Ched Evans

1. How do you know that? Would the victim in her moment of vulnerability have submitted to having sex with another woman? A 5ft tall man? A midget? A 16 year old boy? We just don't know. But it's right to presume as a starter for ten that the man's physical presence influenced her. If he can produce evidence that that's clearly not the case then fair enough. Ultimately though a jury decides.
2. The law is full of presumptions. In the vast majority of cases they are rebuttable.
3. Then they will be dealt with by the law. If the evidence shows the woman over-powered the man in order to commit a sexual act on him without his consent then she will have to deal with the same law on consent. It's perfectly fair. Given consent is a matter ultimately for a jury to decide on and presuming they get to see both the defendant and complainant it should be easily resolved.

 

I'm surprised the GF is standing so strongly behind the guy who cheated on her.

 

Two things spring to mind following a quick reading of this thread:

1. Ched Evans was convicted of a crime (whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant here). He's served his time. It doesn't really matter whether it was a fine for shop-lifting or a conviction for murder. He's served his time and made redress to the state. Now, because he's rather good at football, particularly at putting the ball in the back of the opposition net, and likely to command a good wedge because of that, all sorts of envious, jealous and mealy-mouthed wonkers (threw in a rogue vowel to confuse the censor there) will come out of the woodwork and claim that all he should be good for anymore is stocking the shelves at Sainsbury's. Because that's all they're good for. W.nkers. Go on Ched. Stick a few goals in. Just not against us anytime soon eh?

2. The complainant in his rape case freely admitted that she'd lost track of what went on that evening, apart from a brief interlude in a kebab shop, because she was pissed. So if she hasn't any recollection what went on, how can she know that she didn't consent? How does she know what went on at all? How does she know that she was 'taken against her will'? Obviously she doesn't. She hasn't got a clue. So, under habeas corpus, there should be no case to answer I believe. And a female judge (I'm hopeless at links so just google it OK?) has said similarly recently.

 

You should check out the CCTV video of her entering the hotel and decide for yourself if she was "struggling to walk" or not.

It's hard to know whether or not there was some evidence presented that we haven't been privy to, but based on what has been released into the public domain I'm very sceptical indeed that this was a case of justice served.

 

No. It suggests she doesn't remember anything.

 

It isn't, what's one sided is societal attitudes that the man must always initiate. A woman would be found guilty of rape if they initiated sex and they were both too drunk to consent. Of course there's a huge anti-male bias in jurors attitudes in situations like this. I don't think the law is one sided, just peoples attitudes.

Depends what you mean by feminists. Most feminists would want a fair legal system that wasn't biased against men. Radical feminists are the crazy internet nutters.

 

That's if you doubt that her not remembering was caused by the drinking. It doesn't seem beyond reasonable doubt that if you're so drunk you can't remember anything, then you are too drunk to consciously consent.

 

On the basis she was so drunk that she cannot remember anything is it fine for somebody to take advantage of the fact she is slaughtered. Ref highlighted quote,I think she will know if she's had sex or not. Should he have a job that is very much in the spotlight where children look up to him? I would say no. I believe to work at Sainsbury's you CRB checked so probably wouldn't get that job either!

 

Could easily be. I've woken up in a strange bed on a Saturday or Sunday morning on occasion down the years. Sometimes I've thought, mmm - I'd like to hang around here for a bit. Other times I've legged it a s.a.p. I've never blamed my situation on another party though or tried to conjure up a series of events I have no recollection of. I've just accepted I was pissed, here I am, who knows how the f..k I ended up here exactly and moved on or stayed for some extras (hopefully). Any others with similar experiences?

 

[yt]rE4eCtDzxx4[/yt]

 

i don't know about everyone else, but i just skim to what uea has to say and then take that as my own opinion. worth a punt for the assistant manager position maybe?

 

Grow up.

 

I've been on a Jury (even acted as the Foreman), and it is incredibly difficult, but people are generally very good at deciding between fact and fiction. Every single situation is gone through in detail, and the judge also helps clarify the law and how it might apply. Whilst a lot of evidence could be interpreted one way or another, eventually one lie will stick out like a sore thumb and be unexplainable.

I am actually doing it again in a couple of weeks at the Old Bailey, so this is pretty good practise!

True consent requires somebody who can comprehend their choice. You would not be able to sign a contract if you were drunk, and children and those with learning disabilities often need guardians to make decisions for them.

 

Have you never been so drunk you've woken up and forgotten how you ended up home? It's possible to be able to walk and still be drunk enough not to be able to consent.

 

There are a number of reasons why there is a gender difference in rape.

Firstly the man can do a lot more physical damage, not in terms of strength but in terms of penetration, which is far more invasive. I have seen the forensic tests they give to those who say they have been raped, and they are horrible.

You need a man to be able to be at least a little aroused for the process to work (in hetrosexual penetrative sex), however the woman does not need to be at all. Whilst I certainly understand what you are saying in terms of domestic violence, I think women undoubtedly suffer far more when it comes this type of abuse.

Women generally share more than men, and therefore male cases are massively underreported.

Following on from this, society does still see men as more able to look after themselves.

The implications of this affects gay men far more than straight men however.

 

You've completely missed the point.

 

The CCTV on his website? I did.

As a juror, I certainly would be far more preoccupied with first hand evidence, where you can hear the girls voice or smell their breath or see their natural movement, rather than on a short clip of CCTV of someone walking into a hotel.

For one, if I was pissed and I was walking into a hotel lobby, I would be trying as hard as I could to act soberly. Still didn’t fool anybody in the lobby though.

 

Who knows? She was too pissed to remember anything coherently. Habeas corpus?

 

Well, the law is one-sided because under s.1 (rape) a man cannot be raped by a woman, even though there is nothing stopping a girl jumping on top of a man during the night when he's fast asleep with a stonker. The attitude in society is that men would never complain about it, they'd never moan if they got sex, regardless of whether there's consent or not (I'm not saying that's the basis of this piece of legislation, however). The truth is that there's a major flaw in this legislation. Rape legislation should protect all victims, irrespective of gender, disability, age, etc. An argument was made earlier that a man's physicality by way of mere presence could be enough to intimidate someone to have sex with him.

Well, let's try another scenario here; how about an 18 year old boy with learning difficulties, he's shy, he's nervous in conversation, suffers from anxiety and any social skills, who is then faced by the daunting prospect of Big Rhonda - a size 26, black woman from the ghetto, whose arse has never stopped growing - demanding that poor little Benjamin, in his nervous and anxious state, somehow, and I'm not sure how exactly, pushes all her tyres to one side and penetrates her.

I'll tell you of another scenario; In Derby, as a young 20/21 year old, me and a mate went into town and we met a girl called Stacy, who then stayed out with us after her friends went home. My mate, Daz, invited her back - not me. The three of us stayed up for an hour or two and we had some drinks. She asked if we'd ever taken 'biscuits', before getting some of her magic pills out. I don't recall ever taking one, and nor did Daz. We carried on drinking and upon finishing our drinks she walked to the toilet which was through the kitchen, she then came back with more beers from our fridge - she had even opened them for us. We drank that drink and maybe even had another. Our next memory was waking up some six hours later in different parts of the house to each other wearing not very much. I was on the sofa and Daz was at the top of the stairs. We knew the ***** had spiked us, our housemates claimed that the girl was still there at 6am yet our last memory was about 2am.

Not really knowing what to think, we just left it at that. But over the years more information was shared. Did she drug us then have sex with us both? Surely not!

Any man will know when they've had sex. There was evidence, let's say. But neither of us consented, not that I can recall anyway, neither of us can remember. Neither of us wanted to have sex with her either (well, not under those circumstances).

I guess that's the difference between us boys and those pesky girls, eh? We kind of laughed it off, but maybe that's because we just didn't know exactly what occurred.

About six months later we saw her out again. She was scrapping, or pretending to fight, with another girl outside a club in Derby, called McClusky's or something. She eventually came over and in front of her boyfriend she said "we had sex didn't we?", when her boyfriend asked who we were. She asked if we remembered it. In turns out actually that my poor mate Daz had sex in the bathroom with her, and he fell asleep whilst sitting on the toilet. She got annoyed so *****ed off.

The point being, this is pretty serious sh*t, right? My mate was effectively raped, and here we are supporting a piece of legislation that states that men cannot be raped, but evidently, they can be.

 

No. I agree entirely that there is a huge issue around women not coming forward to report rape cases, that that will be informed by their expectation that their sexual history will be dragged across the coals by defence counsel if they do, that they really don't want to relive the event in all it's gory detail at the behest of the defence counsel and that rape convictions are diminishingly small as a consequence. But what I can't agree to is that habeas corpus should be ridden roughshod over, particularly when one, or more likely both, parties recollection is clouded by alcohol.

 

Men could do more damage, yes, but there's a lot of emphasis on mental scarring, which would therefore be applicable to any person, regardless of gender.

I refuse to accept your other point. A man can be aroused for a number of reasons - we've all heard of morning glory, right? A woman could be turned on and want sex with a man, despite a man not actually consenting. I do not doubt that women suffer more, but that doesn't mean that the legislation shouldn't be applicable to both genders.

 

Let's not let the theives read this, you're giving them free reign on the Alzheimers patients...

 

Fine. But there's no room for guesswork in a rape trial were the complainant's recollection is so vacant.

 

It can be and it is.

I have not heard a story where a man has cried rape by a woman and people have laughed it off, but it may have happened.

I could not agree more that there are mental issues (I am a Psychologist and see many victims of sexual abuse and violence), but for a case with pretty similar secere mental scarring but greater physical damage, the courts are always going to be more severe on the latter. In the same way that burglary and robbery are punished very differently.

You could get me started on mental health in the prison system, but thats an entirely different debate all together.

 

The jury is 'directed' by tbe judge according to legal precedent.They don't just deliver their verdict informed by their own common sense. Personally, I think it would be better if they did!

 

Looking at the hotel vids of when the girl walked in and then out again to get her pizza I would say at that stage she knew what she was doing .Yes the 2 blokes were *******s but looks like all parties were consensual , Night receptionist even went upstairs and heard sex noises but no screams of get off or forcible rape.

 

The unfortunate reality is that there is a significant percentage of society who flat our reject the possibility that a woman can rape a man. According to some, it has never and will never happen.

There is a massive difference in how society views female on male violence versus the reverse. This social experiment is but one example:

[video=youtube_share;dtVHnZX8E50]http://youtu.be/dtVHnZX8E50[/video]

 

It is possible that if she was too drunk to consent - however is the threshold for being able to make a conscious decision below that of remembering things? It's hard to say for certain that becuase she had memory loss she therefore was too drunk to consent without knowing and assesing her state of mind.

 

Indeed, which is why I wrote suggests rather than proves.

 

I completely agree with you on that.

I was not trying to say that rape to a man by a woman does not ever happen, just that it is much more difficult, due to our anatomies. Women just generally have to worry about sexual violence far more regularly than your average straight man, a fact that we probably take for granted (being able to dress how we want and not be harassed etc.).

Domestic violence/ abuse on the other hand is far more of a regular occurrence for men than I think many realise and this definitely is a problem which we ignore as a society. The problem is exacerbated by poorer social networks and an inability to speak out due to social stigma. I think that a quarter of domestic violence cases last year were of women attacking men, which is a frightening statistic if you consider the proportion of men who do not say anything.

 

There was a study published by Harvard a while back which had some striking findings on that front.

http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm

Interesting read.

 

She doesn't have to know anything. The law, in its infinite wisdom, says that if you're so drunk that you can't remember anything there's an evidential presumption that you are incapable of informed consent. It's a rebuttable presumption so it's open to the defendant to prove otherwise. There will always be academics and practitioners on both sides of a debate so I'm not surprised some people disagree. The Court of Appeal though was content with the conviction of Ched Evans.

You keep saying habeus corpus too. I know what it means but I just can't work out how it applies here really. Are you thinking of something else?

Did I dream the conversation we had on here and by PM only a couple of weeks ago where I proved that the law covers and provides exactly the same punishment for a woman in the situation you described as it does for a man? Yes, it isn't called rape when a man is the victim of a woman. That's it. So other than you getting hung up on the use of a word actually the law offers/offered you the self same protection. The fact society isn't aware of it may be a slight failing on behalf of the authorities and media but you can't knock the law itself for that.

You're right that the judge directs the jury. He tells them what the law is, what points the prosecution need to prove for them to find the defendant guilty, any statutory defences and a general summary of the evidence. I'm sure in this case the law on consent was explained to them in reasonable detail. But the judge would/should have made it clear that decisions on the facts are for the jury alone up until they reach a decision. A judge cannot direct the jury to find anyone guilty.

In a case such as this one it ultimately comes down to how people perform in the witness box.

 

We did talk briefly yes, I felt educated by you. But the two crimes are treated very differently in terms of seriousness. Rape under s.1 holds life and s.4 holds only ten years. Therefore, based on your argument, a man could get life for rape but a woman could only get ten years, under an offence that holds less stigma.