Favour please re Ched Evans(25 Posts)
Has anyone saved or bookmarked links to any good articles arguing against Ched Evans being employed again in football?
I am having trouble formulating my views (very much against him being 'given a second chance') and would like inspiration from those who are more articulate and well informed.
Actually if you don't feel that he should be allowed to play football again in this country that is good enough in and of itself. Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it. Although I for one would be greatly saddened if we in this country collectively felt that committing sexual violence against women was insufficient reason to bar someone from any position in the public eye, especially one that entails being a role model to our nations youth.
This whole debate is an emotional one, despite many trying to pretend to be objective and logical about it. Do we care more about the perpetrators of rape or the victims of it? I know which camp I am in.
This one was really interesting. It's a general piece on 'what should happen to convicted rapists when they leave prison' but obviously triggered by this case.
There have been a few lately talking about why the 'ruined lives' of people like him and Oscar Pistorius are more important than their victims'
I don't need to formulate my thoughts on this one.
I worked in forensic MH for a few years with many men convicted of sexual offences. I absolutely believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and also feel that like it or not, sexual offenders are part of our society. Social exclusion is not workable option and future employment should be available (it often decreases potential future risk in itself).
BUT a position as a professional footballer is an extremely privileged one. The earning potential, adoration of fans and perhaps being treated as a role - model makes it completely different to most other jobs.
I think you forfeit the right to be a priveliged member of society if you harm someone else or act in a way which may result in harm.
I think rehabilitation isn't the same as taking up where you left off.
Nobody out there is arguing that Ched Evans shouldn't work again.
They're just arguing that he shouldn't have a job that gives him the position of a role model to the next generation of men.
Most people wouldn't argue that he should be allowed to go back to teaching, or being a doctor or some other profession where he had access to vulnerable people or was unsuitable for some other reason. There are lots of professions where if you have a criminal conviction, depending on the nature of the crime, you are not considered a suitable candidate for a job. In a way, those arguing for him to be allowed to be a footballer, are arguing for football to be an exception from the rule.
I personally suspect that there are enough unconvicted rapists in men's sport, without having convicted, unrepentant ones.
The problem is you can't rehabilitate someone who genuinely believes they've done nothing wrong. The only person he's apologised to is his girlfriend for his ' infidelity'. What about the poor victim who has had to move and change her identity on more than one occasion. Her life has been ruined but he's never apologised to her. If he had admitted genuine remorse then maybe things would be different.
Absolutely agree that rehabilitation is not possible if someone does not acknowledge/understand their offending or the thought processes that led to their offending.
The 'odds' of successful rehabilitation are usually very much related to the individuals insight around their offending. Denial of even committing the offence is always considered a bad sign and always included in pre sentencing reports and probation involvement.
It raises the question, which jobs can convicted rapists have and which can they not have?
Doctors, teachers, social workers, police officers... these are obvious examples. Obvious because access to vulnerable people is part of the job.
But professional footballer? All that necessarily entails is playing football.
I'm aware that many footballers spend time on local community projects or fan meet & greets at the behest of the club or sponsors... but it's conceivable to imagine someone playing professional football whilst not being required to do those things. So the argument of 'as a footballer he'll be around vulnerable people' can be mitigated IMO.
The other objections are a little absurd and knee-jerk for me. Commenting on the high salary of a footballer, for example. Are we to set a salary limit for convicts? Should they also be excluded from being bankers, or running a successful business? It's just not workable.
The argument regarding footballers being role models and therefore he should not play, seems off to me too. It's not a necessary component of being a footballer, and in fact is imposed on a player by those who hold them are role models. It seems strange to me that society promotes footballers as role models anyway when my general impression of them is that they are unfaithful, womanising, entitled morons who earn silly amounts of money for shepherding a piece of leather into an outdoor cupboard.
Anyways, rapists have to work somewhere. I don't want them sponging off the state for the rest of their lives. Also, it's a principle of our justice system that once you've done your time, you're free to go and get on with your life. The principles of our justice system are more important than emotions surrounding a highly publicised case.
regardless of whether you believe they should be role models the fact is they are held up as role models for the young. The kids watching will play the game and imagine themselves as there favourite footballing hero and as a striker its even more likely for this to happen.
and as youve shown in your own post professional football does not just include playing football, amateur or semi-professional maybe but not professional.
Ched Evans believes he has done nothing wrong and letting him carry on with his career with absolutely no negative consequences would surely reinforce that idea in his mind (and in the minds of men similar to him). And he is therefore more likely to commit the crime again. Because he doesn't think what he did was a crime. And I think that some men would look at the situation and conclude that general society (including football clubs and their fans) does not think what he did was a crime and therefore why should they? I think the role model issue is a red herring really.
