The Thursday Dilemma - Ched Evans

[Beefy]

It's a very grey area. Convicted of rape but did he actually do it? So many women cry rape and the chance the sleep with a pro footballer then regretting it could easily have happened. It's not as clear cut as the drink driving death by dangerous driving things

Not sure I get this argument either. Assuming for one minute that being convicted of something = doing it, I'd personally far rather the club employ someone who made a stupid, terrible mistake than a rapist.

 

[Beefy]

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables even?

Absolutely.

 

[Swiss Tony]

It's black and white - he was convicted. We have a justice system to decide these things and I doubt any of us sat in the court and listened to the evidence so the fact is he is a convicted rapist, no grey area.

Blimey I agree with you,there's a first,i would not be happy with him at our club.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Absolutely.

Glad it wasn't your young child they took away, tortured then tied to a railway track

 

[mrsblue]

Not sure I get this argument either. Assuming for one minute that being convicted of something = doing it, I'd personally far rather the club employ someone who made a stupid, terrible mistake than a rapist.

If your wife/daughter was his victim would you still say "he served his time"?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

No, I'd be far angrier had I been found guilty of something I hadn't done, as would you and everyone else

Quite, which is why the law is the way it is.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Blimey I agree with you,there's a first,i would not be happy with him at our club.

We have agreed before - similar subject matter iirc

 

[GBJ]

There are so many innocent men and women who end up in jail because 12 men/women listen to some evidence that has been put to them and they decide whether the person is guilty or not. As I said before, if the prosecution lawyer is a stronger character, that makes them the more believable source. At the same time, many people end up in jail who should be there using the same system. It is flawed in many ways as imperfect humans are making a decision that could have a life changing effect on another human being.

What you've said there reminds me of Mike Tyson's trial. His defence team were shocking. Tyson was a lot of things & did a lot of bad things, but it's widely believed in the boxing world that on this particular front, Iron Mike was well and truly stitched up & was certainly hindered by his defence attorneys ineptitude. However, unfortuantely for him, facts are facts & he'll always be known as a convicted rapist.

Just a thought

 

[dingleydangley]

He was convicted and served his time. That means he can go back to work and, if he's got the balls to do so, he can do just that. I imagine he won't lead a quiet life.

This has turned into one of those very dodgy threads, though, hasn't it. As someone said, neanderthal opinions (my words) like some of those stated are what deter women from reporting rapes. The implication that the victim made it up is pretty disgusting. I think I'd be more worried about standing next to someone with those opinions than watching an ex-con in a Southend shirt.

 

[Napster]

Personally I would refuse to sign anyone called Ched.

 

[Napster]

ps I would sign him. He's done his time. He has a skill which we could use. It will blow over, like it did with Lee Hughes and Lee McCormick.

You can't claim we are a family club - we have had all kinds of convicted criminals play for us, or go to jail after us. We would be hypocrites if we turned him down because he served jail time.

 

[Jam_Man]

Absolutely.

So if one of our youth players kidnapped and murdered a 2 year old child you would be happy for them to be playing for us if they got out because they had "paid their dues".

Just wow....

ps I would sign him. He's done his time. He has a skill which we could use. It will blow over, like it did with Lee Hughes and Lee McCormick.

You can't claim we are a family club - we have had all kinds of convicted criminals play for us, or go to jail after us. We would be hypocrites if we turned him down because he served jail time.

Depends on the crime personally.

A tax dodger I could live with. Rapists and killers, no thanks.

 

[Napster]

Depends on the crime personally.

A tax dodger I could live with. Rapists and killers, no thanks.

Why? Surely the more serious crimes are punished more seriously and thus the prisoners have no chance of reintegration into society anyway? Footballers' careers are short - proper sentencing of murderers would mean they would be finished as players.

 

[Jam_Man]

Why? Surely the more serious crimes are punished more seriously and thus the prisoners have no chance of reintegration into society anyway? Footballers' careers are short - proper sentencing of murderers would mean they would be finished as players.

Thats true, but the Bulger killers were released at an age they could have been footballers (as unlikely as that scenario is). Ched was convicted of rape and only going to have served 2 years.

 

[mrsblue]

Why? Surely the more serious crimes are punished more seriously and thus the prisoners have no chance of reintegration into society anyway? Footballers' careers are short - proper sentencing of murderers would mean they would be finished as players.

I cannot think of any pro footballer playing after being convicted of rape,Evans will have a torrid time and I don't think he will be strong enough to ignore the abuse and threats.

 

[Napster]

I cannot think of any pro footballer playing after being convicted of rape,Evans will have a torrid time and I don't think he will be strong enough to ignore the abuse and threats.

Then that's a decision he will have to make. It's not one we can make for him.

 

[Blue_Wes]

If we are going to take away a convicted criminals livliehood upon release, then it defeats the object of re-integrating them into to society, as gainful employment is a vital part of their rehabilitation.

The man is being released as in the eyes of the law he has paid his dues, and we want that man to play a positive part in society going forward. This means working, paying taxes etc. If we take this opportunity away, then we may as well not even bother trying to rehabilitate criminals.

People seem more intent on creating a vengeful society whereby the punishment is the most important aspect of a crime. It's not, first and foremost it's repairing the damage done to the victim (Crawliano's idea of a continued recompense from future employment is a good one). Secondly it's to rehabilitate the offenders, to help them become part of an improving society, working is key to this. Just because an offender's trade is in a well paid job, it doesn't mean we should discriminate the rehabilitive support and treatment they get, because the end product desired is the same.

However, that said, I would encourage the Football League taking a stance, whereby they'll accept ex-offenders back into the fold in efforts to provide gainful employment in their specialist area of trade; but to gain that acceptance they need to actively support groups that help the victims of their particular crime for the duration of their career's, a kind of Football community service. Tony Adam's running/supporting a sobriety programme, McCormick/Hughes drink /drive programme's, Evans, supporting victims of rape (although from afar), Otto, crimes of robbery/duress. Making these figures regularly face up to the victims or consequences of their crimes would be a continued contrustive punishment to level out the priveleged jobs they have, would mean they continue to give back to society, and get to continue gainful employment to rehabilitate them back into society.

 

[Beefy]

Glad it wasn't your young child they took away, tortured then tied to a railway track

So am I.

If your wife/daughter was his victim would you still say "he served his time"?

That works both ways. If it was your husband/son who made a single terrible mistake which millions of people have made in their life without the tragic consequences and which he regrets every day would you still say that he shouldn't be allowed to get on with his life?

So if one of our youth players kidnapped and murdered a 2 year old child you would be happy for them to be playing for us if they got out because they had "paid their dues".

Just wow....

This is a straw man. You're better than that.

I've been clear in my argument. As a point of principle I support the idea that people should be free to positively contribute to society upon their release from prison for all of the reasons outlined by Wes in his great post just now.

Personally the idea of a convicted rapist playing for Southend United would not sit overly well with me and it should go without saying that having a player who murdered a child would sit even less well with me. But unless we're going to lock rapists and child-murderers up for the rest of their life (a different topic entirely) then once they are released then they need to be given the opportunity to continue with their life and having a career is a fairly important part of that.

 

[mrsblue]

If we are going to take away a convicted criminals livliehood upon release, then it defeats the object of re-integrating them into to society, as gainful employment is a vital part of their rehabilitation.

The man is being released as in the eyes of the law he has paid his dues, and we want that man to play a positive part in society going forward. This means working, paying taxes etc. If we take this opportunity away, then we may as well not even bother trying to rehabilitate criminals.

People seem more intent on creating a vengeful society whereby the punishment is the most important aspect of a crime. It's not, first and foremost it's repairing the damage done to the victim (Crawliano's idea of a continued recompense from future employment is a good one). Secondly it's to rehabilitate the offenders, to help them become part of an improving society, working is key to this. Just because an offender's trade is in a well paid job, it doesn't mean we should discriminate the rehabilitive support and treatment they get, because the end product desired is the same.

However, that said, I would encourage the Football League taking a stance, whereby they'll accept ex-offenders back into the fold in efforts to provide gainful employment in their specialist area of trade; but to gain that acceptance they need to actively support groups that help the victims of their particular crime for the duration of their career's, a kind of Football community service. Tony Adam's running/supporting a sobriety programme, McCormick/Hughes drink /drive programme's, Evans, supporting victims of rape (although from afar), Otto, crimes of robbery/duress. Making these figures regularly face up to the victims or consequences of their crimes would be a continued contrustive punishment to level out the priveleged jobs they have, would mean they continue to give back to society, and get to continue gainful employment to rehabilitate them back into society.

In the real world however,

Let us assume John Smith(fictitious )has been released from prison for rape he then has the option to start afresh in another town and if he finds work and remains within the law will no doubt have a peaceful life.

Ched does not have that option simply because his job is not only well paid and in the spotlight he will be regarded by many SU fans to still be their hero yet some of those SU fans may consider boycotting the club in protest at his employment.

Whilst I fully understand felons have to rebuild their life the main question is will the general public allow Evans this luxury?

 

[londonblue]

It's lawyers that win cases, not the truth. Happened so many times. I am not saying he didn't rape her but with a drink drive case It's open and shut. In some rape cases, not so clear. As you all say though, he was convicted so he MUST have done it.

There have been a fair few cases over the years where convictions have been overturned years later due to advances in technology or new evidence. This lad has twice asked for a review. I'd nor be surprised if he pursued this when released.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

:hilarious: