Ched Evans

[JohnM]

Non consensual sex? You mean rape?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Non consensual sex? You mean rape?

yes

[Robin Evans]

Non consensual sex? You mean rape?

semantics. Yes of course I mean rape. I'm mulling over the point of defence that has been suggested - that it was consensual sex.

However, as Larry suggests, evidence put before the jury suggests she was absolutely hammered, therefore lacking the capacity to consent to sex. If consent is unable to be given, as defined under the mental capacity act, then it's a (non - consensual act) and thus difficult to see how it could be anything other than rape.

Not being able to say no is not the same as saying yes

[Martyn Sadler]

semantics. Yes of course I mean rape. I'm mulling over the point of defence that has been suggested - that it was consensual sex.

However, as Larry suggests, evidence put before the jury suggests she was absolutely hammered, therefore lacking the capacity to consent to sex. If consent is unable to be given, as defined under the mental capacity act, then it's a (non - consensual act) and thus difficult to see how it could be anything other than rape.

Not being able to say no is not the same as saying yes

In that case, why was the other male involved in this situation, who apparently had sex with the girl before Evans did, not also convicted of rape? If the fact of being drunk caused her to lack the capacity to give consent, then surely she lacked the capacity to give consent to both the individuals who had sex with her. To find one person innocent, and the other guilty, looks inconsistent.

[Larry the Leit]

In that case, why was the other male involved in this situation, who apparently had sex with the girl before Evans did, not also convicted of rape? If the fact of being drunk caused her to lack the capacity to give consent, then surely she lacked the capacity to give consent to both the individuals who had sex with her. To find one person innocent, and the other guilty, looks inconsistent.

 

I don't agree Martin.  You can be reasonably coherent under the influence of alcohol at one point and thus capable of giving consent, and then completely blotto ten or twenty minutes later.

 

These points will surely have been addressed in court with first hand accounts and a degree of knowledge of the case that none of us can claim to have, not matter how much we've heard or read on the case.  

 

The man is a rapist.  I don't see that as a point for debate.  Whether he should be allowed to play soccer again is really the debate in question.

[Martyn Sadler]

You can be reasonably coherent under the influence of alcohol at one point and thus capable of giving consent, and then completely blotto ten or twenty minutes later.

 

That is a very interesting point.

 

So the capacity to coherently give consent can change within a very short space of time.

 

You may be correct, but it's very dodgy ground for distinguishing between two acts that happened within a few minutes of each other, and convicting one individual and not the other.

 

In his summing up of the case when he came to pass sentence the judge made the following comment.

 

".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

 

According to you there is clearly a fine line between being drunk, but not so much that a woman can't give consent, and being drunk to such a degree that she is in no position to give consent. Evans should have been able to recognise when the former became the latter, according to the judge, while his co-defendant apparently recognised that she wasn't too drunk to consent a few minutes earlier and he was found not guilty.

 

The law in this case doesn't seem very clear to me.

[Larry the Leit]

The law in this case doesn't seem very clear to me.

 

The law may not seem very clear to you.  To me it's really clear, if your sexual partner is not in a coherent state and clearly a willing participant, then put your chopper away.

[Martyn Sadler]

The law may not seem very clear to you.  To me it's really clear, if your sexual partner is not in a coherent state and clearly a willing participant, then put your chopper away.

But what happens if you think she is coherent, but in fact she isn't?

 

Coherence itself is not always a totally obvious state, particularly in this context, given the point you have made about the way change can occur within ten or twenty minutes.

 

The only good advice is to avoid any suggestion of interacting with a drunken partner, whether they appear to be coherent or not.

[Larry the Leit]

But what happens if you think she is coherent, but in fact she isn't?

 

Coherence itself is not always a totally obvious state, particularly in this context, given the point you have made about the way change can occur within ten or twenty minutes.

 

The only good advice is to avoid any suggestion of interacting with a drunken partner, whether they appear to be coherent or not.

 

Martyn, I'm not discussing my sex life on here.

 

Thanks.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

In that case, why was the other male involved in this situation, who apparently had sex with the girl before Evans did, not also convicted of rape? If the fact of being drunk caused her to lack the capacity to give consent, then surely she lacked the capacity to give consent to both the individuals who had sex with her. To find one person innocent, and the other guilty, looks inconsistent.

here's one or two reasons

 

she perhaps agreed to go to the hotel with him to have sex, and was in perhaps a more alert state then.

Evans was an interloper, something she hadn't bargained for.

when Evans intervened she was perhaps in a worse state than she was when agreeing with the other man to go to the hotel and have sex.

 

I'm sure there are plenty more.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

But what happens if you think she is coherent, but in fact she isn't?

 

Coherence itself is not always a totally obvious state, particularly in this context, given the point you have made about the way change can occur within ten or twenty minutes.

 

The only good advice is to avoid any suggestion of interacting with a drunken partner, whether they appear to be coherent or not.

why one would want to have sex with someone you don't know who is too drunk to share the enjoyment of the experience is perhaps part of the issue. Rape being an exercise of power and all that.

