The soccer club Oldham Athletic appear to be in trouble. Thousands of people – including many fans of the club – have signed a petition urging them not to sign Ched Evans, who was jailed for two-and-a-half years for raping a 19-year-old girl. The people organising the petition say:
“Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. He does not deserve to return to a high profile and highly visible role in football whilst he still refuses to acknowledge his guilt, apologise to his victim and attempt to make clear his views to the fans who look up to him that what he did was wrong and they should not traumatise her or other rape victims.”
This is an example of being punished twice for the same crime: once by a term of imprisonment and once by an unofficial court of the public. The people organising the petition don’t say they want to penalise Evans for the rest of his life: they complain that he hasn’t acknowledged his guilt, apologised and told fans what he did was wrong.
The implication here is that Evans doesn’t see rape as a crime and so refuses to apologise for it. Not so. Evans has always argued that the sex was consensual, not rape. As he sees it, to apologise for the incident would be to concede that he had been guilty of rape.
At the heart of this is the question of rehabilitation. Evans is clearly a gifted professional footballer who has served time after having been convicted of a crime (let’s leave his claims about whether it was a crime or not aside for a moment). Having done his time, should he now be penalised indefinitely by the public and prevented from working in the area where his talents lie?
A final question: what does his crime (for which he has served a term in prison) have to do with his footballing abilities? What he did – assuming he did it – was morally reprehensible, but it has no bearing on his qualities as a footballer. Wouldn’t it make more sense for football clubs to hire players on the basis of how skilful they are rather than how moral they are?
Hit the nail on the head here Jude
Go raibh maith agat, Jamie
Judge Judy’s long-standing ‘Two Minute Hate’ series continues into 2015… and the topics remain the same, clearly.
Ched Evans has been punished once for his very serious crime and he is now having to live with the stigma of it the same as anyone else convicted of anything similar. His freedom following his prison term allows him his basic civil rights back, and he has these. What’s the problem?
Jude obviously reckons that his previous full status ought to be restored. Nothing to stop that in a legal sense of course, but when fairness and morality comes into it (especially where women are involved), Jude backs the perpetrator, from the case of Jean McConville to Nigella Lawson to Ched Evans’ rape victim.
Did anyone get you any Sigmund Freud for Christmas, Jude?
Oh dear Michael – how nice to hear your courteous, fair-minded voice. My name’s Jude, by the way, not Judy. My point – although I suspect you’re not interested in rational discussion – is that I don’t think it’s fair to punish people for the same crime twice: once in prison, second for the rest of their lives. Even on practical grounds it’s inviting further crime on the part of the ex-criminal.
As to women and morality, if you’re not careful you’ll be needing a lawyer, Michael. I have NEVER backed the perpetrator of crimes against women, and that includes Nigella Lawson and Jean McConville. So mind your language or you may learn something more of the legal system.
Jude..I suppose in an ideal world a footballer or anyone else , for that matter , would be hired entirely on the basis of his or her skillset, but that’s not really how human interaction actually works, in real life.We all carry our personalities and a variety of personal tics and idiosyncrasies into every situation …should that be a job interview or starting up a personal relationship .There is already a subliminal human bias at work. There is the attractiveness factor at work. Off the top of my head I would say that a beautiful or very handsome person has a running start over someone less attractive…in every situation . We could tussle over that but I’d say it is a big factor. There is also the police check involved in most jobs which would have someone with a less than salubrious past consigned to the reject bin in favour of someone without that stain. The crime may be paid for but it may not be forgotten.A HR department would weigh up how an employee would fit in .
As far as culpability goes , this fellow may think he never did anything wrong at all…..ever …..even though he was judged to have been a rapist by a court decision .I daresay that Stalin or Hitler never thought they did one wrong thing right to their dying day .The rest of us don’t believe them though. That’s how human beings are . There are undoubtedly a certain group of people who support him and possibly think there is not a thing wrong with a little rape and pillage. They may not even understand what rape actually is. There are plenty of convicted rapists who think it is the natural order of things . Some of them are actually caught. There are plenty of recent high -profile court cases to reference.I don’t believe Dave Lee Travers , Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile would recognise having done anything wrong. either…even when they have done their time…okay Savile got away with it entirely…
My feeling is that this case has caused so much controversy that it would be foolish and wrong socially to re-employ him in such a high -profile position where his reputation will only send a signal to the barbarians out there that his behaviour was actually okay..
