Why the hell is Ched Evans in jail?

manchesterunited15

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.

the complainant was not "targeted"

the attack had not been "premeditated"

the woman said yes

Someone please explain

Reply 1

Stanners95

8

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.
"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.
"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.
"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

You've just taken the article wholly out of context - it's not whether or not he was particularly forceful or if it was premeditated, it was that the victim was in no fit state to consent, even if consent was given at the time. It's predatory and Mr Evans knew what he was doing, and a rape sentence is wholly deserved.

Reply 2

manchesterunited15

OP

Original post by Stanners95

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.
"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.
"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.
"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

You've just taken the article wholly out of context - it's not whether or not he was particularly forceful or if it was premeditated, it was that the victim was in no fit state to consent, even if consent was given at the time. It's predatory and Mr Evans knew what he was doing, and a rape sentence is wholly deserved.

So why did the other guy get off?

Reply 3

SuperiorGenius

Blame the feminazis for this.

Reply 4

Stanners95

8

Original post by manchesterunited15

So why did the other guy get off?

There was probably some sort of detail which the article hasn't explained - probably to do with the fact Ched Evans came significantly later, after his friend and the woman had already had sex. Without being at the trail, it's hard to know - but it still doesn't negate Ched Evans' behaviour, and you'll probably find his friend's conduct was still morally questionable without breaking the law.

Reply 5

James222

3

bit of a leap of faith to assume he knew she was too drunk to consent. He could also have been drunk.
its not like he spiked her

edit - I remeber this story, you have missed the bit he texted a friend saying he has a drunk girl at his flat who he could have sex with so he basically admitted it to a friend

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

xDave-

19

Original post by James222

He could also have been drunk.

If you're the one doing the penetrating, then you're responsible for your actions when you're drunk. If you're the one receiving, then you're not responsible for your actions when drunk. Does that make any sense at all? No. But that's how it is and him being drunk wouldn't make any difference.

Reply 7

manchesterunited15

OP

Original post by James222

bit of a leap of faith to assume he knew she was too drunk to consent. He could also have been drunk.
its not like he spiked her

edit - I remeber this story, you have missed the bit he texted a friend saying he has a drunk girl at his flat who he could have sex with so he basically admitted it to a friend

No the other guy texted Evans saying he "had a bird" (didn't say drunk)

Reply 8

James222

3

Original post by xDave-

If you're the one doing the penetrating, then you're responsible for your actions when you're drunk. If you're the one receiving, then you're not responsible for your actions when drunk. Does that make any sense at all? No. But that's how it is and him being drunk wouldn't make any difference.

Well if she didnt stop him or kissed him back he could have felt consent was given.
I think him being drunk is important because the judge takes into account a persons intent

Reply 9

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by xDave-

If you're the one doing the penetrating, then you're responsible for your actions when you're drunk. If you're the one receiving, then you're not responsible for your actions when drunk. Does that make any sense at all? No. But that's how it is and him being drunk wouldn't make any difference.

Is that definitely the law? That really does make no sense, lol.

Reply 10

arichmond64

1

This is complete BS, he should not have been jailed.

In what world is it OK for a man to be jailed for 5 years because the woman he had sex with can't remember anything an hour before, all during and after. Even though she went back to a hotel with a footballer, with the clear intention of having sex with him.

To even call this 'Rape' is an insult to real rape victims.

And was he drunk?

Original post by Snagprophet

And was he drunk?

Yes of course.

One thing I've noticed about this case is...... most people who've actually looked into the case, and the evidence etc. has questions, and is skeptical about the verdict.

Everyone else just says.... RAPIST!!!!

Reply 13

Snagprophet

17

Original post by arichmond64

Yes of course.

One thing I've noticed about this case is...... most people who've actually looked into the case, and the evidence etc. has questions, and is skeptical about the verdict.

Everyone else just says.... RAPIST!!!!

So why is it rape if neither of them could consent? That's like saying two people underage, boy gets done for statutory rape. Makes no sense.

Reply 14

arichmond64

1

Original post by Snagprophet

So why is it rape if neither of them could consent? That's like saying two people underage, boy gets done for statutory rape. Makes no sense.

Well yes, I agree, this case was his word against hers, even though she couldn't remember consenting to either person.

Basically she couldn't remember having sex or consenting with either of them (her words)

It's a complete joke and he should never have been convicted.

Reply 15

ArtGoblin

16

Original post by arichmond64

Yes of course.

One thing I've noticed about this case is...... most people who've actually looked into the case, and the evidence etc. has questions, and is skeptical about the verdict.

Everyone else just says.... RAPIST!!!!

Except the jury who have seen more into the case than you ever could and decided he is guilty of rape.

Reply 16

Spetznaaz

12

Original post by xDave-

If you're the one doing the penetrating, then you're responsible for your actions when you're drunk. If you're the one receiving, then you're not responsible for your actions when drunk. Does that make any sense at all? No. But that's how it is and him being drunk wouldn't make any difference.

That's not the law, nor is it right in any sense. However, the worrying thing is a lot of people think like this.

Also one must take into consideration the fact that this was a high profile case, with the media doing their usual shaming of any alleged perpetrators. The jury would of almost certainly come into contact with biased media sources.