Rapist to sign new deal at Sheffield United

[PistoldPete2]

A thread about whether or not a convicted rapist should return to professional football turned into a discussion about the character, behaviour and morality of the victim.

That seems to me to clearly reflect the inherent sexism of a predominantly male forum readership. If you still see it as perfectly neutral, unbiased discussion, then we will have to disagree.

 

Interesting development today Judy Finnegan getting abuse on twitter for her opinions given on Loose Women. Does Loose Women have predominantly male  viewers? Is Judy Finnegan a predominantly male person? No, of course not. If there any lack of balance I think its the other way, the baying mob who would have the guy lynched, compared to the more reasonable who say that someone who has served his sentence has been punished more than enough. He is probably not guilty of any crime at all. Saying a jury convicted him doesnt make him a criminal. 60% of people in Clacton voted for UKIP, so what confidence can we have in a random jury who are not answerable for their actions and who dont have to give to publish their reasons for the conviction?

 

I think people who use the "rape is rape" argument  fail to understand that without any evidence of force there are serious questions as to whether consent was given or not. If she wasnt forced then why did she do it?       

[AndyinLiverpool]

Interesting development today Judy Finnegan getting abuse on twitter for her opinions given on Loose Women. Does Loose Women have predominantly male  viewers? Is Judy Finnegan a predominantly male person? No, of course not. If there any lack of balance I think its the other way, the baying mob who would have the guy lynched, compared to the more reasonable who say that someone who has served his sentence has been punished more than enough. He is probably not guilty of any crime at all. Saying a jury convicted him doesnt make him a criminal. 60% of people in Clacton voted for UKIP, so what confidence can we have in a random jury who are not answerable for their actions and who dont have to give to publish their reasons for the conviction?

 

I think people who use the "rape is rape" argument  fail to understand that without any evidence of force there are serious questions as to whether consent was given or not. If she wasnt forced then why did she do it?       

Until an appeal court says otherwise, conviction by a jury DOES make him a criminal.

 

You don't need evidence of force to prove rape.

 

Many people believe that the sentence was very short, so will have other opinions about whether he has been punished enough.

 

That is all.

[PistoldPete2]

Until an appeal court says otherwise, conviction by a jury DOES make him a criminal.

 

You don't need evidence of force to prove rape.

 

Many people believe that the sentence was very short, so will have other opinions about whether he has been punished enough.

 

That is all.

The sentence was the minimum sentence for a "rape". They couldnt have given him less, couldnt justify more.

I think you said it wasnt accidental because you cant have sex "accidentally" . Isnt it the prosecution case that she says she did have sex accidentally ? More to the point, if he thought she had consented when she didnt mean to , then isnt that accidental "rape"?

I just think the lynch mob have picked the wrong guy. Why wasnt there this fuss about Marlon King? What was his crime? 

[LittleEatonRam]

This is really very simple: if you object to Evans being allowed back into football then you are rejecting the idea that anyone who has served their time has a right to move on afterwards.  If he doesn't resume his career then no convicted rapist clearly can either.

[AndyinLiverpool]

This is really very simple: if you object to Evans being allowed back into football then you are rejecting the idea that anyone who has served their time has a right to move on afterwards. If he doesn't resume his career then no convicted rapist clearly can either.

That's far too black and white.

There is not a chance in hell that I would hire a convicted rapist.

They can move on. But in where I work. I have a far greater responsibility to clients, other members of staff and the image of the company.

[PistoldPete2]

That's far too black and white.

There is not a chance in hell that I would hire a convicted rapist.

They can move on. But in where I work. I have a far greater responsibility to clients, other members of staff and the image of the company.

 

I dont know where you work but I dont imagine there are many employers that are not concerned about the image of the company or organisation. What exactly are you saying, you think someone could re-offend and rape a client or fellow employee? Or that you are concerned about how it might look to female clients or employees and be worried about the image. I think the latter is by far the most likely reason. Its all very well to say he can "move on" after serving 2 years for a crime he doesnt think he's committed and still to be treated as he is. Just like Peter Roebuck could move on after his sex crimes maybe?  

 

As you say , you cannot be "black and white" (even on a Rams forum!)

I would say that to brand this guy as a "rapist" and, then,  by extension unemployable, is unfair given the circumstances of this case, taking into account the likelihood of re-offending etc and the apparent unsafeness of the conviction. I would regard Marlon King as a more deserving case for this kind of leper -like status, sexual assault and assaulting a woman who declined his advances. This isnt a men v women  debate, Mrs PistoldPete thinks he was innocent , as does Evans girlfriend. Judy Finnegan doesnt think he should be prevented from working again.  I am sure others would speak up too if they werent scared of the baying mob.

 

       

[ladyram]

Mmmm so he might return..

Imagine for a minute the staff Christmas party. Would you take your wife? Would Nigel take his??

It'd be full of moments that come under 'aaawkwaaaard'.

[AndyinLiverpool]

I dont know where you work but I dont imagine there are many employers that are not concerned about the image of the company or organisation. What exactly are you saying, you think someone could re-offend and rape a client or fellow employee? Or that you are concerned about how it might look to female clients or employees and be worried about the image. I think the latter is by far the most likely reason. Its all very well to say he can "move on" after serving 2 years for a crime he doesnt think he's committed and still to be treated as he is. Just like Peter Roebuck could move on after his sex crimes maybe?  

 

As you say , you cannot be "black and white" (even on a Rams forum!)

I would say that to brand this guy as a "rapist" and, then,  by extension unemployable, is unfair given the circumstances of this case, taking into account the likelihood of re-offending etc and the apparent unsafeness of the conviction. I would regard Marlon King as a more deserving case for this kind of leper -like status, sexual assault and assaulting a woman who declined his advances. This isnt a men v women  debate, Mrs PistoldPete thinks he was innocent , as does Evans girlfriend. Judy Finnegan doesnt think he should be prevented from working again.  I am sure others would speak up too if they werent scared of the baying mob.

Actually, what I think about him is irrelevant from a recruitment point of view.

 

The damage caused by clients finding out, by colleagues finding out (and they would) would be incalculable to the morale of a work place of over 60 staff and 300 clients and to our chances of attracting more business. 'Don't send any business their way, they hire rapists,' is not especially fair perhaps but it's probable.

[PistoldPete2]

Actually, what I think about him is irrelevant from a recruitment point of view.

 

The damage caused by clients finding out, by colleagues finding out (and they would) would be incalculable to the morale of a work place of over 60 staff and 300 clients and to our chances of attracting more business. 'Don't send any business their way, they hire rapists,' is not especially fair perhaps but it's probable.

Well exactly. You say its not black and white and yet you say there's not a chance in hell you would hire a convicted rapist. And that clients and colleagues may have a negative view of your firm if you did.

Maybe judges and juries should consider the consequences of this before they reach daft decisions. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

Well exactly. You say its not black and white and yet you say there's not a chance in hell you would hire a convicted rapist. And that clients and colleagues may have a negative view of your firm if you did.

Maybe judges and juries should consider the consequences of this before they reach daft decisions. 

What I said wasn't black and white was the statement that I reject the principle of someone serving a punishment and being given another chance simply because I don't think Evans has served enough time. I do not reject it.

 

People should have a chance to rebuild a life but that's not the same as them picking up exactly the same life they had before.

 

A bent accountant is not going to be allowed near anyone's money; a captain who abandons his sinking ship before everyone else has left is never going to sail again; and I wouldn't put a rapist in an environment where others are not going to feel safe. That's my responsibility to them as a manager. I'm afraid it trumps any higher principle I may have regarding giving people a chance.

[PistoldPete2]

What I said wasn't black and white was the statement that I reject the principle of someone serving a punishment and being given another chance simply because I don't think Evans has served enough time. I do not reject it.

 

People should have a chance to rebuild a life but that's not the same as them picking up exactly the same life they had before.

 

A bent accountant is not going to be allowed near anyone's money; a captain who abandons his sinking ship before everyone else has left is never going to sail again; and I wouldn't put a rapist in an environment where others are not going to feel safe. That's my responsibility to them as a manager. I'm afraid it trumps any higher principle I may have regarding giving people a chance.

Hmm so you offer someone a job, he accepts then a Criminal Record check comes in and so you withdraw the offer. Then he tops himself as he feels hopeless that having served a sentence for two years its effectively a life sentence.

You woudlnt feel responsible for that? Would a male footballer playing against other male footballers pose any threat in his work environment? I get what you say about feeling safe , Ive met with a rape victim and went out of my way to make her feel safe. But I think this is more about the political controversy than any genuine threat to safety. 

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

Hmm so you offer someone a job, he accepts then a Criminal Record check comes in and so you withdraw the offer. Then he tops himself as he feels hopeless that having served a sentence for two years its effectively a life sentence.

You woudlnt feel responsible for that? Would a male footballer playing against other male footballers pose any threat in his work environment? I get what you say about feeling safe , Ive met with a rape victim and went out of my way to make her feel safe. But I think this is more about the political controversy than any genuine threat to safety. 

 

Not at all.

 

Any job offer made is dependent on DBS checks and references. That is made clear from the start of the recruitment process.

 

Over the years and in different places, I have employed people with criminal records and in each of those cases I have had to weigh up the pros and cons as outlined elsewhere in this thread. In each case I had to make a judgement about whether they are likely to reoffend, bringing embarrassment to the company and whether it would affect their work and the work of others. In the cases of those I did employ, I decided that neither would present a negative influence.

 

But that is my situation. I have to make those judgements. If you think I am wrong to do so, then I respect that but I have to weigh everything up.

 

Would you give the same chance to a paedophile? Or would you give someone with convictions for fraud or theft access to company accounts? I could not in all honesty do such a thing.