Thanks, Paddy, for views. You’re right about how the world works and how jobs are got or not got. Beauty is a huge headstart (it works for me anyway…..). But my point is it shouldn’t work like that. And I believe our penal system should work harder at helping rehabilitate people. If Evans has skills for a job, and has done his time, he should be given that job on his merits, not his history. Otherwise there might be some empty seats up in Stormont…
Straight-laced?
More empty seats in the House on the Hill might be a strategy worth developing. An economist has been critical of our politicians (?) given the absence of a fiscal strategy and not being “up front and honest” given pending budget reductions and unemployment. What are some elected representatives and clerics discussing today? The rejection of the Stormont House Disagreement, flags, parades and an opinion that Hurricane Katrina (2005) was God’s revenge for a gay parade.
Well Judy, I suppose you’ve been an apologist for terrorists, why not be an apologist for rapists as well. Maybe we could get a job for Evans in Sinn Fein, and he could compare notes. The reality is he is a convicted rapist, he has consistently showed no remorse and continues to deny the offence, his supporters have hounded the victim, who has had to move house a number of times. The whole thing sounds remarkably familiar, perhaps he could open a Welsh branch of Sinn Fein.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have Evans back playing football as arole model, imagine your child running around with Evans’ name on the back of his/her shirt. Do you think if he was a teacher, police officer, solicitor, etc, he would be allowed to continue in his previous occupation. I think the fans have been very clear that they do not want him in football, maybe the GAA could offer him a role.
William – kindly show me where I have been an apologist for terrorists? Except you – or anyone else – is capable of observing normal civilities AND clear of libellous statements, they’re welcome on this site, regardless of views. If they’re not, then I’ll been their sad offerings. Amid your insults I notice one half-suggested point: that because people in different professions find it hard/impossible to get back into work, the same should apply to Mr Evans. That’s a very weak argument: it’s conceivable that an injustice is being done to all those who, having committed a crime, are punished – and then punished again by their profession. There is such a thing as rehabilitation and it’s about time our system started treating it seriously. (I’ll try to ignore your gratuitous insult of the GAA).
William is one of Unionism’s wingnuts – he views the GAA as a terrorist organisation and that is how he concludes that you are an apologist for terrorism
I say he shouldn’t be allowed to play football until he admits his guilt. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. They did not come to that conclusion based on a hunch – evidence was provided proving his guilt.
Perhaps we should discuss this in a more rational way.
The question in my mind is this if a criminal has served time should he be able to simply fit back into society no matter what the crime or should he carry that stigma for the rest of his life?
There have been examples in football of a goalkeeper killing children in a car crash and going back to play football without much fuss is this any worse or any better than being a convicted rapist who wants to fit back into society?
My God, Jude – but you really have your work cut out here. On a topic about a foreign footballer and his crime, we have had responses mentioning Jean McConville, Sinn Féin and ‘terrorists’ and the GAA. Oh, and potentially libelous statements.
Some people are obsessed.
I think you’ve nailed it, C
Oh my Antonio, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers – as were the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four! Also with ‘evidence’ proving their guilt.
I know nothing of football, as I prefer sport, and before this case had never known the name Ched Evans, I totally abhor the very idea of rape, so you may accept my impartiality.
From what I can gather the girl in question had no complaints or objections leading up to and during the sexual interaction, but she did complain some time afterwards.
Did she make her complaint almost immediately after the sex act, was it a day, a week or a month later?
Did she claim to have been intoxicated at the time and therefore not be in a position to give consent? If so, was the defendant not also intoxicated an therefore also not really responsible for his actions?
Or does the responsibility in such cases only apply to males, and females are absolved of any blame for whatever may have happened?
Is there no situation where the female might lead on a male for her own reasons? I don’t know so I cannot suggest such a situation.
