News2 mins ago
Ched Evans - Not Guilty
I haven't been following this story , myself
He has been found not guilty
http://
He has been found not guilty
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim360 - //Andy's first post in this thread was a comment that "justice has been done". I'm surprised he is now spending so much time apparently trying to argue, effectively, that this was not the case -- and indeed has since done a massive volte-face. //
My first post was based on the fact that Evans faced a second trial, and was found not guilty - so justice was done.
That was without the subsequent knowledge that the second jury was party to evidence not made available to the first jury - specifically the sexual history of the woman involved. If I had known that, I would not have commented as I did.
I am unsure that justice was served here, given that legislation to ensure that the victim's sexual history does not inform evidence to the jury, was overturned in this case. I believe that the woman's sexual history should not have been used as evidence - she was not the one on trial.
In common with the second jury, my decision is altered by information I did not have when I first posted.
// But there's plenty to discuss from this case. Not the issue of legal guilt of Ched Evans, which has now been settled, but whether the fresh evidence should have been allowed, or what the undisputed parts of the story reveal about our society and how to address that, and so on. For example, I may need to read up more on the decision of the court of appeal about the new evidence, but when I first heard about it my reaction was that I couldn't totally see why it was relevant to what happened that night specifically (or, if it was, why it didn't just reveal that the woman was habitually incapable of consent and therefore effectively raped three times).
I agree - I fail to see why the fact that this woman has a sexual history is in any way tied in with the events of the night, and the charge brought against Evans.
It appears no investigation was made into Evans' previous sexual history - whether he is prone to threesomes with unconscious women, or whether betraying his fiancé (a moral if not a criminal offence) has happened previously or not.
//That's enough for a charge to be brought, and it was entirely correct to do so. //
Absolutely - I remain unable to fathom why anyone could conclude that a charge was not appropriate - certainly not the police, who know rather more about it than any of us on here.
My first post was based on the fact that Evans faced a second trial, and was found not guilty - so justice was done.
That was without the subsequent knowledge that the second jury was party to evidence not made available to the first jury - specifically the sexual history of the woman involved. If I had known that, I would not have commented as I did.
I am unsure that justice was served here, given that legislation to ensure that the victim's sexual history does not inform evidence to the jury, was overturned in this case. I believe that the woman's sexual history should not have been used as evidence - she was not the one on trial.
In common with the second jury, my decision is altered by information I did not have when I first posted.
// But there's plenty to discuss from this case. Not the issue of legal guilt of Ched Evans, which has now been settled, but whether the fresh evidence should have been allowed, or what the undisputed parts of the story reveal about our society and how to address that, and so on. For example, I may need to read up more on the decision of the court of appeal about the new evidence, but when I first heard about it my reaction was that I couldn't totally see why it was relevant to what happened that night specifically (or, if it was, why it didn't just reveal that the woman was habitually incapable of consent and therefore effectively raped three times).
I agree - I fail to see why the fact that this woman has a sexual history is in any way tied in with the events of the night, and the charge brought against Evans.
It appears no investigation was made into Evans' previous sexual history - whether he is prone to threesomes with unconscious women, or whether betraying his fiancé (a moral if not a criminal offence) has happened previously or not.
//That's enough for a charge to be brought, and it was entirely correct to do so. //
Absolutely - I remain unable to fathom why anyone could conclude that a charge was not appropriate - certainly not the police, who know rather more about it than any of us on here.
"She can't remember anything about the incident so she may well have agreed and if she did then it was consensual - whether she remembers it or not."
This misses the point that rape cases can also be brought if a woman is deemend "incapable of giving consent". She may well have said yes at the time, but may not have been sufficiently aware of what was going on to know what she was saying, or what it was referring to, or to whom she was saying it. So yes, it can be right. This was essentially the prosecution's case, and it's well-justified in law and in moral practice. Obviously it wasn't accepted second time around but it could have been.