 

In the case of Evans, I can see how he could easily bring bad publicity to his employer, whether he becomes a repeat offender or not.

[PistoldPete2]

Not at all.

 

Any job offer made is dependent on DBS checks and references. That is made clear from the start of the recruitment process.

 

Over the years and in different places, I have employed people with criminal records and in each of those cases I have had to weigh up the pros and cons as outlined elsewhere in this thread. In each case I had to make a judgement about whether they are likely to reoffend, bringing embarrassment to the company and whether it would affect their work and the work of others. In the cases of those I did employ, I decided that neither would present a negative influence.

 

But that is my situation. I have to make those judgements. If you think I am wrong to do so, then I respect that but I have to weigh everything up.

 

Would you give the same chance to a paedophile? Or would you give someone with convictions for fraud or theft access to company accounts? I could not in all honesty do such a thing.

 

In the case of Evans, I can see how he could easily bring bad publicity to his employer, whether he becomes a repeat offender or not.

I think a paedophile is different in that it indicates a predeliction and a strong chance of re-offending. You mention fraud but what is the parallel here? Someone who has had sex with a drunken woman should maybe not work in  bar or a hotel? As you say in Evans case I think he could bring bad publicity. But who is stoking up all this bad publicity? People saying 2 years in prison is not enough punishment ? On what basis? Do you think the minimum sentence is not enough generally or that this is a case where the minimum should not apply? Isnt this already at the very borders of what could be considered a rape?

[AndyinLiverpool]

Do you not think rapists have a strong chance of reoffending?

 

I'd say that 2 years imprisonment may not be enough for the guilty party to completely change his attitude to women - the objectification, the power relations and so on (I am not reading Evans' mind here - I am simply saying that this is a common trait in rapists).

 

If you think prison works to rehabilitate, then you will believe that people will leave reformed. If you don't, you will not.

[Wolfie]

I suspect I'm a bit of a NIMBY where this is concerned and would like to say that if they've served their time they should get another chance. Would I want them working for me?. It would depend on the job & the offence but if the conviction was deliberate deception or violence (sexual or otherwise), probably not.

[PistoldPete2]

Do you not think rapists have a strong chance of reoffending?

 

I'd say that 2 years imprisonment may not be enough for the guilty party to completely change his attitude to women - the objectification, the power relations and so on (I am not reading Evans' mind here - I am simply saying that this is a common trait in rapists).

 

If you think prison works to rehabilitate, then you will believe that people will leave reformed. If you don't, you will not.

So you're happy to accept the verdict, no questions asked, but not the sentence? You either have faith in our justice system , or not (I dont) . You cant mix and match to suit your own. Personally I think 18 months for Marlon King compared to 5 years for Evans is the wrong way around,  and I dont think Evans is guilty, the verdict was well dodgy. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

So you're happy to accept the verdict, no questions asked, but not the sentence? You either have faith in our justice system , or not (I dont) . You cant mix and match to suit your own. Personally I think 18 months for Marlon King compared to 5 years for Evans is the wrong way around,  and I dont think Evans is guilty, the verdict was well dodgy. 

I don't see why I can't accept the verdict but not the sentence. People around the world are executed for their crimes. I could never accept that. 

 

I am perfectly at ease with being able to accept the verdict of a jury but not the sentence of the judge.

 

As it happens, I didn't think Marlon King's sentence was enough either. Nor Stuart Hall's. Nor Dave Lee Travis'.

[eddie]

Surprised nobody's advocated chemical castration yet.

[PistoldPete2]

I don't see why I can't accept the verdict but not the sentence. People around the world are executed for their crimes. I could never accept that. 

 

I am perfectly at ease with being able to accept the verdict of a jury but not the sentence of the judge.

 

As it happen

s, I didn't think Marlon King's sentence was enough either. Nor Stuart Hall's. Nor Dave Lee Travis'.

Sure you are entitled to an opinion, and Im entitled to the opinion that hes not guilty .The jury didnt agree with me on the verdict , the judge didnt agree with you on the sentence. Not sure why you trust a jury (accountable to no-one)  but not a judge but there we go .

[AndyinLiverpool]

I would take the judgement of 12 of my peers from a cross section of society over that of a judge, who is likely to be from a narrow demographic, any day of the week.

 

Miscarriages of justice are caused by many things - perjury, fabrication of evidence, poor presentation of a case by defence or prosecution, misguidance of a jury by the judge, for example - but rarely because the jury didn't take it seriously enough or all shared exactly the same prejudice as each other.

 

I can't imagine why you think a jury is accountable to nobody. It represents society. It is accountable to history, not to mention itself. Each member of each jury has to live with what they do in that room. Without a properly functioning system of trials, society ceases to be civil because without censure of those who transgress society's rules, those rules stop being relevant. Every jury knows this. That they don't have to appear in some stupid TV programme to explain their decision is a simple indication that we as a society have not fallen as far as we think we have.