The defendant is also being vilified for refusing to admit his guilt or to apologise for what he has done. But if by any chance he did not rape the girl, why should he tell lies and just say that he was guilty in the hope that might help things to blow over.
But there seem to be so many grey areas in this case it was a brave judge to hand down a definitive result. By the way, has there been an appeal in this case?
The Guilford four and Birmingham six were not convicted by a jury of the peers but rather convicted in a Diplock court where the Judge acted as Jury and the ‘evidence’ was gained by police beating the rump out of their suspects until the suspects confessed. Evidence that could have proved the innocence of these people was withheld from the defence lawyers.
The Ched Evans case was not remotely like that, It was not a matter of Counter insurgency and British national security so the comparison is erroneous in my book.
Convictions for rape are very rare. When a jury convicts a man of rape and the Judge agrees with that verdict and sentences the man to a jail term I think it is dangerous for people to start believing that it is a case of 50:50 – that he could be guilty or she could be lieing. As far as I am concerned there is a 99% chance he is guilty because he was convicted.
I don’t know if there will be a re-trial. If he was innocent then he would feel confident of convincing a jury of his innocence and perhaps his lawyers would advice him to go down that route.
Jude I find myself totally in agreement with you on this and having researched this extensively I am at loss as to how he was ever charged in the first instance. Never mind the fact that there is ample CCTV evidence to the contrary the jury ignored all of that and to say the least must be the thickest bunch that ever graced Her Majesty’s house of correction. I have no doubt the judge must have been doubtful too because a 5yr term was very much on the lenient side. The Home office giving him early release(this dangerous rapist) must also point to doubts. But this is just a distraction from your article and begs the question of his right to earn a living at his trade!
Jude
I agree that more should be done to help rehabilitate people coming out of prison. It is better for them and better for the rest of society.
In Evans case as he is maintaining his innocence the question of rehabilitation is trickier.
He is entitled to maintain his innocence but I’m not sure how we can talk of rehabilitation when there is no admission of guilt.
Good point, gio. It is trickier. But I still think efforts should be made – in his case and in all cases.
Great article Jude and totally agree with your sentiments. As far as I am aware Ched Evans is appealing his conviction – if his conviction is overturned I am sure the court of public opinion will be nowhere to be seen or heard. You are right, if innocent of the crime why should he admit guilt and apologise to the victim? Ok, he was convicted by a court of law by a jury. As we all know being found guilty in court dosent necessary mean one is guilty of the crime – juries make mistakes, Miscarriages of justice do happen! I followed this trial closely at the time and on the basis of what I read I thought Evans would be acquitted of same. He is not the first footballer to be accused of rape, nor the last. If I recall correctly his namesake Jonny Evans was falsely accused of rape in 2008. Out of interest, those who oppose his return to football, what type of job do they believe Ched is suitable to undertake? Are there specific professions they deem he should / should not be allowed to do?
You can see both sides point of view in this argument. We HAVE to assume hes guilty because he was found guilty in a court of law and served his time in prison. We all know kids right through to pensioners are great fans of football and depending on how devoted they are to the sport they obviously see the football players in a good light, especially kids. Do you really think Ched Evans, who was convicted of rape, is a good role model for children? But on the other hand its true, he served his prison sentence, he shouldn’t be punished twice for the same crime.
Its a tricky one this and I also take into account that this man continues to proclaim his innocence (and its not as if miscarriages of justice are rare, is it? we Irish would know that better than anyone when it comes to the British Justice system….). On the whole, I believe this man has served his time, hes been punished, he obviously still maintains hes innocent but that isn’t the point, the point is he was found guilty and served his time, so now he should be able to continue with his life. We cant have mob rule, if he did commit this rape then it was a disgusting act he committed but hes served his time and punishment. Just because hes a footballer he doesn’t be treated any different from any other criminal, either to advantage him or disadvantage him.
Yes I know he would be a role model to kids but do u really think kids are just going to think rape is OK? Wise up. Parents, peers, teachers, etc have a much bigger influence on kids than football stars who they may never even meet or see in person.
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-ched-evans-realise-honourable-man-not-take-advantage-drunken-woman/