Ched Evans - serious injury

[JoeMercer'sWay]

The deputy prime minister has opined on the Ched Evans affair.

Funny, I don't remember him having anything to say about the return to league football of drunken driver and child killer Luke McCormick, who killed two brothers aged 10 and 8 when he crashed his car into theirs.

And if jail sentences are compared McCormick's crime was more serious than Evans'.

Clegg’s constituency is Sheffield Hallam so he's going to be asked his opinion.

Back of shirt sponsors are saying they will end their agreement with Sheffield United if they re-employ Evans

should be taken to court for discrimination if they do and also forced to pay up the contract if they try.

 

[mcmanus]

Clegg’s constituency is Sheffield Hallam so he's going to be asked his opinion.

Back of shirt sponsors are saying they will end their agreement with Sheffield United if they re-employ Evans

should be taken to court for discrimination if they do and also forced to pay up the contract if they try.

Probably some two bob company trying to get some free press and publicity.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

just had a thought on this - can you be convicted of murder if you are blind drunk and dont remember doing it? ~I assume the answer is yes. So she was too drunk to consent to sex and didnt remember any of it and this was reason enough to convict him? ~What Im saying is in the eyes of the law you can be too drunk to consent to sex but not too drunk to commit murder?

You're comparing apples and oranges. In one case, the perpetrator is blind drunk, and in the other it's the victim. There isn't any just comparison to be made there.

I was thinking more of the arguments used in court. For example - yes he is a rapist because she was too drunk to know what she was doing and/or give consent. Meanwhile in the courtroom next door a guy is up for murder but doesn't remember murdering the victim because he was too drunk. Now as some posters have said he may get off with manslaughter because it wasn't premeditated and he wasn't in control of his actions. The guy who raped the girl though is still a rapist.

I'm not explaining this too well but what I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Does that make sense?

 

[aguero93:20]

just had a thought on this - can you be convicted of murder if you are blind drunk and dont remember doing it? ~I assume the answer is yes. So she was too drunk to consent to sex and didnt remember any of it and this was reason enough to convict him? ~What Im saying is in the eyes of the law you can be too drunk to consent to sex but not too drunk to commit murder?

You're comparing apples and oranges. In one case, the perpetrator is blind drunk, and in the other it's the victim. There isn't any just comparison to be made there.

I was thinking more of the arguments used in court. For example - yes he is a rapist because she was too drunk to know what she was doing and/or give consent. Meanwhile in the courtroom next door a guy is up for murder but doesn't remember murdering the victim because he was too drunk. Now as some posters have said he may get off with manslaughter because it wasn't premeditated and he wasn't in control of his actions. The guy who raped the girl though is still a rapist.

I'm not explaining this too well but what I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Does that make sense?

There are different levels Di, all the way from sexual harassment (ok a bit loose there) up to say kidnapping, false imprisonment, drugging and aggravated sexual assault/rape. The court always has to take the severity of the offence into account, that's why he was only sentenced to 5 years and only served 2.5,unfortunately, most of the worst rape offences also involve murder charges which means the differences aren't so clear.

 

[tidyman]

What I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Murder and manslaughter are different offences. They just both end up with someone dead. As do other offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. There are different offences for being repsonsible for someones death because there are a whole bunch of reasons why that death might have come about.

Having sex with someone without their consent is pretty much rape in all cases. I'm not sure different terms are necessary.

 

[blueincy]

Back of shirt sponsors are saying they will end their agreement with Sheffield United if they re-employ Evans

should be taken to court for discrimination if they do and also forced to pay up the contract if they try.

Probably some two bob company trying to get some free press and publicity.

Used car dealership. Don't think they want to be associated with the term Bangher..

 

[BlueBearBoots]

What I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Murder and manslaughter are different offences. They just both end up with someone dead. As do other offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. There are different offences for being repsonsible for someones death because there are a whole bunch of reasons why that death might have come about.

Having sex with someone without their consent is pretty much rape in all cases. I'm not sure different terms are necessary.

Don't agree at all - yes a whole bunch of reasons why someone might end up dead at the hands of another and not always murder. Rape with violence where the victim is terrified and in fear of their life and suffering horrific injuries is a bit different in my book to a girl getting pissed and a bloke taking advantage in a hotel room. Unfortunately the media still refer to him as "rapist ched Evans" however if he had run someone over and killed them whilst on his mobile would they refer to him as "murderer ched Evans" ? I think not

 

[tidyman]

What I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Murder and manslaughter are different offences. They just both end up with someone dead. As do other offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. There are different offences for being repsonsible for someones death because there are a whole bunch of reasons why that death might have come about.

Having sex with someone without their consent is pretty much rape in all cases. I'm not sure different terms are necessary.

Don't agree at all - yes a whole bunch of reasons why someone might end up dead at the hands of another and not always murder. Rape with violence where the victim is terrified and in fear of their life and suffering horrific injuries is a bit different in my book to a girl getting pissed and a bloke taking advantage in a hotel room. Unfortunately the media still refer to him as "rapist ched Evans" however if he had run someone over and killed them whilst on his mobile would they refer to him as "murderer ched Evans" ? I think not

If there was excessive violence as well as rape, there would be other charges on top of the rape charge.

