Rapist to sign new deal at Sheffield United

[PistoldPete2]

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.

Who said "being accountable " means appearing on "some stupid Tv show"?  A judge normally has to publish his reasons. Lawyers can then decide whether the reasons are valid (although I agree Judges are not as infallible as they are made out to be) or can be challenged. We can have a fair legal system only if people can question the logic and accuracy of written judgements. Simply saying "guilty or not guilty" without saying why just aint good enough.  Why is Macdonald not guilty and Evans guilty? It makes no sense. The fact that 12 people can unanimously decide one is not guilty and, also unanimously decide the other is guilty must call into question the competence of the jury. And no, a cross section of our community , with no legal training, fills me with no more confidence whatsoever anymore than 60% of Clacton's  electorate voting for UKIP fills me with confidence .Harold McMillan said "never underestimate the electorate".  I think he was being kind.

[AndyinLiverpool]

The decision of guilty or not is based not on the minute of legal procedures but on disinterested assessment of the evidence presented. The principle (by no means perfect) means that 12 people have to agree. Not that one person decides (or 3, as happens in some legal systems).

 

John Stuart Mill thought jury service elevated the individual, largely because of the application of logic and thought involved in the assessment of evidence. The idealist in me wants that to be true. Whether it is or not, I still have faith in 12 people to come together and do the right thing.

[PistoldPete2]

The decision of guilty or not is based not on the minute of legal procedures but on disinterested assessment of the evidence presented. The principle (by no means perfect) means that 12 people have to agree. Not that one person decides (or 3, as happens in some legal systems).

 

John Stuart Mill thought jury service elevated the individual, largely because of the application of logic and thought involved in the assessment of evidence. The idealist in me wants that to be true. Whether it is or not, I still have faith in 12 people to come together and do the right thing.

Fine but when people like say Prof Dawkins, whose logic is  as strong as anyones in the country try and apply their skills, he gets shouted down. People dont actually want logic, they just want to believe what they want to believe and wont listen to logic. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

Fine but when people like say Prof Dawkins, whose logic is  as strong as anyones in the country try and apply their skills, he gets shouted down. People dont actually want logic, they just want to believe what they want to believe and wont listen to logic. 

You may be right in their day-to-day lives but I still think we are capable of rising above the level of superstitious uneducated peasants.

 

Incidentally, I think Richard Dawkins is a prat. Nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with his snobbishness and propensity to treat others with contempt.

[RamNut]

Jury's make loads of mistakes.

The problem is often the way 'evidence' gets twisted by the process.

Any case were the defendants character becomes the issue is a potential problem.

The jury end up considering the wrong issues and the wrong evidence.

E,g. Is Barry George weird.

Not has the case been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this cae the behaviour of the victim seems to be a major factor in what happened whatever Lambchop says.

Has the case been proven beyond all reasonable doubt?

Its on the edge.

[McRainy]

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?

You fail to understand that rape isn't about force it's about consent. As the woman was unconscious she wouldn't have had to be forced, in the sense of being subdued, but nor could she have given consent.

Neither is it about whether consent is actually given or denied, but whether the man has a good enough reason to believe consent has been given. That is why Evans was convicted and MacDonald was not. MacDonald had reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the time he spent with the victim prior to entering the hotel room implied some degree of consent.

Evans had no such reason. He conned his way into the hotel, found the woman unconscious, took advantage of her, and then left by the fire escape. It is clear he could not have believed she wanted him to have sex with her, and that is the unanimous verdict of the jury, the presiding judge, and the judge who has decreed there are no grounds for an appeal.

In failing to admit responsibility or show remorse Evans has demonstrated that he is not fit for rehabilitation, and should not therefore be employed in a public position. He has not served his sentence.. his sentence was five years not two, and he is only being released on licence.

I find your attitude to the victim disturbing and bizarre. Not only has she been raped, but she has had to change her identity and move away from her home because of the abuse she has received. And why has she received this abuse? Because Evans was a footballer who scored a lot of goals for Sheffield United. If he'd been the reserve left back he'd have been sacked by the club, and no one would have given him a second thought. He's a rapist, he's already caused untold harm, and he should never be in the public eye again.

[RamNut]

You fail to understand that rape isn't about force it's about consent. (IF.)...the woman was unconscious she wouldn't have had to be forced, in the sense of being subdued, but nor could she have given consent.

Neither is it about whether consent is actually given or denied (WHAT?), but whether the man has a good enough reason to believe consent has been given. That is why Evans was convicted and MacDonald was not. MacDonald had reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the time he spent with the victim prior to entering the hotel room implied ......some degree of consent (?!?!)

Evans had no such reason. He conned his way into the hotel, found the woman unconscious (proof?), took advantage of her (proof?) and then left by the fire escape (irrelevant). It is clear(?) he could not have believed she wanted him to have sex with her, and that is the unanimous verdict of the jury, the presiding judge, and the judge who has decreed there are no grounds for an appeal.

In failing to admit responsibility or show remorse Evans has demonstrated that he is not fit for rehabilitation, and should not therefore be employed in a public position. He has not served his sentence.. his sentence was five years not two, and he is only being released on licence.

Annotated. Your view is clear but not everyone would necessarily be so convinced by the evidence.

Did she not say she couldn't remember.?

[McRainy]

Annotated. Your view is clear but not everyone would necessarily be so convinced by the evidence.

Did she not say she couldn't remember.?

It doesn't matter whether she can remember or not. As I said above, Evans was convicted because HE couldn't have had sufficient reason to believe she consented. It is his motive which matters, not her memory, and his motive is clear from the actions he took. Her lack of memory just speaks to the fact that she was unconscious when he forced himself on her.

