at a certain point in someones drunkenness they become incapable of giving valid consent.

Yes, you're misunderstanding what they're saying. Someone may be so drunk, they have no idea what they're doing, and they could say 'yes' - that is not drunken consent, that is someone who is incapable of giving consent. However, someone who would normally say no, may get drunk and think 'what the heck', and say yes.

As the judge said: "There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"

Possibly you don't have experience of blackout drinking. I do, lots. One of my more extreme examples was I once blacked out totally for five days in New York. Some how I managed to function, not get hurt and even managed to change hotels but I cannot remember a single moment of it. Any decision I made during that time was not a rational one and any consent I gave for something could not be described as valid. I'd also point out that I had sex in that condition many times.

I would suggest that is extremely unusual. Were the people you had sex with aware that they were sexually assaulting you?

 

[Creaky]

Unless you're a legal expert, why would it have?
It is - the case is being looked at.

Because if there were an error in law made then it would be reasonable to assume that this would have been raised during the application for an appeal - as there wasn't, at least not one that the Lord Chief Justice accepted then I don't think it unreasonable to say I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there was an error made.

If the defence have discovered an error since the decision by the Lord Chief Justice to deny an appeal was made then considering all the details given on Ched Evans's website I would have expected there to be some mention made on there.

That was not the judges opinion, that was the judge acting on the verdict of the jury, as is his job. If a judge (in any case) disagrees with a jury, he's not going to say - 'I think you're innocent, but these muppets say you're guilty, so bad luck, down you go', he's going to say the jury's verdict as if it's gospel.

I wouldn't expect a judge when sentencing to make a statement in direct contradiction of a jury's verdict but there equally was no compunction on him to make a statement showing his agreement in detail in the way he did.

There could be circumstances where what you say there is correct (but not many - as you point out, the judge said "[the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") - but the point is, there are some (lots) circumstances where that is not correct. If a woman appears to be in control of herself, and asks to have sex with you, etc etc, then there's no way what the judge said ("you, when you arrived, must have realised that.") would be correct. How can you know it if someone seems so with it and willing!?

Which only goes to reinforce the impression that what he said were his personal views rather than just concurring with the view of the jury.

Yes, it is their judgement, and it is for them to determine whether a person is guilty or not in the eyes of the law. But that doesn't mean they KNOW! They weren't there! If they were there, and witnessed a woman who appeared in control of her actions, asking for sex, then there's no way in hell they'd say she that the man should have known she wasn't capable of consent.

Of course this jury didn't KNOW they were correct in their judgement but it was their duty to make this decision based on the evidence they heard in court and it is that decision that determines guilt or innocence. Ched Evans doesn't KNOW that the girl was sober enough under the law to give consent, all he can have is a belief that she was, that doesn't mean he is any more correct in that view than the jury were in theirs. The important thing is that it is the jury's verdict that makes the final decision.

I agree with all that. We're not making the decision, the jury did. But thankfully we live in a free society where we can talk about cases. And in some of those cases (not necessarily this one), the jury are wrong.

Quite

No, he'd be 'found guilty of rape', which is not the same thing. You're not distinguishing between opinion and reality.

The verdict of a jury moves an opinion into reality under the law. Outside the law anyone can have their own opinion but in a case like this where a verdict is based on a matter of judgement rather than a matter of fact then the jury's decision takes precedence.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Yes it is, it's clear if you read the notes on the case.
Yes, you're misunderstanding what they're saying. Someone may be so drunk, they have no idea what they're doing, and they could say 'yes' - that is not drunken consent, that is someone who is incapable of giving consent. However, someone who would normally say no, may get drunk and think 'what the heck', and say yes.

As the judge said: "There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"

I would suggest that is extremely unusual. Were the people you had sex with aware that they were sexually assaulting you?

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me about the inability to give consent past a certain point. From your post it seems so but from the Judges comments not so. Confused.

As to my story, perhaps not hugely common but I could take you to an AA meeting tonight where pretty much everyone would identify with that to one degree or another.
As to whether people knew they were sexually assaulting me - I don't think people or the law thought the same way back then and I guess it would have been rendered unimportant (then) by the fact I'd have given retrospective consent anyway.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm pretty sure I do Herr Tub, but feel free to say which bits you disagree with and why. 'All of it' and 'because it's wrong' won't help.

I can't be arsed.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I can't be arsed.

I thought people in Germany were always arsed.

 

[jimbob5]

am I the only person sick of hearing about Ched Evans, who the f**k is he anyway?

probably

 

[Triggaaar]

Because if there were an error in law made then it would be reasonable to assume that this would have been raised during the application for an appeal

Not necessarily, because the application for an appeal is not dealt with on the same basis as the CCRC look at cases.

I don't think it unreasonable to say I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there was an error made.

No it isn't unreasonable, and it's not unreasonable for me to reply with "unless you're a legal expert, why would it have?" - ie, your comment doesn't mean anything. There's nothing that leads any of us to believe and error was or wasn't made, because we're not legal experts. All we know is that the CCRC are investigating the case, and it's possible and error was made.

I wouldn't expect a judge when sentencing to make a statement in direct contradiction of a jury's verdict but there equally was no compunction on him to make a statement showing his agreement in detail in the way he did.

That's wild speculation. A judge goes with the verdict he's been given, and states it as fact. If you know differently, if you know they only state it when their personal opinion matches that of the jury, please provide some evidence.

Which only goes to reinforce the impression that what he said were his personal views rather than just concurring with the view of the jury.

lol. The judge has said what he said because the jury didn't believe the defendants claims. It doesn't mean the judge agrees with them, and you're ignoring the explanation that it is possible for a defendant to know if they didn't commit a crime, which you fail to understand.

Of course this jury didn't KNOW they were correct in their judgement

Bingo!

it was their duty to make this decision based on the evidence they heard in court and it is that decision that determines guilt or innocence.

It was their duty to make the legal decision, but as you accept, that doesn't mean they know whether she was able to give consent or not. And that's only half of it, they also had to guess whether he knew she was capable of giving consent or not.

Ched Evans doesn't KNOW that the girl was sober enough under the law to give consent, all he can have is a belief that she was

And if he had that belief, then he was innocent. You clearly don't understand properly. And of course he was in a better position to judge is she was capable of consent, he was there.

The important thing is that it is the jury's verdict that makes the final decision.

The verdict of a jury moves an opinion into reality under the law. Outside the law anyone can have their own opinion but in a case like this where a verdict is based on a matter of judgement rather than a matter of fact then the jury's decision takes precedence.

The law and the verdict, yes, but not the reality. The reality is that it is possible that Evans knows she gave consent. If I was tried for murder and a jury decided I shot someone, then in your words "The verdict of a jury moves an opinion into reality under the law" - but it would still be possible for me to know I hadn't done it, even though the law proved I had. Of course I accept that case is more clear cut, as it is not open to interpretation, but I am just explaining that just because a jury says it's so, doesn't mean it is.