If he had killed someone whilst driving, I'm pretty sure the media would refer to whatever charge he was convicted of. Unlikely to be murder, unless he deliberately ran them over.

As it is, he's been convicted of rape, so I'm not really sure what the issue is with him been called a rapist.

At this moment in time it is a fact that he is a rapist, not a matter of opinion.

 

[PinkFinal]

I support his rehabilitation but if no one employs him I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. People talk about rehabilitation but if he was a kiddie fiddler how many still would? Ideally no one would employ sex offenders in well-paid jobs and they'd be forced to scrap it out for rubbish jobs like a lot of us have to. This case is confusing to say the least but a jury has seen the evidence in-depth and he was convicted of rape and that's that for now.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Murder and manslaughter are different offences. They just both end up with someone dead. As do other offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. There are different offences for being repsonsible for someones death because there are a whole bunch of reasons why that death might have come about.

Having sex with someone without their consent is pretty much rape in all cases. I'm not sure different terms are necessary.

Don't agree at all - yes a whole bunch of reasons why someone might end up dead at the hands of another and not always murder. Rape with violence where the victim is terrified and in fear of their life and suffering horrific injuries is a bit different in my book to a girl getting pissed and a bloke taking advantage in a hotel room. Unfortunately the media still refer to him as "rapist ched Evans" however if he had run someone over and killed them whilst on his mobile would they refer to him as "murderer ched Evans" ? I think not

If there was excessive violence as well as rape, there would be other charges on top of the rape charge.

If he had killed someone whilst driving, I'm pretty sure the media would refer to whatever charge he was convicted of. Unlikely to be murder, unless he deliberately ran them over.

As it is, he's been convicted of rape, so I'm not really sure what the issue is with him been called a rapist.

At this moment in time it is a fact that he is a rapist, not a matter of opinion.

For some reason folk on here dont like him being referred to as a rapist........

 

[Ammy]

just had a thought on this - can you be convicted of murder if you are blind drunk and dont remember doing it? ~I assume the answer is yes. So she was too drunk to consent to sex and didnt remember any of it and this was reason enough to convict him? ~What Im saying is in the eyes of the law you can be too drunk to consent to sex but not too drunk to commit murder?

You're comparing apples and oranges. In one case, the perpetrator is blind drunk, and in the other it's the victim. There isn't any just comparison to be made there.

I was thinking more of the arguments used in court. For example - yes he is a rapist because she was too drunk to know what she was doing and/or give consent. Meanwhile in the courtroom next door a guy is up for murder but doesn't remember murdering the victim because he was too drunk. Now as some posters have said he may get off with manslaughter because it wasn't premeditated and he wasn't in control of his actions. The guy who raped the girl though is still a rapist.

I'm not explaining this too well but what I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Does that make sense?

No. Penetrating someone without their consent is Rape. It's already been sub-labelled as 'Date Rape'.
Not certain the person that has been raped would appreciate the differentiation

 

[aguero93:20]

Don't agree at all - yes a whole bunch of reasons why someone might end up dead at the hands of another and not always murder. Rape with violence where the victim is terrified and in fear of their life and suffering horrific injuries is a bit different in my book to a girl getting pissed and a bloke taking advantage in a hotel room. Unfortunately the media still refer to him as "rapist ched Evans" however if he had run someone over and killed them whilst on his mobile would they refer to him as "murderer ched Evans" ? I think not

If there was excessive violence as well as rape, there would be other charges on top of the rape charge.

If he had killed someone whilst driving, I'm pretty sure the media would refer to whatever charge he was convicted of. Unlikely to be murder, unless he deliberately ran them over.

As it is, he's been convicted of rape, so I'm not really sure what the issue is with him been called a rapist.

At this moment in time it is a fact that he is a rapist, not a matter of opinion.

For some reason folk on here dont like him being referred to as a rapist........

It should actually be convicted rapist.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

He has done his time. Let him get on with his life. He can't be punished for the rest of his time on earth

 

[mcmanus]

I support his rehabilitation but if no one employs him I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. People talk about rehabilitation but if he was a kiddie fiddler how many still would? Ideally no one would employ sex offenders in well-paid jobs and they'd be forced to scrap it out for rubbish jobs like a lot of us have to. This case is confusing to say the least but a jury has seen the evidence in-depth and he was convicted of rape and that's that for now.

Found guilty of rape and he really made a mistake.

Can I ask you what level of job, in your eyes, should he be allowed to do?

And what do you consider well paid? Is there a limit to what Evans should be allowed to earn?

 

[Dubai Blue]

just had a thought on this - can you be convicted of murder if you are blind drunk and dont remember doing it? ~I assume the answer is yes. So she was too drunk to consent to sex and didnt remember any of it and this was reason enough to convict him? ~What Im saying is in the eyes of the law you can be too drunk to consent to sex but not too drunk to commit murder?