This misses the point that rape cases can also be brought if a woman is deemend "incapable of giving consent". She may well have said yes at the time, but may not have been sufficiently aware of what was going on to know what she was saying, or what it was referring to, or to whom she was saying it. So yes, it can be right. This was essentially the prosecution's case, and it's well-justified in law and in moral practice. Obviously it wasn't accepted second time around but it could have been.
jim360 - What I, and I think also you, are struggling with is the apparent need by complete strangers to defend an accused rapist by someone 'balancing' his behaviour against that of his victim.
Throughout the long debate over the first trial, I fought a daily battle against posters on here who were positively poisonous in their condemnation of the woman in the case - various colourful epithets centred around her perceived dubious behaviour, as though that in some way counter-balanced the accusation of rape.
As I have opined previously, I don't care if a woman walks down the street stark naked except for a pair of high heels and walks into a bar and orders a drink. If she does not consent to sex, then it is rape - and it is indefensible to infer that the victim is in any way to blame for her own assault.
If we, as a civilised society, cannot accept that foolish and irresponsible behaviour does not make a rape victim culpable in her own violation, then we are in a seriously sorry state.
Throughout the long debate over the first trial, I fought a daily battle against posters on here who were positively poisonous in their condemnation of the woman in the case - various colourful epithets centred around her perceived dubious behaviour, as though that in some way counter-balanced the accusation of rape.
As I have opined previously, I don't care if a woman walks down the street stark naked except for a pair of high heels and walks into a bar and orders a drink. If she does not consent to sex, then it is rape - and it is indefensible to infer that the victim is in any way to blame for her own assault.
If we, as a civilised society, cannot accept that foolish and irresponsible behaviour does not make a rape victim culpable in her own violation, then we are in a seriously sorry state.
Jim, //This misses the point that rape cases can also be brought if a woman is deemend "incapable of giving consent".//
In these circumstances to assume – and since she doesn’t remember it can only be an assumption - that she didn’t give consent and therefore a charge of rape was justified suggests that the law initially perceives the accused to be guilty rather than innocent, and I don’t think that’s the way the law works.
In these circumstances to assume – and since she doesn’t remember it can only be an assumption - that she didn’t give consent and therefore a charge of rape was justified suggests that the law initially perceives the accused to be guilty rather than innocent, and I don’t think that’s the way the law works.
It's not that she didn't, it's that she couldn't. And if she didn't remember anything then that wouldn't be an assumption but a fact. This time round, her claim of being unable to remember was presumably either rejected or held to be less certain owing to apparent previous history. But there was no assumption that the woman in fact said "no", or anything like that.
jim360 - //It's not that she didn't, it's that she couldn't. And if she didn't remember anything then that wouldn't be an assumption but a fact. This time round, her claim of being unable to remember was presumably either rejected or held to be less certain owing to apparent previous history. But there was no assumption that the woman in fact said "no", or anything like that. //
I am also inclined towards the view that the second verdict was reached because of the input of the woman's sexual history into evidence.
Since it was made legislation that this scenario should not occur, it obviously appeared to the justice system at the time that this was not a wise way for cases to be conducted, an attitude with which I am entirely in agreement.
However - for what ever reason, the appeal judges decided that this was appropriate, and the evidence was entered, and the desired result was obtained.
I remain deeply uncomfortable that a woman's previous activity should have any bearing on a case as serious as this - what next - the burglar who enters your house is not guilty because you have a history of opening windows?
I am also inclined towards the view that the second verdict was reached because of the input of the woman's sexual history into evidence.
Since it was made legislation that this scenario should not occur, it obviously appeared to the justice system at the time that this was not a wise way for cases to be conducted, an attitude with which I am entirely in agreement.
However - for what ever reason, the appeal judges decided that this was appropriate, and the evidence was entered, and the desired result was obtained.
I remain deeply uncomfortable that a woman's previous activity should have any bearing on a case as serious as this - what next - the burglar who enters your house is not guilty because you have a history of opening windows?
Yet again the 'defence' for Evans goes on and on and on ...
He was convicted by a trail based on evidence and due process - that does not happen without evidence being presented by the prosecution, and accepted, and by the defence, and being rejected.
