Ched Evans verdict

What the fuck are you going on about User?

Petition up to 11700 signatures.

What a load of bollocks user

That's right, user. Your above statement is crap.

Has anyone seen Netflix's Audrie & Daisy?

Because he's a footballer and women can't resist them

Would it be a massive change that society men would not be impressed with if the law were changed to "beyond reasonable doubt" for a custodial sentence, but "odds of probability" for being found guilty of the crime.

Eg. I know juries are less likely to convict at all for longer sentences, if more of the sentencing power were passed to the jury (again, I don't really know how this works in practice), perhaps they'd be happy to say yes guilty of rape, but due to "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria for custodial, they cannot imprison.

Does that make sense? I'm typing on my phone at th edentist

The campaign to eradicate drunk driving was laughed at when it started. It's not that long ago that driving home pissed was fairly unquestioned by the people you were with. Now people are horrified.

The law should lead on changing attitudes with rape too

Yes. I never see people suggesting we stop walking in the street in case we get knocked down by a dangerous/careless driver. "Well, perhaps he/she shouldn't have been walking there, then they wouldn't have been hit" just sounds ridiculous. The blame is entirely on the careless driver, and rightly so.

Just posted this on another thread, but actually drinking has a bigger association with men committing rape (74% of men had been drinking) than women being victims (55% of women had been drinking).
Yet we don't advise curtailing mens activity in case they rape someone.

Queen I don't see why not.

Fighting whilst drunk is still a crime, even though we have a drinking culture and fights are often a regular feature of a night out.

Batteries, I don't think that's viable in a drinking culture of ours. But there has always been a social code that men should not "take advantage" of a drunk woman and there has always been men who have abused it. I have known people drink copious amounts and still drive home in a straight line. I have also known women get drunk and be raped but didn't report, and I understand why.

queen so you think her saying yeah when his mate asked if he could join in is an acceptable bar to Evans for getting consent?
I suppose I'm saying the onus should be on the person accused of rape to be able to illustrate what he did to ascertain consent.
To me it's a ridiculously low bar that we think a man can believe he had consent from someone he never spoke to, and that society accepts that there is no onus on that man to make sure.
It means the victim has to prove she definitely didn't want sex which is all sorts of wrong, especially where drink/drugs are involved.
Can't think of any other crime where the complainant has to prove they didn't want it to happen.

How about we say drunk consent is not consent in the eyes of the law. Anybody who has sex with a drunk person is taking that risk. The threshold for 'drunk' could be twice the drink drive limit maybe.

So one shot of Sambuca lowers inhibitions = fine

Half the bottle = raped

Something like that.

Fela rapists shout consent all the time. In the most ridiculous situations. To be honest I'm not entirely sure she didn't consent. That's not based on her ex lovers testimony which I find highly suspect. But because people can make odd choices when drunk. The problem was her lack of memory which gave the defence a huge advantage. Her evidence never changed, but Evans did. Lawyers and judges see this as a huge sign when it comes to honesty and who is the more credible.

I think lie detector tests should be an option when it comes down to he said/she said. Although I don't think a case can rest simply on that. I look forward to the day these tests are perfected and admissible in court. Watch convictions soar when that happens.

I agree it's ridiculous.

I think they need to strengthen up the definition of consent. It's not good enough someone can argue they had consent from a woman they never even spoke to

I know that bear, I was referring to people online who seem to be 100% adamant that she was consenting despite there being no solid proof of this whilst forgetting that not guilty doesn't = innocent.

But I do agree with your post on the whole. Something does need to change especially when it comes to rape cases.

I genuinely have no idea how anyone can say 100% that she was consenting unless they are looking at the case in a very biased light.

But that's not the test, Delete. A jury needs to be 100% sure that she is not consenting for a guilty verdict.

I wonder if that is something that needs to change. Does anyone think that the burden of proof around rape and sexual assault needs to change? One possible configuration would be:

(i) It needs to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that sex has occurred;

(ii) but once that has been established, it need only be shown on the balance of probabilities that the sex was not consensual

This would ensure that fucking terrible sleazebags like CE and his mate would be on the wrong side of the argument every time. It would also persuade the sort of men inclined towards this kind of behaviour to think twice.

I'm reluctant to suggest anything that could be seen as diverging from 'innocent til proven guilty' but given the extreme difficulties with making a rape conviction stick, I think something drastic needs to change

Just been over to NM to see the consensus over there. Most seem to believe her but there are one or two complete idiots who are very vocal about how convinced they are 'based on the evidence' that she consented.

I genuinely have no idea how anyone can say 100% that she was consenting unless they are looking at the case in a very biased light.

It's the grimmest kind of tag team.

For some reason I hadnt realised until these recent posters said it that the girl was not facing them when this happened. I knew CE referred to her "getting herself into different positions" but I assumed she at least started out facing them and would have seen his face. (If conscious enough to) but it sounds like people are saying she wasn't facing them at all? That just seems to add a whole new depth to this if it's the case. I said it before but I can't stop saying it, this whole case stinks! Some serious money changed hands to secure that verdict last week. This case will haunt the British justice system in years to come. It has left a dark stain that will be our* shame when future generations learn about it. The things that appall us now about historical abuses? That's how they'll talk about this case in 30 years.

*our in this context means this generation. I don't mean us here and those others who agree it is a vile mess of a case.