-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Jurgen the German
- Start date
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
The role of the Justice system is to ensure the correct people are found guilty of crimes (by vertue of risk assessment for public protection) - so if a change happens that allowed someone who has been falsely imprisoned to prove they are innocent of a crime for which they have been convicted, then as a decent society this should be made available to them.
As far as the "£50k reward for evidence" goes. Personally I don't think they should be allowed as a mechanism from a individual (only by law enforcement - and even then very rarely) and I'm surprised it wasn't considered as a basis to reject the evidence from those people. I'd be interested to see what the mechanism is for verifying the robustness of those testimonials under such conditions. But as the court didn't consider it a large enough issue then I'm happy to accept it as part of a fair trial.
tommysvr
Vedran Corluka
How on earth does her having sex with two other guys prove him innocent? It's not relevant.
Let's start teaching boys that *struggle cuddle* is wrong, rather than teaching girls how to avoid *struggle cuddle*.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
First point - Are you a judge? Or legal professional? This is why we have a legal system, to prevent trial by media and hysteria.
Second point - both. Again see my large post about people taking responsibility for the situations they put themselves in and the line between a regrettable occurrence and a crime.
And I'm not sure where *struggle cuddle* became "acceptable" (is it considered acceptable by some? I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable to address that). But certainly making everyone ensure its not acceptable is paramount.
But the lines do seem to be becoming very blurred. And I'd dare are even more blurred in an inebriated group sex scenario.
We live in a society that appears to act first and blame later - often trying to divert blame for something they regret onto someone else rather than taking responsibility.
(I'm linking that specifically to this case)
Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
StephenH
David Ginola
We must educate ALL our youngsters better
That wasn't what was found.
The evidence presented was that her language and actions were consistent between other encounters and with Evans. That meant that the sex with Evans was unlikely to have been without consent.
It doesn't make him innocent, but it makes a decision of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt very difficult to return.
Seedy Ron
Jimmy Neighbour
Evidence that wouldn't normally be permissible in court, and is consistent with a version of events he'd already made public, and which he put a load of cash up for.
Personally I'm amazed the Appeal Court allowed it. Talk of "justice" seems a bit much to me, were the boot on the other foot, and the police had hearsay of similar accusations against him that hadn't at the time led to charges, would they have been allowed to bring that up in court? (Genuine question, I imagine the answer is no - I'm pretty sure previous convictions have to be kept secret during a trial - but someone may know better.)
Personally I'm amazed the Appeal Court allowed it. Talk of "justice" seems a bit much to me, were the boot on the other foot, and the police had hearsay of similar accusations against him that hadn't at the time led to charges, would they have been allowed to bring that up in court? (Genuine question, I imagine the answer is no - I'm pretty sure previous convictions have to be kept secret during a trial - but someone may know better.)
Previous convictions and actions under similar circumstances are not the same.
The former is a baseless reason for a jury to assume guilt, the latter frames events and actions that a jury would otherwise have little or no understanding of.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
If, as is being suggested here, the two giving get evidence are making it up for the money then why isn't the women or her defence jumping up and down denying it? Especially as is also being suggested that those were the key incidents in the trial?
tommysvr
Vedran Corluka
I'm not sure what kind of response they gave (or what kind of opportunity to respond), but this information is obviously extremely effective at creating that element of doubt. Just look at the thread for how effective it is. That was all the Evans team had to do.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro
jts1882
Dean Richards
This is the important point. He was found not guilty at the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. He was not found innocent as he claims.
She went back to the hotel room with the other footballer, so it is reasonable that he wasn't charged with *struggle cuddle*, especially as she accused no one. She said she can't remember anything, which certainly raises doubts about whether she consented or not. In the first trial, Evan's own account seems to have been used to convict him. His friend had sex with her, he turned up, took his turn, after noting she was extremely drunk, and then snuck off because he remember he was engaged. The first jury decided she couldn't have given consent if she was that drunk and found him guilty. The retrial jury decided that they couldn't be sure because of her sexual history and found him not guilty.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
So legally he is "not guilty of a crime" - to say that differs from innocence (legally and therefore in line with the UK structure) is semantics and disingenuous.
To answer an earlier point - previous convictions can be considered for sentencing and I believe can be used in trial as evidence of character, behaviour pattern etc
jts1882
Dean Richards
Understanding how our legal system is not semantics or disingenuous. It is essential to understand what legal verdicts mean. What happens in a criminal court does not always determine what happens in a civil court. The best example, from the US system, is OJ Simpson.
The criminal trial determines what happens to the accused. He is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt so doesn't get a prison sentence or fine. But what is reasonable doubt? Is it 95% or 99% or higher? Regardless that means that when there is a determination that someone is likely to be guilty with a 90% probability he is acquitted. It's absurd to equate this with innocence when discussing the case in the public sphere.
Perhaps juries should be asked to make an innocence verdict too. Is the accused innocent beyond reasonable doubt? This is a bad idea as it would make acquittals more equivocal, but would provide the assessment of guilt and innocence at the same standard. In the absence of this determination, any discussion of the merits of the decision has to understand the asymmetry in the verdict.
The criminal trial determines what happens to the accused. He is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt so doesn't get a prison sentence or fine. But what is reasonable doubt? Is it 95% or 99% or higher? Regardless that means that when there is a determination that someone is likely to be guilty with a 90% probability he is acquitted. It's absurd to equate this with innocence when discussing the case in the public sphere.
Perhaps juries should be asked to make an innocence verdict too. Is the accused innocent beyond reasonable doubt? This is a bad idea as it would make acquittals more equivocal, but would provide the assessment of guilt and innocence at the same standard. In the absence of this determination, any discussion of the merits of the decision has to understand the asymmetry in the verdict.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
The problem there with the Evans case is that there is no evidence. He freely admits he had sex with her, she can't remember if she consented.
The case is effectively one of a rather odious man saying one thing and a drunk saying another with no way of knowing who's telling the truth.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
Whatever your views on Evans actions, he's long been regarded 'guilty as charged' in the Kangaroo Court of Public Opinion.
He might have wriggled off the hook legally, but he'll never be regarded with respect by much of the modern society he will move about in. And that will constitute a life sentence in so many ways. He'll never live it down.
He might have wriggled off the hook legally, but he'll never be regarded with respect by much of the modern society he will move about in. And that will constitute a life sentence in so many ways. He'll never live it down.
tommysvr
Vedran Corluka
That's the problem with *struggle cuddle* cases in general. There's rarely a witness to it, and even when there is, they offender might only get 3 months like Brock Turner. This is why reporting of *struggle cuddle* is so low, prosecution is low and conviction is extremely low. Cases like this where he was in fact found guilty, but then overturned because of the victims sexual history...I mean if you were a woman in that position, why on earth would you both trying to take on the system?
The other issue I have is that many people come out and abuse the victim, that it perpetuates this myth that women constantly lie about *struggle cuddle*.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Are you saying it does not happen?
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
I dont think he was acquitted purely on her sexual history, the case was seen to be shaky even in the first trial.
In other forced *struggle cuddle* cases there will usually be physical evidence, in this case and others like it there isn't. Its not sex that's in question, it's the consent.
*struggle cuddle* is a very emotive subject and rightly so, it a heinous crime that conviction of should carry the heaviest of punishments.
But the higher the tariff of punishment the more the burden of evidence has to be correct.
Another point about sexual history, if previous convictions are taken into account for sentencing then is it not fair that previous actions on the other side of the argument are taken into account?
tommysvr
Vedran Corluka
You obviously missed the word 'constantly' and inadvertently kind of proved my point.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro