Ched Evans Appeal

[BRISTOL86]

it's simple really, why put yourself into that position?, especially when there is 4 or 5 of you involved?, it is a recipe for disaster especially if you are a professional footballer and if you do put yourself into that position bigger fool you, especially when you have a girlfriend at home (whom you claim to love) and better still is the daughter of a millionaire.

The consequences of what Evans did should be clear enough for any professional footballer, sadly the message never filtered through to the 3 young Leicester players earlier this year.

So if you are a professional footballer and you and your mates go looking for a drunken female to humiliate, think again, because it really ain't worth it, leave her to humiliate herself or you might pay the price of a career in tatters, a spell inside, all things that you cannot change.

As for the appeal unless this 'new witness' was actually in the room during the act, I suspect that his/her evidence will only serve for a judgement of, armed with this new evidence, a jury might not have convicted, which considering it is almost impossible for the appeal court to order a re-trial (because he has already served his prison sentence) it is still not and will never be absolute exoneration.

 

Like I said, I wasn't specifically referring to this case, more that I can't get my head around the general principle of how the responsibility for someone else's decision making transfers from them to you. 

[shelts]

Fair to say doubt will always be associated with this case and we will never for sure know the truth. What a situation for all of them to find themselves in and one that could definitely been avoided. If he is innocent I hope he gets on with his life and what's  left of his career, he will never be top class pro  as the prem clubs would never employ him for fear of a massive media backlash. He's done his time. Move on?

[BCFC Jimmer]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

Or you could say that Jessica Ennis did an incredibly brave and commendable thing by making a public statement that Ched's behaviour isn't acceptable.  Most famous people would have avoided talking about it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Like I said, I wasn't specifically referring to this case, more that I can't get my head around the general principle of how the responsibility for someone else's decision making transfers from them to you. 

it's quite simple think with your brain and not your dick. it might prove to be the best decision you have ever made.

 

 

[BRISTOL86]

it's quite simple think with your brain and not your dick. it might prove to be the best decision you have ever made.

 

 

It's anything but simple 

Person A and Person B have been out drinking all day. 

Person A says 'would you like to have sex?'

Person B says 'sounds like a good idea to me, let's do it!'

In the morning Person B has no recollection of saying what they said and in the eyes of the law Person A has committed a crime and is a rapist. 

I struggle to see how that's simple. And that's nothing to do with 'thinking with your dick' as you so eloquently put it. 

Both Person A and Person B were equally inebriated and Person A asked for consent and consent was given. Person A thinks - quite rightly - they have done the right thing in seeking consent before partaking in any act.

So my question to you is - in the very specific situation I've laid out above - why is Person A responsible for Person B's actions. It's not right to me that in this situation it's Person A being held accountable for Person B's decision making.  

[AshtonGreat]

Whether or not Ched Evans had a girlfriend or not has absolutely no bearing on this case. Cheating on your girlfriend is not a criminal offence

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It's anything but simple 

Person A and Person B have been out drinking all day. 

Person A says 'would you like to have sex?'

Person B says 'sounds like a good idea to me, let's do it!'

In the morning Person B has no recollection of saying what they said and in the eyes of the law Person A has committed a crime and is a rapist. 

I struggle to see how that's simple. And that's nothing to do with 'thinking with your dick' as you so eloquently put it. 

Both Person A and Person B were equally inebriated and Person A asked for consent and consent was given. 

So my question to you is - jn the very specific situation I've laid out above - why is Person A responsible for Person B's actions. 

Again it's very simple my friend, in that very 'specific' situation you set out, it could happen to absolutely anybody, anywhere at anytime, it could be as you describe a man and a woman, two women or indeed two men.

Firstly do you honestly think that if somebody truly believes that your scenario had occurred that they not be allowed to test that belief in the first instance with the police? and secondly unless there was other evidence of extreme violence or a video of the event, I cannot think of circumstances in which the police or cps would proceed with an attempted prosecution.

