Ched Evans

[And Its Smith]

Alright, let's put it another way. If the woman in question had tweeted 'I just set up a guy by crying rape, let's hope I get a big pay out' (which she obviously didn't say, but just for the sake of argument), would you still say that the tweet had absolutely no bearing on what happened that night?

I'm hoping to win big today. It's the lottery don't you know. If I win would you like a car?

[AshtonGreat]

That would have a bearing on the case but would have literally no bearing on what's happened here. What would be relevant would be the fact your hypothetical woman (who seems to resemble no woman in real life ever but closely resemble the kind of straw women misogynists and rape apologists appear to think actually exist) had said she'd set up a guy by crying rape.

However there is literally no question that the woman said this. If her tweets had anything to do with the case - and there's no evidence of that whatsoever - then the fact she is talking about compensation would not tell us anything about whether she had been raped - merely that she hoped for compensation, Which could be true whether or not she was raped.

The idea that someone talking about compensation means no crime was committed is plain stupid.

Wow. You really don't think any woman ever has falsely accused someone of rape? Some have even been sent down for it.

Nowhere did I say that her talking about winning big means that no crime was committed.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Wow. You really don't think any woman ever has falsely accused someone of rape? Some have even been sent down for it.

Nowhere did I say that her talking about winning big means that no crime was committed.

 

By the same token only yesterday a UK judge sentenced a man to only 9 years for raping 3 women and he actually said the sentence was only 9 years because he posed 'NO' danger to women.

 

The whole crime of rape needs looking at from top to bottom and certainly the way pathetic sentences such as that are handed out.

[cheese]

Wow. You really don't think any woman ever has falsely accused someone of rape? Some have even been sent down for it.

Nowhere did I say that her talking about winning big means that no crime was committed.

 

I've read what he's said several times and can't see where London said that - would you be good enough to point it out to me please?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I get the impression that some in this debate are suggesting that unless there is an independent eye witness to a rape or the victim has been beaten to a pulp, then no prosecution should ever be brought.

[AshtonGreat]

By the same token only yesterday a UK judge sentenced a man to only 9 years for raping 3 women and he actually said the sentence was only 9 years because he posed 'NO' danger to women.

The whole crime of rape needs looking at from top to bottom and certainly the way pathetic sentences such as that are handed out.

I'm 100 per cent in agreement. I think rapists should be locked up for a very long time.

[AshtonGreat]

I've read what he's said several times and can't see where London said that - would you be good enough to point it out to me please?

Unless i'm mistaken, the bit in brackets in the first paragraph.

[LondonBristolian]

Wow. You really don't think any woman ever has falsely accused someone of rape? Some have even been sent down for it.

Nowhere did I say that her talking about winning big means that no crime was committed.

 

Somewhere around 2 or 3% of rape allegations are false (that is to say it's established that the rape was wholly fabrication).  This is a far lower number than the 1 in 4 women who've been sexually assaulted or 1 in 10 who have been raped.  Many women never report these crimes. Many of those who do fail to get a prosecution due to a lack of evidence.   Therefore I think we can safely say that the number of false rape allegations is far smaller than the number unconvicted rapists and that, statistically speaking, a rape allegation is far more likely to have some substance to it than the woman to be lying.  So it's weird how many people seem to think it likely or probable that a given rape accuser is lying.

 

I'd also add that, where false rape allegations are made, the reasons are myriad and complex and often involve substantial mental health issues or extremely vulnerable women.  I don't believe many women (if any) make rape accusations purely for a profit motive - simply because theres far easier ways to profit from such things.  In this case, if she'd been trying to make a quick buck, she could have sold her story of the sexual encounter to a newspaper. Accusing Evans of rape substantially complicates that process and arguably makes it harder to profit than if she had made no allegation at all.

 

I know you didn't say that winning big means no crime was committed but what you seem to be missing is that it actually has no bearing on the case at all.  Quite simply, even if she had proven to want compensation or want to sell her story, it would tell us absolutely nothing about whether Evans' actually raped her and I suspect would quite rightly be considered inadmissable as evidence as it smears the victim but doesn't offer any indication whatsoever as to whether a rape actually took place.

[dezgimed]

It'd vary from jury to jury and would be directed by the foreman. They might start with a secret ballot but ultimately they'd need to discuss the facts and, if people disagreed, then they'd need to try and convince each other so they'd all need to state their position eventually. Ultimately the speed with which the jury agreed their decision in this case suggestions they were either mostly in agreement from the off or that the people who disagreed were quite quickly persuaded.

That sounds incredibly flawed to me.

The strongest speaker in the group persuades the weaker willed in the group to go with his verdict.

[AshtonGreat]

Good answer, and interesting stat

 

Somewhere around 2 or 3% of rape allegations are false (that is to say it's established that the rape was wholly fabrication).  This is a far lower number than the 1 in 4 women who've been sexually assaulted or 1 in 10 who have been raped.  Many women never report these crimes. Many of those who do fail to get a prosecution due to a lack of evidence.   Therefore I think we can safely say that the number of false rape allegations is far smaller than the number unconvicted rapists and that, statistically speaking, a rape allegation is far more likely to have some substance to it than the woman to be lying.  So it's weird how many people seem to think it likely or probable that a given rape accuser is lying.

 

I'd also add that, where false rape allegations are made, the reasons are myriad and complex and often involve substantial mental health issues or extremely vulnerable women.  I don't believe many women (if any) make rape accusations purely for a profit motive - simply because theres far easier ways to profit from such things.  In this case, if she'd been trying to make a quick buck, she could have sold her story of the sexual encounter to a newspaper. Accusing Evans of rape substantially complicates that process and arguably makes it harder to profit than if she had made no allegation at all.

 

I know you didn't say that winning big means no crime was committed but what you seem to be missing is that it actually has no bearing on the case at all.  Quite simply, even if she had proven to want compensation or want to sell her story, it would tell us absolutely nothing about whether Evans' actually raped her and I suspect would quite rightly be considered inadmissable as evidence as it smears the victim but doesn't offer any indication whatsoever as to whether a rape actually took place.

 

Good answer, and interesting statistics (although I would say that just because the number of false accusations is low doesn't mean that they don't happen, and therefore all avenues should be investigated).

 

Personally, I dispute the last paragraph. If someone was in court on a race-hate crime and was vehemently denying it, but later posted a tweet saying 'I hate foreigners', surely that kind of adds fuel to the fire?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this debate. It was never my intention to condone Ched Evans' actions and, as I've said before, rapists deserve 20 years in prison. But I am fascinated in criminal law and read up on a lot of cases, and if I see what I consider to be holes, I question them. That's my right as a human being and that's all I'm doing here. Not a mysoginist. Not a neanderthal. 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Some of the arguments being put forward are along the lines of "If Ched Evans had been in Wisconsin at the time of the rape, would that have had any bearing on the case?". Remarkably, the jury were asked to look at things that a) actually happened and b) pertained to the case. They didn't need to achieve 100% certainty that a crime took place (if they did, crime would definitely pay), simply that they were sure beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The acquittal of McDonald shows they were comfortable that someone, even if drunk, could give consent by the implications of their actions prior to the sex (voluntarily getting in a taxi, having 3rd parties to appeal for help to if wanted (taxi driver, night porter) etc), but equally that the way Evans arrived on the scene was very different (text from McDonald rather than the complainant showing willingness, as the jury believed she did with McDonald) and therefore consent was not given.

 

As has been mentioned, even if the "win big" comments were related to the possibility of compensation, selling a story or whatever (nothing to indicate they were), that's irrelevant as happened months after the crime. If it had been shown that she was asking McDonald "do you know any lower league footballers; and a tabloid journalist or two would be handy?" or similar, prior to the rape, then there might have been something in that; but given the defence didn't offer such evidence at the trial, the posting on the website is simply an attempt to besmirch the victim's reputation.

[AshtonGreat]

That sounds incredibly flawed to me.

The strongest speaker in the group persuades the weaker willed in the group to go with his verdict.

 

ps I did wonder that myself!

[The Swan and Cemetery]

ps I did wonder that myself!

 

That's why there are 12 (15 in Scotland), to seek to ensure a breadth of types of people, so that the defendant is being tried by a representative group of his/her peers, rather than people biased in favour or against, and to try and ensure that the strong don't overwhelm the weak (as might happen with a two person jury). Doesn't mean it's perfect, but does mean there's a deliberate attempt to seek fairness. 

[Guest]

Every appeal I know of is because of new evidence, not that the jury got it wrong on the evidence that they were given, unless you have other proof.

VERY good reason for this EMB - the decision of a jury is not an appealable matter. Your not likely to see an impossibility.

[PHILINFRANCE]

I get the impression that some in this debate are suggesting that unless there is an independent eye witness to a rape or the victim has been beaten to a pulp, then no prosecution should ever be brought.

 

In some countries, it requires 4 independent witnesses for a charge of rape to succeed....

[MarcusX]

So if a man and a woman get drunk together and then have sex, and then the woman wakes up and decides that she didn't really want to have sex after all, the man can get into trouble?

Apparently so. There's something a little wrong with that...

[Esmond Million's Bung]

In some countries, it requires 4 independent witnesses for a charge of rape to succeed....

 

in some countries the woman is held responsible.

