Ched Evans set to sign deal with Sheffield United after release from prison

[BensGrandad]

Has anyone ever had sex, with either a long-term partner or drunken 1 night shag, where they have explicitly been given consent? I know

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same scumbag whose family and friends subsequently named the victim on Twitter, even though she is entitled to lifetime anonymity.

Perhaps they formed the opinion that his name was made public before conviction so why should she be able remain anonymous, that is a view held by many.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Perhaps they formed the opinion that his name was made public before conviction so why should she be able remain anonymous, that is a view held by many.

A rape vicitm should have their name bandied about? I hope I don't mix with any people who feel that way.

 

[Frampler]

Perhaps they formed the opinion that his name was made public before conviction so why should she be able remain anonymous, that is a view held by many.

All victims of sexual offences are legally entitled to remain anonymous. Every time the name is published it amounts to a criminal offence (this is why newspapers now refer to "a 15 year old girl" who was abducted by a maths teacher in Eastbourne, even though her name was on the news every day for a week). If this wasn't the case, many rape victims would be terrified to report the offence, and there would be more rapists walking the streets.

There may be an argument that the accused should also remain anonymous pending the resolution of the trial - the current Government proposed this change before backing down - but that certainly doesn't justify the reprehensible step of naming the victim.

 

[JCL666]

Perhaps they formed the opinion that his name was made public before conviction so why should she be able remain anonymous, that is a view held by many.

Because being raped is horrendous, and trying to secure a rape conviction is incredibly difficult and many victims are reluctant to pursue it?

And I'm not saying that the accused shouldn't be anonymous either.

 

[keaton]

Perhaps they formed the opinion that his name was made public before conviction so why should she be able remain anonymous, that is a view held by many.

So breaking the law's alright if you disagree with it?

 

[dazzer6666]

Because being raped is horrendous, and trying to secure a rape conviction is incredibly difficult and many victims are reluctant to pursue it?

And I'm not saying that the accused shouldn't be anonymous either.

Absolutely.

 

[Notters]

So breaking the law's alright if you disagree with it?

If it doesn't hurt anyone or impinge on anyone's freedom and you think the law is unjust then yet (not applicable in this case!)

 

[Baldseagull]

That was in the court case though, the jury has already heard that. They decided she didn't give consent to Ched Evans.

It's not that she was too drunk to give consent, it's that she didn't give consent.

Both the accused said she gave consent to Ched Evans, she can't remember anything, these were the only people in the room, how is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt then that she did not consent?

 

[keaton]

Both the accused said she gave consent to Ched Evans, she can't remember anything, these were the only people in the room, how is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt then that she did not consent?

I don't know I wasn't in court. The issue of consent was discussed and he was found guilty by people who heard all the evidence. The only way he can appeal is if he has found new evidence or facts or if proper procedure wasn't followed in the first case.

 

[Baldseagull]

I don't know I wasn't in court. The issue of consent was discussed and he was found guilty by people who heard all the evidence. The only way he can appeal is if he has found new evidence or facts or if proper procedure wasn't followed in the first case.

I appreciate that both of us are not as informed as the jury, but I have less confidence than you that a jury always makes the right decision.
From what I have read it looks to be weak on evidence, the statements of the two men is the only evidence that any sexual activity took place, it seems the defendants were believed as truthful in all they said except for the part where consent was obtained.

 

[BensGrandad]

Has anyone ever had sex, with either a long-term partner or drunken 1 night shag, where they have explicitly been given consent? I know I haven't.

A rape vicitm should have their name bandied about? I hope I don't mix with any people who feel that way.

All victims of sexual offences are legally entitled to remain anonymous. Every time the name is published it amounts to a criminal offence (this is why newspapers now refer to "a 15 year old girl" who was abducted by a maths teacher in Eastbourne, even though her name was on the news every day for a w eek). If this wasn't the case, many rape victims would be terrified to report the offence, and there would be more rapists walking the streets.

There may be an argument that the accused should also remain anonymous pending the resolution of the trial - the current Government proposed this change before backing down - but that certainly doesn't justify the reprehensible step of naming the victim.

So breaking the law's alright if you disagree with it?

I havent said for 1 minute that it is correct but his friends and family may have been under the misguided aprehension that as his name was made known so should hers, but 2 wrongs dont make a right. There is a lot to be said for the view that both victim and accused should remain anonymous until a case is proven.

 

[Goldstone1976]

There is a lot to be said for the view that both victim and accused should remain anonymous until a case is proven.

The problem with this approach is that it precludes the opportunity for the police to see if other alleged victims have been abused/raped by the alleged offender. Countless alleged victims have come foward to further accuse people charged under Operation Yewtree or similar operations - from Saville to Harris, and all those in between. If you don't name the alleged offender, the other alleged victims that s/he may have abused/raped have no idea that their alleged rapist/abuser are under suspicion.

It's not a perfect system, since an alleged offender may subsequently be found innocent, and it's possible that other alleged victims may be acting maliciously, but society (by way of the Law) has judged that the benefits from naming alleged offenders and guaranteeing anonymity of alleged victims outweigh the negatives.

 

[Driver8]

The problem with this approach is that it precludes the opportunity for the police to see if other alleged victims have been abused/raped by the alleged offender. Countless alleged victims have come foward to further accuse people charged under Operation Yewtree or similar operations - from Saville to Harris, and all those in between. If you don't name the alleged offender, the other alleged victims that s/he may have abused/raped have no idea that their alleged rapist/abuser are under suspicion.

It's not a perfect system, since an alleged offender may subsequently be found innocent, and it's possible that other alleged victims may be acting maliciously, but society (by way of the Law) has judged that the benefits from naming alleged offenders and guaranteeing anonymity of alleged victims outweigh the negatives.

Out of interest, and perhaps relevant in this case, would you expect a jury to be told that the "victim" had made similar accusations in the past?

 

[keaton]

Out of interest, and perhaps relevant in this case, would you expect a jury to be told that the "victim" had made similar accusations in the past?

If someone had had previous allegations against them that wouldn't be mentioned

 

[Goldstone1976]

Out of interest, and perhaps relevant in this case, would you expect a jury to be told that the "victim" had made similar accusations in the past?

Personally, although I can see why people may want previous "form" of an alleged victim to be made public, I would answer "no". For two main reasons: firstly, the case against the defendant should be won or lost purely on the merits of that specific case, irrrespective of the "previous" by either an alleged victim or the defendant themself. Secondly, it would be inevitable that the jury would be more inclined to think that the alleged victim is lying if they were told they had "form", making the case for the prosecution even harder than it already is in rape trials.