However in the Evans case, there was evidence that they were looking for a female and his mate denies that he was present when she allegedly gave Evans her consent, in fact he leaves immediately by the front door of the room and even passes on his concerns to the person at the front desk about the state she was in and then after the event Evans skulks out of hotel unnoticed via the fire escape.

Whether or not Ched Evans had a girlfriend or not has absolutely no bearing on this case. Cheating on your girlfriend is not a criminal offence

Nobody is suggesting that for one minute, what I am suggesting is to a normal person given the full sordid circumstances of what happened that night it should have been a very important factor in his decision making process and clearly it wasn't.

[AshtonGreat]

Grey area doesn't even come close. I can't think of any other examples where the responsibility for your own welfare at some indeterminate point passes onto another person without notice!

Him : Hello my dear, what a super smashing blouse you have on. Want to do it with me?

Her : Yeah ok. 

The next morning it turns out she was too drunk to consent and he can be prosecuted because she drank too much to make good decisions?

Not saying that's what's happened in this case but how on earth can a jury possibly decide whether or not 

a) she was too inebriated to make a consent decision

b) it's the man's responsibility to ensure that a) hasn't happened

And at what point does the responsibility for her actions pass to him, considering everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. And how is level of inebriation measured after the event? Or am I missing something?

What if they're both equally inebriated and therefore he isn't able to make a good decision about whether or not she is too inebriated to make a good decision....you could play that game all day! 

I knew a girl that as far as I can tell has been drunk since around 1993 - is it rape every time she jumps into bed with someone?

[AshtonGreat]

Esmond, I will have to reply to you in this way because this daft new site won't let me reply to your specific comment...

No one is explicitly saying that his cheating on his girlfriend is a crime, but by even mentioning it they are clouding the issue: mistaking immorality for criminality. It is irrelevant that he cheated on his girlfriend. A normal person wouldn't do that? Statistics would suggest that the majority of people cheat at some point in their life. I agree that the whole episode was sordid though.

[BRISTOL86]

EMB - as stated, I was not referring to the Evans case, more the general principle of how a jury of people who weren't anything to so with the events of a particular case can make a decision as to whether or not someone has consented to intercourse. 

From the BBC article that was posted earlier in the thread:

The footballer argued that the woman replied "yes" when asked if he could join in with sex between her and his friend.

 

In court the woman said she could not remember what she had said in the hotel room.

To me that suggests that despite there being nothing to prove whether or not consent was given, it has been decided that it wasn't. 

Again, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, as seemingly not even the people involved know! 

 

[cityexile]

EMB - as stated, I was not referring to the Evans case, more the general principle of how a jury of people who weren't anything to so with the events of a particular case can make a decision as to whether or not someone has consented to intercourse. 

From the BBC article that was posted earlier in the thread:

The footballer argued that the woman replied "yes" when asked if he could join in with sex between her and his friend.

 

In court the woman said she could not remember what she had said in the hotel room.

To me that suggests that despite there being nothing to prove whether or not consent was given, it has been decided that it wasn't. 

Again, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, as seemingly not even the people involved know! 

 

Although it was also the case that his fellow footballer refused to corroborate her consent to Ched under oath.

Its too simplistic, but 'drunken consent' is still consent. The law which the jury had to decide on was not actually whether she consented or not. It was whether, given the facts before them, Ched could have reasonably believed consent had been given. They decided, unanimously, that he could not, and convicted.

All the cases you outline are simply not within a million miles of the facts of this case (as were put before the jury at that time).

[cityexile]

Grey area doesn't even come close. I can't think of any other examples where the responsibility for your own welfare at some indeterminate point passes onto another person without notice!

 

If you stop to think about it, there are actually hundreds of examples every day.

[Rob k]

This consent thing (and I'm not being flippant)

in the eyes of the law how do you get Consent? Do you literally ask if you can have sex with the girl you just bought back?

 

[AshtonGreat]

This consent thing (and I'm not being flippant)

in the eyes of the law how do you get Consent? Do you literally ask if you can have sex with the girl you just bought back?

 

That sounds like something Alan Partridge might do haha

[dargla]

Where can I find the notes for the case? 

[MarcusX]

I agree 100%. Innocent or not, the guy took advantage of a clearly very drunk woman and cheated on his Mrs. That makes him a scumbag in my book. If found innocent and aquitted, it should have no bearing on his future employment but if he chatted me up in a bar? I'd tell him where he can go...

This also applies to women who take advantage of very drunk men and same sex couples. You just can't take advantage of people. 

what happens when both parties are as drunk as each other?

[redsquirrel]

what happens when both parties are as drunk as each other?

exactly this. it takes 2 to tango and he certainly wont be the last to try and bed a bit of fluff

[LondonBristolian]

what happens when both parties are as drunk as each other?

Your question seems to be 'what happens in a completely different hypothetical case where circumstances were different?'.  The answer is of course that there'd be a different outcome but, equally obviously, that that's no way different here.  The only thing that's relevant here is the Ched Evans case.  Why do people keep inventing hypothetical questions to somehow prove lines are blurred?  Come to that, why do so many men (to be clear, I'm male myself) seem to take a man being convicted of raping a woman who was too drunk to consent so personally?

 

Rape conviction rates are incredibly low and the threshold for a criminal conviction is guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  If there is reasonable doubt, someone will not get convicted.  I.e. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the accused will be given the benefit of the doubt (no matter how minor that doubt is or even if circumstantial evidence suggests guilt but there is no definitive proof).  In a crime such as rape, and particularly in a case where both parties were drunk, there will often be doubt, and realistically speaking, it's always going to take pretty remarkable circumstances to get a conviction.  The fact it's so hard to prove - along with the fact that, contrary to popular myth, false rape accusations are extremely rare - mean it is likely to mean that far more men rape women when they are drunk and end up not being convicted than men have consensual sex with a drunken woman and then get wrongly convicted.

To be very clear, Ched Evans has not been convicted with having sex with a woman who was drunk.  That isn't a crime.  He was convicted of having sex with someone who was not able to consent to having sex with him.  That is a crime.  For all this talk of grey areas and blurred lines, it's ridiculously simple:

If someone acts like they want to have sex with you and fully participates in that, they probably want to have sex with you.  They might change their mind.  That's fine.  At that point they no longer want to have sex with you and you should stop.

If someone acts they don't want to have sex with you, they probably don't want to have sex with you.  Having sex with them would be a very bad thing.

If someone is  barely responsive and passively lets you get on with it, you should check they're okay for you to continue.   (And, to be honest, probably also question if having sex with someone who's barely responsive is actually that enjoyable).

If someone is clearly unconscious or no longer in control of their actions, you should not have sex with them as they may not be able to consent.

This really isn't complicated and it puzzles me why people get so confused by it. 

[Dollymarie]

I wish I was able to like the above post more than once!

[MarcusX]

Your question seems to be 'what happens in a completely different hypothetical case where circumstances were different?'.  The answer is of course that there'd be a different outcome but, equally obviously, that that's no way different here.  The only thing that's relevant here is the Ched Evans case.  Why do people keep inventing hypothetical questions to somehow prove lines are blurred?  Come to that, why do so many men (to be clear, I'm male myself) seem to take a man being convicted of raping a woman who was too drunk to consent so personally?

 

Rape conviction rates are incredibly low and the threshold for a criminal conviction is guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  If there is reasonable doubt, someone will not get convicted.  I.e. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the accused will be given the benefit of the doubt (no matter how minor that doubt is or even if circumstantial evidence suggests guilt but there is no definitive proof).  In a crime such as rape, and particularly in a case where both parties were drunk, there will often be doubt, and realistically speaking, it's always going to take pretty remarkable circumstances to get a conviction.  The fact it's so hard to prove - along with the fact that, contrary to popular myth, false rape accusations are extremely rare - mean it is likely to mean that far more men rape women when they are drunk and end up not being convicted than men have consensual sex with a drunken woman and then get wrongly convicted.

To be very clear, Ched Evans has not been convicted with having sex with a woman who was drunk.  That isn't a crime.  He was convicted of having sex with someone who was not able to consent to having sex with him.  That is a crime.  For all this talk of grey areas and blurred lines, it's ridiculously simple:

If someone acts like they want to have sex with you and fully participates in that, they probably want to have sex with you.  They might change their mind.  That's fine.  At that point they no longer want to have sex with you and you should stop.

If someone acts they don't want to have sex with you, they probably don't want to have sex with you.  Having sex with them would be a very bad thing.

If someone is  barely responsive and passively lets you get on with it, you should check they're okay for you to continue.   (And, to be honest, probably also question if having sex with someone who's barely responsive is actually that enjoyable).

If someone is clearly unconscious or no longer in control of their actions, you should not have sex with them as they may not be able to consent.

This really isn't complicated and it puzzles me why people get so confused by it. 

no, I purely responded to the statement I quoted. It is suggested that Ched took advantage of a "very drunk woman". That suggests Ched wasn't himself "very drunk".

i think some men have taken particular interest in this case because having sex with a woman (or man) after a night out drinking heavily is a position we could all face ourselves in.

your statement is correct, it is very difficult to convict someone of rape which makes this verdict remarkable. There is no way anyone can be sure she could not and did not consent, so unless a major piece of evidence has been withheld from the public domain then it would seem this verdict was delivered purely on probability not fact.

[Aizoon]

Although it was also the case that his fellow footballer refused to corroborate her consent to Ched under oath.

Its too simplistic, but 'drunken consent' is still consent. The law which the jury had to decide on was not actually whether she consented or not. It was whether, given the facts before them, Ched could have reasonably believed consent had been given. They decided, unanimously, that he could not, and convicted.

All the cases you outline are simply not within a million miles of the facts of this case (as were put before the jury at that time.

So, if both participants are drunk, the prosecution must fail on the basis that the defendant was incapable of making a reasonable judgement as to whether consent had been given? 

[RedYoshi]

having sex with a woman (or man) after a night out drinking heavily is a position we could all face ourselves in.

Gosh, haven't heard of that position.

Doesn't sound pleasant.

[bend it like brian]

So, if both participants are drunk, the prosecution must fail on the basis that the defendant was incapable of making a reasonable judgement as to whether consent had been given? 

this is it in a nutshell ...doubt my post will be put on as the forum gestapo seem to have stopped me posting on this subject   

[Guest]

It's anything but simple 

Person A and Person B have been out drinking all day. 

Person A says 'would you like to have sex?'

Person B says 'sounds like a good idea to me, let's do it!'

In the morning Person B has no recollection of saying what they said and in the eyes of the law Person A has committed a crime and is a rapist. 

I struggle to see how that's simple. And that's nothing to do with 'thinking with your dick' as you so eloquently put it. 

Both Person A and Person B were equally inebriated and Person A asked for consent and consent was given. Person A thinks - quite rightly - they have done the right thing in seeking consent before partaking in any act.

So my question to you is - in the very specific situation I've laid out above - why is Person A responsible for Person B's actions. It's not right to me that in this situation it's Person A being held accountable for Person B's decision making.  

My moral call is this: rape is one of the most hideous crimes imagineable. It is such a massive evil that to me it is reasonable to place such a high burden in respect of obtaining actual consent.

Yes it is harsh and yes there will be instances which are very grey, but for me a high burden on consent is by far the better of two evils. 

[bend it like brian]

this is it in a nutshell ...doubt my post will be put on as the forum gestapo seem to have stopped me posting on this subject   

thanks very much....