[ladyram]

Whatever people may think of this - guilty or not guilty, right or wrong, wether you like it or not -

He is a convicted rapist and that has consequences. Yes he may have served (half) his sentence but him going back to the same job is not quite as simple as re-employing a burglar or robber.

His own choices - wether or not you believe it - led to him being put away. Until he has this conviction overturned, he'll be a social pariah, someone who will always be the subject of whispers, of wary glances, of distrust.

How can he ever be a role model for children again?

Can someone answer me that? Will it ever be possible?

[McRainy]

not everyone would necessarily be so convinced by the evidence.

You do know it was filmed, don't you?

And that the jury and judges have seen the film, whereas you and PissedPete have not.

The can be few criminal convictions which have better evidence.

[G STAR RAM]

You need to check the definite on of rape in English law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines it thus:

Rape

(1)

A person (A) commits an offence if

[PistoldPete2]

You do know it was filmed, don't you?

And that the jury and judges have seen the film, whereas you and PissedPete have not.

The can be few criminal convictions which have better evidence.

 

I think you have given you own version of the case and then decided on facts as you have read them in the media. There is no evidence she was unconscious. (ie passed out) She says she cant remember , the two actual witnesses say she was consciously consenting. Any lack of "consciousness" arises because , whatever consent was given, she was found to be too drunk to have  given that consent whilst fully in control.

 

Evans arrrived whilst his mate was having sex with the lady. If it was obvious to him that the lady was not sober enough to  be consenting , then it should have been obvious to Macdonad as well. It wasnt. 

 

Attempts by people to film Macdonald having sex were not successful.  

[RamNut]

You do know it was filmed, don't you?

And that the jury and judges have seen the film, whereas you and PissedPete have not.

The can be few criminal convictions which have better evidence.

There is no need to be so aggressive

[RamNut]

Evans arrrived whilst his mate was having sex with the lady. If it was obvious to him that the lady was not sober enough to  be consenting , then it should have been obvious to Macdonad as well. It wasnt. 

 

Attempts by people to film Macdonald having sex were not successful.

Good points.

[RamNut]

The can be few criminal convictions which have better evidence.

Speechless.

[PistoldPete2]

Is this really the law? Completely irrelevant to the topic, but this would seem to indicate that only males can commit rape?

Thats right. I am sure Andy has given the correct extract of the law. It shows that for rape to be proven , the complainant must not have given consent AND   the accused must have no reason to believe that sex was cosnsensual. So  man having sex with his wife wouldnt normally need to have obtained written consent.  In the Evans case therefore , it must have been proven that she didnt give consent, AND that there was no good reason for him to believe that she consented. This despite two blokes sayings she consented and she saying she cant remember whether she did or didnt. The only way consent can be reasonably proved not to have been given is that she was too drunk for that consent to be meaningful.  But if that was the case, Macdonald couldnt have been acquitted.

 

[PistoldPete2]

You fail to understand that rape isn't about force it's about consent. As the woman was unconscious she wouldn't have had to be forced, in the sense of being subdued, but nor could she have given consent.

Neither is it about whether consent is actually given or denied, but whether the man has a good enough reason to believe consent has been given. That is why Evans was convicted and MacDonald was not. MacDonald had reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the time he spent with the victim prior to entering the hotel room implied some degree of consent.

Evans had no such reason. He conned his way into the hotel, found the woman unconscious, took advantage of her, and then left by the fire escape. It is clear he could not have believed she wanted him to have sex with her, and that is the unanimous verdict of the jury, the presiding judge, and the judge who has decreed there are no grounds for an appeal.

In failing to admit responsibility or show remorse Evans has demonstrated that he is not fit for rehabilitation, and should not therefore be employed in a public position. He has not served his sentence.. his sentence was five years not two, and he is only being released on licence.

I find your attitude to the victim disturbing and bizarre. Not only has she been raped, but she has had to change her identity and move away from her home because of the abuse she has received. And why has she received this abuse? Because Evans was a footballer who scored a lot of goals for Sheffield United. If he'd been the reserve left back he'd have been sacked by the club, and no one would have given him a second thought. He's a rapist, he's already caused untold harm, and he should never be in the public eye again.

My attitude is not disturbing or bizarre and at no stage have I ever criticised the complainant. I have just said i do not agree with the verdict. Simply taking what she says at face value (ie that she cant remember what happened), a verdict of guilty for one and not guilty to the other makes no sense.

[MuespachRam]

The question about "how can he ever be a role model ever again" makes no sense at all to me.

 

If my kid ever said to me that ANY footballer was a "role model" to him I would lock him in his room until he was 75 years old and throw myself off the tallest buildign possible.

 

The parents should be the role models for kids, not over paid, spoilt, ding bats who have absolutely nothing to do with you at all and someone your kid would likely never ever meet.!

 

As for letting hm play again....poor old Nigel is in a totally lose lose situation....and i am not sure there is a right answer.

[ladyram]

Fair enough Muespach, but what message (if any) does playing a player convicted of a crime such as this, send out to kids who avidly follow their careers via social media?

Would it be wiser to tell your child to ignore it? To pretend it didn't happen?

Gary Linekar once said a player is a role model wether they liked it or not as they're high profile. Would you disagree?

[RLACML]

Fair enough Muespach, but what message (if any) does playing a player convicted of a crime such as this, send out to kids who avidly follow their careers via social media?

It shows them that our legal system works. He committed a crime, was punished for this, and is now free to return to society. I'd be more concerned if he was blocked from trying to play football. I don't mean if Nigel says no because that's a personal choice but if they tried to ban him as a general rule.