I keep hearing people (yes that's YOU Rod Liddle on Question Time) say that for e.g a plumber could go back to their job after serving time for rape. Really? Are British Gas going to employ him as a heating engineer knowing that he could be going into houses where women are alone? If he has his own business is anyone locally really likely to employ him if again women or girls are likely to be alone with him? I think (rightly) that a lot of convicted rapists would find it difficult to go back to their old jobs unless they moved to an area where they were unknown. Is either Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter ever likely to be employed by any TV company again?
I wish that all journalists etc (including sports ones) would prefix his name with 'The convicted rapist Ched Evans.......' in articles until he shows some remorse. Then he and his supporters might actually get the message that he has done something wrong. Not likely to happen though.
If Ched Evans had raped someone before he became a known footballer, then was signed to a club, would people feel justified in trying to get him kicked out?
Football doesn't require an enhanced DBS and it isn't on the barred list for sexual offenders.
Thanks for all your replies. Food for thought.
Having this convo with DH recently. He is quite passionately anti Ched Evans being reinstated at the club (or as a professional football player full stop).
He was arguing his point with some friends, and said some interesting things.
If Ched Evans had raped a MAN...would the club and the fans and the rape apologists be quite so happy to have him back?
If he had carried out some other violent, loaded crime - say, a racially motivated attack - would the authorities be so willing to give him a second chance?
The argument that being a role model isn't an essential part of being a footballer, is an ivory tower academic one. (Apologies to the academics, YKWIM)
It doesn't matter whether they should be or not, they are.
The people to whom they are role models are in the main other young men (who are likely to be going down to Sheffield City Centre and getting bladdered on a Saturday night and whose values and attitudes and therefore behaviour will be affected by their cultural influences including their role models) and the next generation of men who will be growing up to either be potential rapists or to find it unthinkable to rape, depending on their cultural influences including their role models.
Loftily declaring that all this doesn't matter because in theory blah blah blah while ignoring practice, is a luxury women who want to go out, have fun and get drunk, don't have. And those women are a massive percentage of the population. Most of us in the western world, have been in the position of Ched Evans' victim - drunk, incapable, silly with booze. That doesn't make us slags or slappers or sluts or any of the other othering, hate-speak words which men who want to justify our rape, throw at us, it makes us normal women growing up in a culture where getting bladdered is pretty damned normal. We can say that's not desirable, but that's beside the point: it is, we have to deal with it. We can't use theoretical arguments because they don't acknowledge the reality that the threat of rape for women is ever-present and the re-signing of that unrepentant rapist, would make town centres on a Saturday night slightly less safe for women.
What I mean is, actions have real life consequences, irrespective of theoretical positions.
When Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech, he was a cold-blooded logic who was simply trying to raise an issue he was obsessive about and believed ought to be aired. Had no interest in the reality of the impact his speech would have because he was all about the speech, the idea, the theory. In theory, it was all right that he said what he said in the way he said it at the time he did, because it was about the role of the state in culture, the future of the country, immigration etc. In practice, it was a gift to racists and it sparked the most horrific racist abuse of immigrants and their children. That's what I mean about things not happening in some theoretical way - they happen here, now, on the ground and if you do something like make a speech which invites racists to go mad or men to think rape's OK, then that has direct horrific consequences for the groups that are being targeted. Fuck ivory tower positions. This is our lives
I think that, having served his time, the principle should be that is able to return to his job.
What I find unbelievable is that so many people are comfortable to declare that they want him back. I want the club and fans and sponsors and patrons to say, "He's unrepentant, we don't want to be associated with an unrepentant rapist. That's not what we aspire to be".
If Evans had raped a child, or even a man, we quite simply wouldn't be having this discussion. There would be no question of him returning to football. It is only because our society seems to have a problem with the fact that women are fully human, that they have as much right to bodily autonomy as any man, and that if they are raped it is a big fucking deal, that we are having this conversation at all.
Slightly different there, surely. Gang rape and a minor. I'm not trying to be awkward.
Food for thought, thank you, as I've been struggling with this as well. I know a few people who are saying 'done the time' should be allowed job back/freedom to work blah blah.
In addition to the above points, I also think this is a good one:
Would they feel differently if he had committed one of those rare random stereotype rapes - hiding somewhere dark, grabbing a sober passing woman, dragging her into an alley, and raped her? If yes, their real reason for supporting CE is victim blaming. And talk to them about that.
I won't repeat my previous post as I made my opinions clear on my views of rehabilitation given my experience of working with convicted sex offenders.
Effective and genuine rehabilitation isn't all about reducing the chance of a further offence and reintegrating back into society. It HAS to involve a degree of atonement (and I believe the European Court of human rights agrees or at least did when I was working with sex offenders).
Atonement is about acknowledging your offending, the drivers for it, understanding what harm you causes and showing remorse.
Ched Evans still does not think he did anything wrong and he and his supporters have launched a campaign to discredit his victim and try to garner sympathy from the public. He has been punished for his crime by the criminal justice system but he has in no way atoned for it.
IF he had come out of prison with profuse apologies to his victim and for his crime then I would possibly have a different view of him and his future.
Join the discussion
Please login first.