Reply With QuoteShould a convicted rapist be allowed back into the public eye?
My opinion is definitely not!!
Edit- saying that, look at Mike Tyson ��
Guys this is G&D as a discussion topic, my thoughts FWIW and don't shoot me for this, is give the guy a break, though if I was closer to the story I might feel different
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29633825
Sheffield United boss Nigel Clough has said he has had talks with club officials about the possibility of Ched Evans returning to the Blades after his release from prison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
Please remember this isn't the BP.
Should a convicted rapist be allowed back into the public eye?
My opinion is definitely not!!
Edit- saying that, look at Mike Tyson ��
Last edited by alexaff; 16th October 2014 at 13:55.
I wouldn't employ him but he has every right to seek any employment he chooses.
I don't care how much time he's served. In my view it's not long enough. Furthermore to be allowed back into employment in which he'll be a role model. No way. Ever!
He is a convicted rapist who denied all charges against him. How long has he actually served?.
No way should he be allowed back.
He hasn't served very long at all. Less than 2 years.
If the blades take him back then they fall lower than I could ever expect. I'm a Wednesday fan but hope they show some decency and don't take him back.
IF he's to restart his career then it should be a complete clean break altho for me he's a disgrace. For the record I also think we did the wrong thing taking Gary Madine back after his release from prison last year.
The whole Evans story is just sickening and an insight to the way rich young people well footballers act.
Its totally divided the city and many blades fans are against it.
- - - Updated - - -
It will be 2.5yrs so yes done the required half but its still not long enough.Originally Posted by Thorien
Did anyone follow the case, and surrounding events, at the time?
Nope. But a conviction of 5 years for rape is all I need to know.
In principle I think a convict who's served their time should be allowed to continue with their career afterward, so long as their colleagues are OK with it and the person isn't putting anyone else at risk.
BUT
He's had two years off training and playing, so surely he's unsuitable to return to the professional game immediately. And, if or when he makes his return, the fans will give him a such a hard time it's unlikely he'll be able to perform at his best so I can't see why a professional club would want him.
I think we have to trust the legal system in the UK - it's not always right but is quite a lot of the time. The legal system says he was guilty and determined how long he should serve.
Personally I think if he has done his time then he shouldn't be prevented form earning a living on his release. There has to be rehabilitation and reintegration - prison sentences aren't purely punitive.
In this particular case I recall some of the details as it was in the local rags a lot - the victim couldnt remember anything between being in a takeaway and waking up in a hotel, yet one of the two men she had sex with that night was convicted and the other acquitted. If you can't remember anything, can you really comment on whether consent was given? If not, they should both have been convicted.
I'm not a fan of his by any stretch at all but don't believe we should support him on benefits for the rest of his life - better for him to be earning and paying tax...
I sort of agree Chris but it's not as though he's gone to jail for unpaid parking fine or stealing a kit Kat.
In my eyes rape is as bad as it gets and he should get a job picking fag ends up.
This is from the original case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
Weird one got aquitted!
Presumably there was more evidence against the lad who got jail?
At the end of the day I'm pretty sure none of us here were at the trial so I suppose we have to go with what the system decided otherwise we're all doomed!
I agree he's served his time. The length of time (and that's what the legal system gave him) is another issue.
Having served his time he should be free to pursue whatever employment he wishes. Better that than on the dole and a burden to society.
Judy Finnigan has some interesting thoughts on the matter.......................
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5976920.html
I agree with the views that if having served your time, upon your release you should be able to seek employment - why people would judge the club doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
Part of a functioning society is the rehabilitation of convicted criminals - whilst the crime of rape is horrific, he has been through the appropriate legal procedures and received and served his sentence, the sentence wasn't jail time plus the rest of your life out in society but still paying your debts, it was jail time and then he was released having served his time.
If he truly is innocent and usually a confession can attract a lesser sentence - this we cannot comment on - but irregardless of this, he has been sent to jail and spent time behind bars, do you really think that the affect of this on him, his family and the fact he will have to carry this around his whole life is just going to disappear because he has a better than average job? I think not.
If he doesn't get back into sport he could always play the pantomime villain - he's behind you
Gray
Don't get me wrong, now that he's out, he should be allowed employment. However (I believe) it should not be one where kids will look up to him as a role model, so in other words no public facing/celebrity/star roles.
Interesting... the comment section is brilliant as usual.
Now, I do take a very strong view on crimes with a sexual nature, but when copious amounts of alcohol are involved, it does cloud the issue - where does personal responsibility come into it. Should this even be a factor whatsoever?
Perhaps we should let R Kelly know.....
On a more serious note, are we not in danger of the Streisand effect taking over here.... a relatively small name in football is back on the field, yet with all this media hype and discussions it is drawing attention towards something that would otherwise be a relatively small story.
Judy was making her 'Loose Women' debut
Ched was found guilty after admitting to having sex with the woman, who informed the jury at Caernarfon Crown Court that she had no memory of the incident.
The prosecution stated that she was too drunk to have consented to sexual intercourse.
( would she also be too drunk to remember consenting )
As said by alexaff,,,,
At the end of the day I'm pretty sure none of us here were at the trial so I suppose we have to go with what the system decided otherwise we're all doomed!
We do indeed have to go with the verdict or yes we are all doomed, I just think that sometimes things aren't black and white, and writing someone off for something so debatable in circumstance as this, is perhaps too much of a knee jerk reaction,
Maybe sometimes we have to sit down with our kids and explain how the law works, crime, responsibility, jury's, verdicts, punishment. rehabilitation,,, even more important with role models.
Appreciate everyone's input.
n2
Won't he be on the Sex Offenders' Register for a number of years?
You would hope. But this is the UK we are talking about, you can get out for rape after 2 and a half years.
Convicted yes, rightly so, I'm not sure... read the backstory. And yes I appreciate he's been judged blah blah blah but it seems as though there is an element of him being 'stitched up' here.
Takes me back to the footballer who killed and fled the scene (Lee Hughes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hug...ing_conviction
Should he be/have been allowed to play football again?
Difficult subject no doubt...
He'll be on licence for 30 months & on the SOR indefinitely, according to the press.
BTW, it seems Sheffield Utd didn't actually sack him. They paid him his £20k a week up until the end of his contract, which expired six weeks after he was sentenced in April 2012. The offence took place in May 2011.
This is an interesting read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hed-evans.html
The pictures of the girl walking out of the hotel and coming back with a pizza, are odd given the state she was in.
As for Evans, I wouldn't want him playing for my club but what else can he do? If he can't ply his trade he is unemployable, what good is that to society?
Last edited by kace; 16th October 2014 at 18:23.
+1 and since when have footballers been role models? Their antics are well documented in the Sunday rags (and look at their taste in watches!) and are nothing to model oneself on.
Was there any compensation involved?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Yes but people do. Fashions and antics. Many of this generation aspire for money and the 'celebrity' lifestyle.
Not really taken much if any interest in this......But
I would want to see happen to him as would to a non famous person,but we all know that will never happen.
Very interesting read, thanks....
Do you think that if the outcomes were reversed we would be hearing a whole load of claims of racism in our legal system?
See this:
...for:
'The judge said the sentence took into account that there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.
He also said the complainant was not "targeted" and the attack had not been "premeditated".'
Doesn't that convey the same message as Judy Finnigan?
However, the judge is also quoted as having said "You have thrown away the successful career in which you were involved", so he did not envisage him returning to as high profile, well paid footballer upon release...and may well have taken this into account when determining the penalty to apply.
Last edited by PickleB; 16th October 2014 at 19:13.
The girl allegedly tweeted about hitting the jackpot and buying her friends matching pink mini coopers and holidays abroad, then deleted them. They were apparently uncovered from a cached page. Allegedly.
At the end of the day the verdict appears dubious to me, but as said before I wasn't present at the trial, so do we condemn a bloke for the rest of his life for one persons word against an others, when someone was so drunk as to be unable to know what they were doing, but able to go out for a pizza and return of their own free will to the hotel?
With respect, if he denied all charges against him perhaps he believes himself not guilty.
So did Oscar P 😉
With respect, believe what you want. You have been an apologist for him from the start of the thread.
Very fair point.
That's the thing.
I watched most of the trial. Don't know why but I found it interesting.
Watching the evidence I think most of us who followed the trial would agree he was guilty.
My point being without listening to all the evidence it's hard to judge but we do have to go with the outcome.
It's weird that the other fella got off mind. I can't fathom how one could be consensual but one is rape? That makes me think there's more to the case than the public know.
The one that got off was the one she left with and went to the hotel. Evans was subsequently called by MacDonald once they'd got into the room. Evans actions including him being filmed and then leaving by the fire escape obviously went against him.
Ah, gotcha.
Sorry chum in fact I haven't, what I have done is try to have an open discussion in the G&D, in an attempt to understand the complexities of Evans situation, personally on the evidence I've read the bloke should be given a chance to rebuild his life, the 19yr old (teenager) may or may not have consented, Evans has served his sentence, had it been clear cut rape, and what I've read on this thread contradicts that, I would be on the side of those saying stuff him, it just doesn't seem that cut and dried.
Ah ok, makes more sense now, so perhaps MacDonald takes consenting girl to room, does the business, calls his mate Evans who comes along and does the unconscious un-consenting girl, ok if that's how it was then that changes things.
Then you'd think Macdonald would be guilty of something no?
A bit like handing the knife to a pal who then sticks someone with it?
Another very good point
rehabilitation of offenders act,
he done his time, and after 10 years his slate will be clean (although this conviction will never be hidden), then he can work in an environment where there are young children around, (mascots, meet and greets)
that's the rules, even then he should be subject to a risk assessment after an enhanced disclosure.
personally I would never employ him, and as for a return to pro football....never.
I've read the circumstances of the case and strongly suspect that, were this grounds for someone never playing again, you'd probably have to change the professional game to five a side.
Its clearly not over yet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563
Posting Permissions