 

people who are drunk can have a great sexual experience, but it has to be a shared one for the benefit of the participants. 

[Red Devils PAW]

It seems a tad ironic to me that Mr Sadler could pose the question as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime following a school pupil stabbing to death a school teacher,and the bleeding heart liberals with their left wing leanings come to the fore, and here it seems a far less clear matter results in the convicted offender having little or no support,with many of the great British public wanting him to lose his job,and indeed Paul Heaton wanting him to be banished to a place unknown.

Great country this...always go for the easy target.

I also believe the rehabilitation of offenders situation has changed.It ain't no more.

I know this because an individual was attempting to get into the USA to work but was refused - despite Eric Cantona and the ex- Mrs Cole having convictions for assault but being allowed,to work,in the USA.

[Severus]

It seems a tad ironic to me that Mr Sadler could pose the question as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime following a school pupil stabbing to death a school teacher,and the bleeding heart liberals

 

Usually when someone starts throwing terms like that around I immediately dismiss them as not with listening to but I thought I'll give you a go

 

 

with their left wing leanings come to the fore, and here it seems a far less clear matter results in the convicted offender having little or no support

It seems that Evans has the support of his girlfriend, family and friends as well as the PFA.

 

 

with many of the great British public wanting him to lose his job

He has already lost his job.

 

 

,and indeed Paul Heaton wanting him to be banished to a place unknown.Great country this...always go for the easy target.

I also believe the rehabilitation of offenders situation has changed.It ain't no more.

I know this because an individual was attempting to get into the USA to work but was refused - despite Eric Cantona and the ex- Mrs Cole having convictions for assault but being allowed,to work,in the USA.

 

 

Evans is legally entitled to work in the UK.  What is your point?

[Larry the Leit]

It seems a tad ironic to me that Mr Sadler could pose the question as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime following a school pupil stabbing to death a school teacher,and the bleeding heart liberals with their left wing leanings come to the fore, and here it seems a far less clear matter results in the convicted offender having little or no support,with many of the great British public wanting him to lose his job,and indeed Paul Heaton wanting him to be banished to a place unknown.

Great country this...always go for the easy target.

I also believe the rehabilitation of offenders situation has changed.It ain't no more.

I know this because an individual was attempting to get into the USA to work but was refused - despite Eric Cantona and the ex- Mrs Cole having convictions for assault but being allowed,to work,in the USA.

 

It's an interesting post, I'll say that for it.

[Robin Evans]

It seems a tad ironic to me that Mr Sadler could pose the question as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime following a school pupil stabbing to death a school teacher,and the bleeding heart liberals with their left wing leanings come to the fore, and here it seems a far less clear matter results in the convicted offender having little or no support,with many of the great British public wanting him to lose his job,and indeed Paul Heaton wanting him to be banished to a place unknown.

Great country this...always go for the easy target.

I also believe the rehabilitation of offenders situation has changed.It ain't no more.

I know this because an individual was attempting to get into the USA to work but was refused - despite Eric Cantona and the ex- Mrs Cole having convictions for assault but being allowed,to work,in the USA.

easy target?? He's a rapist. Convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless further evidence is put forward that changes that decision he remains just that.

[Ackroman]

I've read the evidence that exists on-line. How can you convict based on that?

 

No evidence of a struggle and no evidence of sex taking place between the victim and the 2 men. All we have is the testimony of Evans, Clayton and a night porter. I didn't read anything that didn't corroborate. No one was telling lies. In fact the truth was given readily and in great detail. The victim can't remember anything but can clearly be seen walking around the hotel foyer unaided and with purpose at 04:11 in the morning.

 

She may have no recollection of events but she entered the hotel room at around 04:11 or so and Ched Evans entered at 04:21 when Clayton and her were getting it on. It wasn't hours or half an hour, it was 10 minutes. So if in that 10 minutes Clayton and the victim settle into the room and begin having consensual sex, she must be in a coherent state when Evans enters the room, otherwise you would have to convict Clayton of rape as well. So if we conclude she is coherent when Evans enters the room, and the night porter hears 2 people having sex, how can you conclude she's lost all her bearings in the time Evans takes over from Clayton? Were talking seconds, maybe a minute at most. No-one can evidence that change in your state of mind happening so quickly but a judge can lead the jury to convict on it happening?

 

It's a dodgy conviction.

[Robin Evans]

But what happens if you think she is coherent, but in fact she isn't?

Coherence itself is not always a totally obvious state, particularly in this context, given the point you have made about the way change can occur within ten or twenty minutes.

The only good advice is to avoid any suggestion of interacting with a drunken partner, whether they appear to be coherent or not.

Overriding principle of the MCA 2005... is that capacity is assumed unless it is reasonable to assume that the individual temporary lacks capacity right at that moment to process information, weigh it up and communicate their decision.

regardless of how pi**ed she was, evans had a responsability to gain consent.

He couldn't get that and was convicted.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I've read the evidence that exists on-line. How can you convict based on that?

