The Student Room Group

Ched Evans should have his conviction overturned

Scroll to see replies

He shouldn't be allowed to return to his club or any club. He is a convicted rapist. It's wrong and it sends out the wrong message. The fact that he served only two years is itself pretty ridiculous.
People are talking about the lass making money out of the case How does that work? Have I missed something, or do I completely misunderstand how rape cases work? I don't see how she can make money out of the court case.

Also, I find it strange that people are discussing how terrible it will be for the girl once he plays football again - saying that he will be on TV etc. It's just a stupid argument, as he will be much less prominent than he is now. I read in a couple of news articles this very argument, when those articles themselves are likely to get much more coverage and be more likely to be see by the lass herself than any random football match. If they cared about the lass and her not being reminded of what happened then they could probably do her a favour by not plastering the story on their websites.
Original post by thunder_chunky
He shouldn't be allowed to return to his club or any club. He is a convicted rapist. It's wrong and it sends out the wrong message. The fact that he served only two years is itself pretty ridiculous.


If he's unsuitable for reintegration to society why has he been released? Why did he only get a short sentence rather than a life sentence?
After committing what crime is it suitable for someone to have a job?

If we're saying convicted criminals can never be allowed to rejoin society, why not just execute the lot and have done with it?

There is no sane reason at all to deny him or anyone else in a similar position the ability to get on with their life. None. The only reason we're even having the debate is because of the irrational hatred towards footballers.
Original post by Spiderman
People are talking about the lass making money out of the case How does that work? Have I missed something, or do I completely misunderstand how rape cases work? I don't see how she can make money out of the court case.

Also, I find it strange that people are discussing how terrible it will be for the girl once he plays football again - saying that he will be on TV etc. It's just a stupid argument, as he will be much less prominent than he is now. I read in a couple of news articles this very argument, when those articles themselves are likely to get much more coverage and be more likely to be see by the lass herself than any random football match. If they cared about the lass and her not being reminded of what happened then they could probably do her a favour by not plastering the story on their websites.


She doesnt make any money she used anonymity so cant sell her story, the only compo she received was from evans family & friends leaking her name out which forced her to have to go into hiding and change her identity she only received £6000 which is 6 months minimum wage work out of the whole case
Original post by arson_fire
If the person is out of it then it`s assumed they were unable to give consent, and its up to you to supply evidence that you had consent, and crucially, show that you reasonably believed you had consent. A paralytically drunk person muttering yes isn`t consent.

so surely both should of been found guilty then if she was drunk?
Hey, at least it was "non-violent".
Original post by mstone12
so surely both should of been found guilty then if she was drunk?


The issue is she went back to the hotel with clayton so wanted to have sex with him fair enough , Evans just turned up randomly with no prior warning, obtained a key card without knocking on the room then his brother and his mate thought it would be funny to film whatever happened outside the window, clayton left the room as this was going on and asked them to keep an eye on the girl in the 14 room as she was "sick" don't know why he would say that then he left, Evans left out of the fire escape to avoid the reception desk,
Original post by Drewski
If he's unsuitable for reintegration to society why has he been released? Why did he only get a short sentence rather than a life sentence?
After committing what crime is it suitable for someone to have a job?

If we're saying convicted criminals can never be allowed to rejoin society, why not just execute the lot and have done with it?

There is no sane reason at all to deny him or anyone else in a similar position the ability to get on with their life. None. The only reason we're even having the debate is because of the irrational hatred towards footballers.

Was that first question meant to be rhetorical? Because I don't know why he was released early, and I don't like the idea of a person being convicted of rape recieving a 5 year sentence and then only serving two.