[PHILINFRANCE]

in some countries the woman is held responsible.

 

Indeed - and can even be executed for having tempted the poor man....

 

This, perhaps, puts in to perspective some of the difficulties relating to 'integration'.

[AshtonGreat]

Apparently so. There's something a little wrong with that...

Yes there is. I guess it doesn't happen too often tho

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Yes there is. I guess it doesn't happen too often tho

 

Where's this being shown? I'd have thought the acquittal of McDonald in the Evans case was a good example that simply being drunk isn't sufficient for a woman to cry foul? 

[AshtonGreat]

Where's this being shown? I'd have thought the acquittal of McDonald in the Evans case was a good example that simply being drunk isn't sufficient for a woman to cry foul?

I was just asking the question. Read back up the thread to find out who it was that said this was so :-)

[The Swan and Cemetery]

I was just asking the question. Read back up the thread to find out who it was that said this was so :-)

 

Thanks. Pretty unconvinced that's the case, as McDonald's acquittal shows. Apologies for #boringrepitition, will aim to stop. 

[MarcusX]

Where's this being shown? I'd have thought the acquittal of McDonald in the Evans case was a good example that simply being drunk isn't sufficient for a woman to cry foul?

True, but if there was no CCTV footage showing your lady friend get in a taxi with you? Or making her way to yours.

Also, the Evans conviction shows you probably need to prove consent - the victim doesn't seem to need to prove the lack of consent, just prove she was drunk and therefore had no control of her decision making.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

True, but if there was no CCTV footage showing your lady friend get in a taxi with you? Or making her way to yours.

Also, the Evans conviction shows you probably need to prove consent - the victim doesn't seem to need to prove the lack of consent, just prove she was drunk and therefore had no control of her decision making.

 

Yes, but that reasonable belief of consent can be built up from circumstance, not necessarily a need to prove that she said "Yes". The circumstances around McDonald's interactions with the complainant convinced the jury he did could reasonably believe consent was given, whereas the circumstance around Evans did not. 

 

In a situation where there is absolutely nothing beyond the word of the accused and the complainant, clearly that increases the risks of both unsafe convictions and unpunished rapes; suspicion would be the latter is significantly more likely, given the start point is innocent until proven guilty - i.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence. 

[MarcusX]

Yes, but that reasonable believe of consent can be built up from circumstance, not necessarily a need to prove that she said "Yes". The circumstances around McDonald's interactions with the complainant convinced the jury he did could reasonably believe consent was given, whereas the circumstance around Evans did not.

In a situation where there is absolutely nothing beyond the word of the accused and the complainant, clearly that increases the risks of both unsafe convictions and unpunished rapes; suspicion would be the latter is significantly more likely, given the start point is innocent until proven guilty - i.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence.

Fair point, I was looking at it from the wrong way round, you are probably right

[Red-Robbo]

Only because of the evidence/guidance provided.

I would be happy for you to produce one case where the the jury actually got a verdict wrong off of their own backs, because your examples are just plain wrong, the verdicts were arrived at by flawed evidence or the withholding of such evidence and that cannot be blamed on any jury. in fact the only time I can think it has happened is by jury tampering by the accused.

Every appeal I know of is because of new evidence, not that the jury got it wrong on the evidence that they were given, unless you have other proof.

As for this gem, "I've rarely read a more ludicrous post on OTIB". I think you trumped it in spades my friend.

You really are an arsey git at times you know.

I'll let you have your precious last word in this discussion because I know that matters soooooooo much to you, but I think you're wrong.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You really are an arsey git at times you know.

I'll let you have your precious last word in this discussion because I know that matters soooooooo much to you, but I think you're wrong.

 

Well that makes two of us.

 

Have a good night.

[Red-Robbo]

It'd vary from jury to jury and would be directed by the foreman. They might start with a secret ballot but ultimately they'd need to discuss the facts and, if people disagreed, then they'd need to try and convince each other so they'd all need to state their position eventually. Ultimately the speed with which the jury agreed their decision in this case suggestions they were either mostly in agreement from the off or that the people who disagreed were quite quickly persuaded.

You elect a foreman and then you talk about it. There's usually a show of hands, but no provision for a ballot as such. Jurors explain to each other why they feel the way they do about the case.

I've done two stints of jury service, one for two weeks and one for three weeks. In that time I heard 4 cases (although one was discontinued as the guy changed his plea after the first day), and was foreman twice.

As people have said, the standard of argument adanced by some jurors and their lack of intelligence and attention to the case is terrifying. For this reason, I'm sure they do sometimes reach strange decisions. In the legal profession, such cases are known as "perverse juries".

[dezgimed]

I'd love 2-3 weeks off work, how do I get on a big case?

[Red-Robbo]