17 2 mins 8 yrs

Consider the facts.

A young woman claims she has been raped, and a jury finds her case proven, and the defendant guilty.

The defence argued firstly that the sex was consensual, as both participants were drunk, and then that the alleged victim, as she had no true recollection of the events, had not suffered. The accused still claims innocence, and refuses to apologise, even after he is released from prison after serving half his sentence.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the accused is a very well-known and prominent footballer; he claims that, even though he has always stated his innocence, he has done his time, and should be allowed to go on with his life.

His life seems to still revolve around football, and his club, Sheffield United, are allowing him to train with the club, but have not yet signed a contract.

Because of the Club’s stance in even considering allowing the rapist’s return, high-profile patrons of the club, such as Jessica Ennis-Hill of Olympic fame has asked that, if the rapist returns to the club, her name should be removed from the stand. Others have followed Jessica’s stance.

The Professional Footballers Association of Ireland have defended the club for their forgiving attitude, and further stated  “There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it. This, I hasten to add, does not make it right, or anything close to it, but it is nonetheless a mitigating factor.

So, should Jessica speak up or shut up; and should this fine, upstanding role-model go back to the pitch, and his extremely-large pay-packet, and bye-gones should be bye-gones; or should he be banned from all football, for life, for this crime of violence against an unresisting young woman?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

17 thoughts on “A most ingenious paradox.

  1. It’s an interesting question. A major part of the offence of rape is obviously the trauma suffered by the victim; but if the victim is unconscious and can’t remember a thing, there can’t be much trauma as a result.

    Rape is still a serious offence, of course, as it’s a violation of a person’s body. But I wonder where does the law draw the line. Can you insult someone who’s not aware of what you’re saying, maybe because they’re in a coma or don’t speak the language?
    What about the exhibitionist who displays himself to someone who’s unconscious or asleep, or even dead?

    But whatever about all these sexual abberations, none is nearly as abstruse as the young woman who announced yesterday that she’s going to marry an 80-yr-old certified madman and mass murderer serving a life term in prison – Charles Manson.

  2. for the american audience this should be easy since there are so many of our professional footballers (even though it’s a different sport) that are convicted criminals of crimes as bad and worse than rape.

    He was found guilty, he served his time. If the team looses a sponsor they lose a sponsor. What’s more important to the team the talent of a player or the feelings of a sponsor?

  3. His case has been compared to those of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.


    It’s funny, I don’t recall the British government and police and judicial systems stitching him up…

    That said, whether or not he committed the crime, he has served the time, so surely there is a case here for him to return to work? He lost his right to freedom and his right to earn a wage when he was imprisoned (amongst much else), but should he now, on being freed, still be denied the right to earn? No big sponsor will touch him, in all likelihood, his image as a role model has been forever tarnished, his social standing is in tatters – this conviction will stay on his record for the rest of his life. So why deny him the opportunity to earn a living on top of all that?

    The various patrons of the club have given their reasons for leaving. Some were for personal reasons, but others – Paul Heaton and Dave Berry – seemed to use the opportunity to make some vague point. Heaton said the club’s reputation was in the gutter – which it isn’t. And Berry said he was making a moral stand. Well good for you, Dave. Perhaps another moral stand would have been to accept the decision of the club which invited you to be a patron, and try and use whatever influence you have in ensuring that Ched Evans gets all the support and supervision he needs to re-integrate back into society.

  4. if the victim is unconscious and can’t remember a thing, there can’t be much trauma as a result.

    You can’t possibly be serious.

  5. I am not familiar with the story, but he was apparently convicted. I don’t quite get those who seem to be arguing for mitigation because the victim was not beaten. He is a convicted rapist and those who do not wish to be associated with a team that decides to use him are not only within their rights, but choosing a course of action I would choose myself.

  6. Concur.

    I don’t buy the ” winning is the only thing ” principle as respects sports or anything else.

    The Philadelphia Eagles and their fans ( and the Jets, and their fans now ) deserve to be condemned for welcoming dog torturer Michael Vick back after he got out of jail.

    Same deal with Ray Rice ( the Baltimore Ravens NFL player who punched out his wife in an elevator, a crime that came to light because of the security cameras ). He is currently under suspension, but if he ever is welcomed back, those who welcome him back are the scum of the earth.

    The NFL has a particular problem, as a large percentage of their players appear to be borderline criminals, a fact that team owners and league management have never had a problem with.

  7. all right you’re convicted of a crime, you go to jail and serve your time.

    You two are saying that the person once convicted even after serving their time should then be punished for the rest of their lives.

    OK to what extent? I agree a sexual predator should be in a public data base, are you saying using the Vick example that the person should never be allowed to earn a living again?

    Besides the incarceration, the stigmatization for life what else do take away? His right to earn a living, his right to vote, his right to own property?

  8. I don’t say that Vick should never work again. I don’t say that at all. They probably should be allowed to work in the NFL.

    I do say that I would never cheer for someone like Vick, or Ray Rice, or welcome them as respected human beings, no matter what they do on the field, no matter how many completely false apologies that they give. These guys are only sorry that they got caught.

    The commissioner of the NFL is only sorry that it got out.

    The league is dirtier than the players in it.

    So yes, let them play. They are the true face of the NFL.

  9. They are the true face of the NFL. I agree, but once a person serves their time their debt is supposed to be paid.

    I would never shake their hand nor invite them to my house, but those are personal choices.

  10. Ethics 101 .
    If the woman was drunk or unconscious she is incapable of giving consent to have sex ;
    a men having sex without the woman’s consent is committing rape . End of story /

  11. I find the irony of the whole situation to be most amusing.
    A lot of the backlash seems to be based around his unwillingness to apologise or make recompense for his actions? He claims he is innocent, which under the law, he has the right to maintain innocence.

    The irony being that a former professional footballer makes all the headlines yet in my part of the United Kingdom it seems perfectly acceptable for unrepentant bombers and terrorists to hold the highest positions in Government?

    But, hey maybe the same people who seem so against Mr Evans returning to civilisation should be encouraged to ‘move on’ and forget the past? That’s the done thing, right?

  12. The footballer who was found guilty of rape was also drunk. As all here can confirm, once some alcohol has been imbibed, women who are unattractive to a sober man become more attractive as alcohol levels increase. I would suggest that had the ‘rapist’ been sober, he would not have considered the ‘victim’ for sex, though I haven’t seen the victim to confirm.

    Anyway, he’s done his time and that’s it.

  13. “The problem is compounded by the fact that the accused is a very well-known and prominent footballer”

    I’d never heard of him. He plays for Sheff Utd for God’s sake.

    A rapist is a rapist. He might not be violent but he is a predator.

    The comparison with the Guildford 4 is utterly ridiculous. Not the first bit of stupid hyperbole I’ve heard this week. An Anti-Water charges TD here compared a the protest against paying for water here to the civil rights movement in the US.

  14. An Anti-Water charges TD here compared a the protest against paying for water here to the civil rights movement in the US.

    That may be the dumbest statement of the new century.

    Put it in the books.

Comments are closed.