You're comparing apples and oranges. In one case, the perpetrator is blind drunk, and in the other it's the victim. There isn't any just comparison to be made there.

I was thinking more of the arguments used in court. For example - yes he is a rapist because she was too drunk to know what she was doing and/or give consent. Meanwhile in the courtroom next door a guy is up for murder but doesn't remember murdering the victim because he was too drunk. Now as some posters have said he may get off with manslaughter because it wasn't premeditated and he wasn't in control of his actions. The guy who raped the girl though is still a rapist.

I'm not explaining this too well but what I'm trying to say is here should be a different term for the crime Evans committed than rape just as there are different terms for killing someone such as murder or manslaughter.

Does that make sense?

No. And your subsequent posts don't either.

The charge of 'rape' applies to having sex with someone without their consent. Other offences can be tagged onto this if the severity of the case requires it (e.g., GBH, false imprisonment, attempted murder etc etc).

And I'm not sure why him being referred to as a Rapist is 'unfortunate'. That's precisely what he was found guilty of. Someone who runs a person over while on his mobile can't be referred to as 'Murderer' because that's not what they would have been found guilty of. But they could correctly be labelled as 'Convicted killer ....' if found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, and that's a term the press use regularly when referring to such cases. Here's an example of 'Drink-drive killer' being used (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2231280/Drink-drive-killer-goalkeeper-Luke-McCormick-plays-game-Truro-City.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -City.html</a>)

 

[bobmcfc]

Should we refer to him as a kindly rapist, should we liken it to the friendly burglar who picks your locks and tidily robs you of your worldly goods rather than smash In your back doors and ransacks your home leaving a visible whirlwind of mess ???

I think at the end of the day you cannot estimate the psychological damage done by someone who violates your personal space, robs you of your dignity and your feelings of being safe. Just because there is no blood or bruises does not mean there is a lack of wounding

 

[PinkFinal]

I support his rehabilitation but if no one employs him I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. People talk about rehabilitation but if he was a kiddie fiddler how many still would? Ideally no one would employ sex offenders in well-paid jobs and they'd be forced to scrap it out for rubbish jobs like a lot of us have to. This case is confusing to say the least but a jury has seen the evidence in-depth and he was convicted of rape and that's that for now.

Found guilty of rape and he really made a mistake.

Can I ask you what level of job, in your eyes, should he be allowed to do?

And what do you consider well paid? Is there a limit to what Evans should be allowed to earn?

I'm not talking about imposing legal limits I'm just saying no one is forced to employ him or other sex offenders or for that matter any other person guilty of vile offences. It is very easy now we have the net to check peoples history, employers probably Google everyone they interview these days.

 

[Ban-jani]

Should we refer to him as a kindly rapist, should we liken it to the friendly burglar who picks your locks and tidily robs you of your worldly goods rather than smash In your back doors and ransacks your home leaving a visible whirlwind of mess ???

I think at the end of the day you cannot estimate the psychological damage done by someone who violates your personal space, robs you of your dignity and your feelings of being safe. Just because there is no blood or bruises does not mean there is a lack of wounding

I don't think it was rape in the first place.

I think he's just a cheating idiot.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Should we refer to him as a kindly rapist, should we liken it to the friendly burglar who picks your locks and tidily robs you of your worldly goods rather than smash In your back doors and ransacks your home leaving a visible whirlwind of mess ???

I think at the end of the day you cannot estimate the psychological damage done by someone who violates your personal space, robs you of your dignity and your feelings of being safe. Just because there is no blood or bruises does not mean there is a lack of wounding

How about 'The Hapless Rapist'? Seriously though, there is difference to what he did and to what happens in most cases of rape. Like when different murderers are labelled butchers, slayers, executioners etc. Then comes the less emphatic; gunman, perpetrator, assassin. I know what he did is classified as rape, and the term is therefore justified. I think a less violent term could be better used. Despite how ridiculous it sounds, something like 'passive rapist'

 

[DelToro]

Should we refer to him as a kindly rapist, should we liken it to the friendly burglar who picks your locks and tidily robs you of your worldly goods rather than smash In your back doors and ransacks your home leaving a visible whirlwind of mess ???

I think at the end of the day you cannot estimate the psychological damage done by someone who violates your personal space, robs you of your dignity and your feelings of being safe. Just because there is no blood or bruises does not mean there is a lack of wounding

How about 'The Hapless Rapist'? Seriously though, there is difference to what he did and to what happens in most cases of rape. Like when different murderers are labelled butchers, slayers, executioners etc. Then comes the less emphatic; gunman, perpetrator, assassin. I know what he did is classified as rape, and the term is therefore justified. I think a less violent term could be better used. Despite how ridiculous it sounds, something like 'passive rapist'

That does sound ridiculous.

He fulfilled the criteria for a jury to decide he had committed an act of rape. Therefore, in the eyes of the legal system in respect of this case he is a rapist.

That said I think he has the right to rehabilitation and I find it hypocritical for him to be potentially denied that.