Ched Evans cleared of rape in retrial

Original post by KingBradly

The idea is that it will encourage other victims (if there are any) to come forward. It worked with Jimmy Saville. However, it's pretty horribly unfair for the defendant.

Original post by Bornblue

The argument in favour is that often people who have committed sexual assaults, tend to do it more than once. Especially with celebrities such as Saville and Harris.

If their is publicity it encourages victims to step forward, who may previously have been too scared to. It certainly worked in the two aforementioned cases.

I'm not saying that there should or should not be anonymity but that's the argument for it.*

That isn't a good justification for several reasons

Firstly because people are innocent until proven guilty and should therefore be entitled to unconditional anonymity until proven guilty in cases where the alternative is permanent and very great damage to their reputation. We cannot start from the position that they might be guilty and should therefore have their charges made public and their reputation permanently damaged because it might encourage others to accuse them when they are already entitled to do so

Secondly because it also encourages people to make false claims, as was demonstrated with over half of those accused (falsely) in the course of Operation Yewtree

Thirdly because for the vast majority of defendants it will not apply and in single incident, innocent cases like this will result in nothing but permanent damage to their reputation. It is not fair that these people should pay these heavy prices for the benefit of a comparatively tiny number of individuals feeling more confident in coming forward.

Reply 24

username878267

15

Original post by Fenice

That isn't a good justification for several reasons

Firstly because people are innocent until proven guilty and should therefore be entitled to unconditional anonymity until proven guilty in cases where the alternative is permanent and very great damage to their reputation. We cannot start from the position that they might be guilty and should therefore have their charges made public and their reputation permanently damaged because it might encourage others to accuse them when they are already entitled to do so

Secondly because it also encourages people to make false claims, as was demonstrated with over half of those accused (falsely) in the course of Operation Yewtree

Thirdly because for the vast majority of defendants it will not apply and in single incident, innocent cases like this will result in nothing but permanent damage to their reputation. It is not fair that these people should pay these heavy prices for the benefit of a comparatively tiny number of individuals feeling more confident in coming forward.

That's a fair argument. In some cases it has worked, in others it hasn't.
Should be judged on a case by case basis really.

Reply 25

Fenice

Original post by Bornblue

That's a fair argument. In some cases it has worked, in others it hasn't.
Should be judged on a case by case basis really.

I don't think it would be possible to arbitrarily grant someone right to anonymity or not. Either everyone has it or no one

Reply 26

AperfectBalance

It is a shame that For rape allegations it seems most people see it as Guilty untill proven innocent.

Reply 27

panic!intheexam

Original post by AperfectBalance

It is a shame that For rape allegations it seems most people see it as Guilty untill proven innocent.

"Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)"

Reply 28

Joep95

Original post by panic!intheexam

"Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)"

The argument could also be used that too many people are making false reports, it's the problem of using statistics it doesn't look at key points of the case only the verdict, would you prefer a quota on the conviction rate?

Reply 29

remiremi

5

Original post by Trapz99

His life's pretty much been ruined now by those allegations, sad

considering the dude is still loaded that's a silly statement

he can just move to Aus/Canada/US and no one will even notice him, just another millionaire

Reply 30

panic!intheexam

Original post by joecphillips

The argument could also be used that too many people are making false reports, it's the problem of using statistics it doesn't look at key points of the case only the verdict, would you prefer a quota on the conviction rate?

I was simply pointing out that if there was an assumption of guilt, surely the conviction percentage would be a lot higher than other crimes?

Reply 31

Zargabaath

Where are all of TSR's resident man haters that had so much to say during the original trial and conviction?

Reply 32

Nirvana1989-1994

20

Original post by HucktheForde

why do women ever regret having intercourse? ffs its over. do men ever regret ****ing a girl?

Yeah, if they get an STD lol

Reply 33

James.Carnell

OP

14

Original post by remiremi

considering the dude is still loaded that's a silly statement

he can just move to Aus/Canada/US and no one will even notice him, just another millionaire

I don't think he is loaded still because his gf's dad had to bail him out with money for legal fees.

Also regarding the original post I made I am qualified to have an informed view of the subject and feel that legally all was pretty straightforward.
What I utterly loathe is the role of newspapers in proceedings. Please see the case of Jim Jefferies for all who want to know about what the tabloids will do to people if it makes a story for them. Eight different newspapers awarded him substantial damages, and two were prosecuted and fined for contempt of court, with the judges describing the articles as "substantial risks to the course of justice" and a "very serious risk" that any future court defense would be damaged.
Please also see the David Gazley Case, the phone hacking scandal, and Hillsborough. All The Sun. I won't even start to talk about The Sun because I despise it will all my being.

I suggest that the government should enforce heavier fines for instances of contempt of court by the media. Previous fines of circa £15000 are too much of a mere slap on the wrist.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 34

Zargabaath

Original post by HucktheForde

why do women ever regret having intercourse? ffs its over. do men ever regret ****ing a girl?

I'm sure Evans did :lol:

Reply 35

Joep95

Original post by panic!intheexam

I was simply pointing out that if there was an assumption of guilt, surely the conviction percentage would be a lot higher than other crimes?

I think his comment was more about the public reaction than in the courts, i could be wrong but that is how i interpreted it

Reply 36

unprinted

Original post by Fenice

What I don't understand is why he was originally found guilty of rape due to the woman being too drunk to consent when McDonald, who had sex with her at the same time, was cleared.

It's very simple: if someone does not consent but you have a reasonable belief in their consent, you're not guilty of rape.

So everyone who did not want to stick their penis in her agreed that the victim was very drunk - she was so out of it that night that she wet herself without waking up and by the time of the first appeal, even Evans' lawyers agreed that she didn't remember a thing about what had happened. The jury in the first trial clearly believed that she lacked the capacity to consent. However McDonald - who had talked to her outside and gone with her to the room - could have had a reasonable belief in her consent and so the jury unanimously found him not guilty.

In contrast Evans' only contact with her prior to arriving in the room, uninvited, unexpected and unwanted, was to step over her as she lay literally falling down drunk in the kebab shop that she left her handbag in. Both men swore on oath in the first trial that they did not ask if she wanted to have sex with Evans. So no reasonable belief in consent meant the first jury unanimously found him guilty.

In the second trial, Evans said that McDonald had asked her if she wanted to have sex with him. The jury asked for details of McDonald's statement (which, again, denies that he did any such thing) but were told that because he was not being called as a witness, they could not have it.

So in the first trial, all support for Evans' reasonable belief in consent was erased by McDonald effectively saying that Evans was lying about him asking. In the second, that didn't happen. Presumably McDonald, being Evans' mate, said he would not give evidence if asked because he wasn't on trial himself. I suspect that is the crucial difference between the two trials.

Reply 37

unprinted

Original post by Zargabaath

I'm sure Evans did :lol:

Quite.

All he had to do was ask her if she wanted to have sex with him.

Evans didn't do that, and this jury was not allowed to know that the other man in the room has repeatedly said - both in his statement and on oath in the first trial - that he didn't ask her either.

Reply 38

Zarek

The whole thing just shows the risks of excessive alcohol to the point where everyone's judgement is seriously affected. I think his apology shows that his behaviour was far from commendable but it does seem it was not a clear cut rape. Not sure what the answer is.

Reply 39

unprinted