The fact that Evans is now a free man is due to, in my view, unreasonable manipulation of sound legal protection for victims of rape cases.
It could be argued that Evans is free due to the persuasive tactics of his legal council, rather than lack of guilt in this tawdry affair - but that would be to do what the 'defenders' want to do.
Legal process has been followed. That's the end of the issue, and as I have been advised, people should 'get over it' and try not to continually chase their quarry over a cliff.
He was convicted by a trail based on evidence and due process - that does not happen without evidence being presented by the prosecution, and accepted, and by the defence, and being rejected.
The fact that Evans is now a free man is due to, in my view, unreasonable manipulation of sound legal protection for victims of rape cases.
It could be argued that Evans is free due to the persuasive tactics of his legal council, rather than lack of guilt in this tawdry affair - but that would be to do what the 'defenders' want to do.
Legal process has been followed. That's the end of the issue, and as I have been advised, people should 'get over it' and try not to continually chase their quarry over a cliff.
Rape not only occurs when the victim says "No" and the act continues.....it occurs when the 'rapist' has not been given a clear "Yes" to proceed.
The onus is shifting towards the man (for it is mainly men) to be certain that they have full consent, freely-given from a woman (for it is mainly women) who is sufficiently aware to understand what she is giving consent to...
Allowing the past-sexual history of the (female) victim to be read out in court was stopped for very good reasons.......I'm not entirely sure why it was allowed in this circumstance.
Even prostitutes can be raped.
The onus is shifting towards the man (for it is mainly men) to be certain that they have full consent, freely-given from a woman (for it is mainly women) who is sufficiently aware to understand what she is giving consent to...
Allowing the past-sexual history of the (female) victim to be read out in court was stopped for very good reasons.......I'm not entirely sure why it was allowed in this circumstance.
Even prostitutes can be raped.
Jim, //What I am trying to argue mainly is it's right to ask the question and that there was therefore a case to answer.//
I understand what you’re trying to argue. What I do have a problem with is her allegedly poor memory. She told the police she "felt tipsy but not out of control", so why was her subsequent claim that she remembers nothing of the incident accepted as evidence?
I understand what you’re trying to argue. What I do have a problem with is her allegedly poor memory. She told the police she "felt tipsy but not out of control", so why was her subsequent claim that she remembers nothing of the incident accepted as evidence?
jack - //Allowing the past-sexual history of the (female) victim to be read out in court was stopped for very good reasons.......I'm not entirely sure why it was allowed in this circumstance. //
That seriously puzzles me as well.
The legislation has clearly been discussed and put in place for very good reasons - namely the notion that a victim's sexual history is not, and should never be a factor in determining the guilt of the accused.
As to why the Appeal Court Judges chose to over-ride that legislation is something that may become public record, but I find it very hard to reconcile in view of what has occurred here.
This woman has had her life destroyed even when Evans was adjudged guilty - what price her likelihood of being allowed to carry on a normal life now that he has been acquitted?
It leaves a very sour taste in society's mouth.
That seriously puzzles me as well.
The legislation has clearly been discussed and put in place for very good reasons - namely the notion that a victim's sexual history is not, and should never be a factor in determining the guilt of the accused.
As to why the Appeal Court Judges chose to over-ride that legislation is something that may become public record, but I find it very hard to reconcile in view of what has occurred here.
This woman has had her life destroyed even when Evans was adjudged guilty - what price her likelihood of being allowed to carry on a normal life now that he has been acquitted?
It leaves a very sour taste in society's mouth.
I don't *want* him to be found guilty.
I *want* justice to be seen to be done.
To my mind, justice was better served in the first prosecution where he was found guilty on the evidence presented before the court, than on the second where it seems he was only found not guilty by dint of traducing the victim's character...
I *want* justice to be seen to be done.
To my mind, justice was better served in the first prosecution where he was found guilty on the evidence presented before the court, than on the second where it seems he was only found not guilty by dint of traducing the victim's character...
Latest Posts
Crosswords13 mins ago
Film, Media & TV21 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
News27 mins ago