 

No evidence of a struggle and no evidence of sex taking place between the victim and the 2 men. All we have is the testimony of Evans, Clayton and a night porter. I didn't read anything that didn't corroborate. No one was telling lies. In fact the truth was given readily and in great detail. The victim can't remember anything but can clearly be seen walking around the hotel foyer unaided and with purpose at 04:11 in the morning.

 

She may have no recollection of events but she entered the hotel room at around 04:11 or so and Ched Evans entered at 04:21 when Clayton and her were getting it on. It wasn't hours or half an hour, it was 10 minutes. So if in that 10 minutes Clayton and the victim settle into the room and begin having consensual sex, she must be in a coherent state when Evans enters the room, otherwise you would have to convict Clayton of rape as well. So if we conclude she is coherent when Evans enters the room, and the night porter hears 2 people having sex, how can you conclude she's lost all her bearings in the time Evans takes over from Clayton? Were talking seconds, maybe a minute at most. No-one can evidence that change in your state of mind happening so quickly but a judge can lead the jury to convict on it happening?

 

It's a dodgy conviction.

there doesn't have to be a struggle

[WearyRhino]

 

 

No evidence of a struggle...

 

Jesus Christ! So it wasn't 'real' rape then because she didn't try to get away and they didn't give her a slap?

[Ackroman]

Overriding principle of the MCA 2005... is that capacity is assumed unless it is reasonable to assume that the individual temporary lacks capacity right at that moment to process information, weigh it up and communicate their decision.

regardless of how pi**ed she was, evans had a responsability to gain consent.

He couldn't get that and was convicted.

 

It flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty, and the precedent opens pandora's box. As citizens do we have to prove we weren't at the scene of a crime, or prove our household goods belong to us. No. It's up to the state to prove that and that's how it should be.

 

Jesus Christ! So it wasn't 'real' rape then because she didn't try to get away and they didn't give her a slap?

 

No there was no evidence. I suggest you put the pitch fork down

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I've read the evidence that exists on-line. How can you convict based on that?

 

No evidence of a struggle and no evidence of sex taking place between the victim and the 2 men. All we have is the testimony of Evans, Clayton and a night porter. I didn't read anything that didn't corroborate. No one was telling lies. In fact the truth was given readily and in great detail. The victim can't remember anything but can clearly be seen walking around the hotel foyer unaided and with purpose at 04:11 in the morning.

 

She may have no recollection of events but she entered the hotel room at around 04:11 or so and Ched Evans entered at 04:21 when Clayton and her were getting it on. It wasn't hours or half an hour, it was 10 minutes. So if in that 10 minutes Clayton and the victim settle into the room and begin having consensual sex, she must be in a coherent state when Evans enters the room, otherwise you would have to convict Clayton of rape as well. So if we conclude she is coherent when Evans enters the room, and the night porter hears 2 people having sex, how can you conclude she's lost all her bearings in the time Evans takes over from Clayton? Were talking seconds, maybe a minute at most. No-one can evidence that change in your state of mind happening so quickly but a judge can lead the jury to convict on it happening?

 

It's a dodgy conviction.

I've just re read the transcript supplied by myself and another poster on this thread.

So there was no evidence of sexual intercourse. Why then would Evans incriminate himself by saying he had had sex with her? 

[l'angelo mysterioso]

It flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty, and the precedent opens pandora's box. As citizens do we have to prove we weren't at the scene of a crime, or prove our household goods belong to us. No. It's up to the state to prove that and that's how it should be.

 

 

No there was no evidence. I suggest you put the pitch fork down

there doesn't have to be a struggle.

[WearyRhino]

 

No there was no evidence. I suggest you put the pitch fork down

 

I think the pitchforks are being wielded by the neanderthals who have hounded a raped woman and everyone who opposes Evans' and Sheffield United's disgraceful behaviour.

[Robin Evans]

Jesus Christ! So it wasn't 'real' rape then because she didn't try to get away and they didn't give her a slap?

Again, check out Dr Zoe Lodrick's work.

Due to how the human brain works, most victims assume a freeze or flop response to rape. When faced with impending trauma the amygdula over rides the reasoned response and assumes 1. The protection of physical integrity and 2. Maintain attachment.

All recent research suggest that most rape victims assume a passive response.

Doesn't make it any less a serious sexual assault.

[Ackroman]

I've just re read the transcript supplied by myself and another poster on this thread.

So there was no evidence of sexual intercourse. Why then would Evans incriminate himself by saying he had had sex with her? 

 

I've looked at this from the evidence, it is not my opinion about rape. I just wanted to clarify that before I comment further.

 

If Evans and Clayton had said "no comment" we would be still speculating on the truth and he would still be playing football. I can't come to any other conclusion.

So why he was so candid? Nothing to hide? Guilt? Either way his testimony isn't evidence.

 

Again, check out Dr Zoe Lodrick's work.

Due to how the human brain works, most victims assume a freeze or flop response to rape. When faced with impending trauma the amygdula over rides the reasoned response and assumes 1. The protection of physical integrity and 2. Maintain attachment.

All recent research suggest that most rape victims assume a passive response.

Doesn't make it any less a serious sexual assault.

 

How do you prove this?