As for the other part, I'm not against release and rehabilitation at all, but I think that allowing him back sends a bad message and is frankly wrong.
Because it tells people that you can be a wife beater, a drug abuser, a racist, or a rapist, and not only will you get off lightly but you'll be allowed back to play. To resume his life, get paid a lot of money and be adored by the fans.
There are plenty of good reasons to not let him return. Saying "well he's served his time, let him return" is a rubbish excuse. It's rape, not a traffic violation.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by thunder_chunky
Was that first question meant to be rhetorical? Because I don't know why he was released early, and I don't like the idea of a person being convicted of rape being sentenced to 5 years and then only serving two.

As for the other part, I'm not against release and rehabilitation at all, but I think that allowing him back sends a bad message and is frankly wrong.
Because it tells people that you can be a*wife beater, a drug abuser, a racist, or a rapist, and not only will you get off lightly but you'll be allowed back to play. To resume your life, paid a lot of money and adored by the fans.
There are plenty of good reasons to not let him return. Saying "well he's served his time, let him return" is a rubbish excuse. It's rape, not a traffic violation.


But clearly you are against him going back into society because you wish to limit what he can do. He's a footballer. He is one of a fairly small band of people who are capable of performing that skill to a high level. The conviction he had had nothing to do with football - it's not like a doctor abusing a position of trust and being rightly struck off the register. A judge and jury have decided that the punishment for the crime was that time in prison, not that he should then have to live a punishment for the rest of his life.

No, I don't believe there is a single good reason to deny him the right to get on with his life.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Was that first question meant to be rhetorical? Because I don't know why he was released early, and I don't like the idea of a person being convicted of rape recieving a 5 year sentence and then only serving two.

As for the other part, I'm not against release and rehabilitation at all, but I think that allowing him back sends a bad message and is frankly wrong.
Because it tells people that you can be a wife beater, a drug abuser, a racist, or a rapist, and not only will you get off lightly but you'll be allowed back to play. To resume his life, get paid a lot of money and be adored by the fans.
There are plenty of good reasons to not let him return. Saying "well he's served his time, let him return" is a rubbish excuse. It's rape, not a traffic violation.



Sorry, (other part) but did I miss where he was convicted of wife beating, racism and drug abuse?
Original post by caravaggio2
Sorry, (other part) but did I miss where he was convicted of wife beating, racism and drug abuse?


I didn't mean he did those, I was talking about cases where various players have commited those sorts of crimes and were allowed to return and carry on playing.
Original post by thunder_chunky
I didn't mean he did those, I was talking about cases where various players have commited those sorts of crimes and were allowed to return and carry on playing.


An office worker wouldn't be prevented from going back to work in an office.
A lorry driver wouldn't be stopped from driving.
A factory worker wouldn't be stopped from going to a factory.
A shop worker wouldn't be banned from shops.

Why's a footballer different?
Original post by Drewski
But clearly you are against him going back into society because You wish to limit what he can do. He's a footballer. He is one of a fairly small band of people who are capable of performing that skill to a high level. The conviction he had had nothing to do with football - it's not like a doctor abusing a position of trust and being rightly struck off the register. A judge and jury have decided that the punishment for the crime was that time in prison, not that he should then have to live a punishment for the rest of his life.

No, I don't believe there is a single good reason to deny him the right to get on with his life.


In my opinion, playing football professionally or any sport professionally is a luxury. Him being able to play at a high level is irrelevant. The fact that his crime wasn't related to his job (directly if at all) is also irrelevant.
He isn't owed anything by the football league or by any professional football establishment. If he is only able to play football and do nothing else, tough. That isn't our problem and it's not the problem of the football league. It's his problem. He had a good career and a good life and he screwed it up.
He can get on with his life, but he isn't owed a place in professional football and it would be bad form to allow him back in. It would send a bad message.
If players were kicked out and kept out for serious crimes the reputation of professional players and professional football might improve.

Allowing him back in says to women "a player convicted of rape can serve some time then return to resume his life and career as if it never happened, and we're fine with that."
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 33
To the people who think he should not be allowed to play again - I'd understand your point a bit better if this was the national team we are talking about, as I understand that many people would not want him to represent them. But it's not, it is just a commercial football club in League 1 or 2 (I don't even know). It is up to employers to decide whether they want to hire convicted criminals - there are some who actually make a point of doing so. In this case, the club will likely alienate sponsors and some customers, but these people do have the choice to walk away. The club will have "rapist" bandied about every time he plays for them, sung at them at every game by opposing fans, and mentioned in every report written about their games. If the club is willing to be the "rapist" club, that is their choice.

Do not see it as a "reward" or "retrospective condonation" of what he has done. (A rapist trader, vet or businessman would likely earn more than a rapist footballer in League 1 btw.) I think he is a scumbag but I'm not bothered by his being re-employed at all, perhaps because I do not see footballers as role-models (which IMO they clearly aren't anyway - IMO any parents who allow children to see footballers as role-models are retarded and not doing their job properly). If you agree that nobody is put in danger by his resuming football, and if you agree with rehabilitation in principle, then you'll just have to accept it also applies to people you don't like, even if you dislike them for a good reason.

(Whether he should have been given a stricter sentence to begin with is a different question that should be taken up with the justice system, not football.)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
An office worker wouldn't be prevented from going back to work in an office.
A lorry driver wouldn't be stopped from driving.
A factory worker wouldn't be stopped from going to a factory.
A shop worker wouldn't be banned from shops.

Why's a footballer different?


None of those are even remotely similar or comparable to a career in professional sports where people are in the public eye all the time. Where people are idolised and immortalised for sporting ability.
A rapist does not deserve the luxury of returning to a life where he could earn a modicum of respect, glory, idolisation and riches, regardless of whether or not he had that or would have gotten it before his crime and conviction.
Also, to favour allowing him back means you favour his right to get on with his life post release over the entirely negative message that allowing him to rejoin gives out.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by thunder_chunky
None of those are even remotely similar or comparable to a career in professional sports where people are in the public eye all the time. Where people are idolised and immortalised for sporting ability.
A rapist does not deserve the luxury of returning to a life where he could earn a modicum of respect, glory, idolisation and riches, regardless of whether or not he had that or would have gotten it before his crime and conviction.


So you're imposing one set of rules for one type of person, but quite a different set for another. How is that just or fair?

Any criminal deserves the chance at rehabilitation.
Original post by Drewski
So you're imposing one set of rules for one type of person, but quite a different set for another. How is that just or fair?

Any criminal deserves the chance at rehabilitation.


Given the circumstances, there is a difference between working in professional sports and in an ordinary job for the reasons I have already explained. If he doesn't like it, he should not have done the crime.

He may deserve rehabilitation, but he doesn't deserve his old job back. Like I said, he isn't owed anything by the world of professional football.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Given the circumstances, there is a difference between working in professional sports and in an ordinary job for the reasons I have already explained. If he doesn't like it, he should not have done the crime.

He may deserve rehabilitation, but he doesn't deserve his old job back. Like I said, he isn't owed anything by the world of professional football.


But it's hard to view your opinion as anything other than picking on him because he's a footballer.
It's singling him out for no good reason, holding him to standards that you wouldn't apply to anyone else.
Original post by thunder_chunky
None of those are even remotely similar or comparable to a career in professional sports where people are in the public eye all the time. Where people are idolised and immortalised for sporting ability.
A rapist does not deserve the luxury of returning to a life where he could earn a modicum of respect, glory, idolisation and riches, regardless of whether or not he had that or would have gotten it before his crime and conviction.
Also, to favour allowing him back means you favour his right to get on with his life post release over the entirely negative message that allowing him to rejoin gives out.

I agree. The key thing to me is being a public figure. With a crime as serious as rape, I don't think it is appropriate for that person to resume their job as normal in the public eye. Imagine what message that sends out to the rape victims and rapists out there.
Reply 39
Your wrong.
And pedantic. Evans had sex with a parylitic women. He should prove consent or forever keep schtum.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending