He got what the judge decided to give him in the range of sentences he had at his disposal not every body gets the maximum or minimum .sentences vary .rspe can command a life sentence
Which basically means theirs different severity's in offences which is exactly what I've been saying is it not
IMO its the inconsistencies of our judicial system and judges who are not consistent in their own standards.
Thought Paul Heaton spoke well regarding United and Evans situation. And i have to agree with him. He said he believed in reform and was not against evans return to football. But did not feel Evans should be rewarded by the club he let down so badly and given his old job back fresh out of prison. Fair comment, and i guess less would be made of this whole issue if Evans went to play for Blackpool, Rochdale, or more so abroad... He was sacked right? So if your employer had sacked colleague because they had been convicted of a crime and wanted to end association with that person. Morally is it then right for that employer to then, change its stance once they are released and offer them their old job?
Correct. Of course there are different categories of rape for sentencing purposes, something the 'rape groups' conveniently ignore when lambasting whoever has the guts to point that out. Sorry can't post the link but just google sentencing council definitive guidelines sexual offences and you will there find the various categories and sentencing ranges, between 4 and 19 years, albeit rape does carry life. You can see that the Evans sentence fell at the very bottom of the range, even after trial with no discount for a guilty plea. It's all based on degrees of harm and culpability, mitigating and aggravating factors, all clearly set out. It seems some people, the professionally offended, those with their own agendas and thiose desperate to establish their uber PC credentials, would rather ignore the reality of the position and peddle misleading twaddle that has no basis in fact.
I was wondering if jimmy Saville had got caught a bit quicker if the 'he's served his time brigade' would have been happy for him to walk straight back into his job at Jim'll Fix It...
I've never heard anyone argue the point well, but I believe there are differing levels of severity when it comes to rape, just like there are differing levels of severity in every other crime. Where it gets confused is that people take the worst rape case they can think of and argue things get better from that low point. I view it the other way around. I think what Ched Evans did is absolutely vile and things get worse from that hideously low point. Not a point of view that will gain me any respect or win me any friends, but we rank everything else from music and films to murder and paedophilia. I watched Happy Valley earlier this year with Sarah Lancashire. If Ched Evans raped me in the manner he did in that hotel room I would consider it horrendous. If I was raped liked the girl who was abducted in Happy Valley I would consider that worse. That doesn't mean I agree with any of the guff in that article in The Sheffield Telegraph, I'm not playing down what Evans did, I just think things can be even worse, even when we're talking about rape. Nothing is OK, nothing is better, but things can be worse.
Nice try. Misrepresentation was the very reason I used inverted commas in the first place. In my view if you are going to hold yourself out as an expert in a particular field then you owe a duty to those you claim to speak for to present an informed, accurate picture of your professed area of expertise. Those who claim to speak on behalf of rape victims and ignore the freely available sentencing guidelines and criticise those who point out the reality of categorisation do not meet that standard and do a positive disservice to the victims of rape. I know that because I have on many occasions had to explain the reality of the sentencing regime to victims whose expectations had been erroneously inflated. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of an opportunity for cheap insinuation of a hidden agenda.
By arguing the point people are going to accuse me of all sorts and align me with a whole host of misogynist wnakers. Not that it'll help, but for the record I find the two articles posted in this thread appalling. Ched Evans is guilty of rape, for a lawyer (or anyone else for that matter) to still refer to his crime as alleged is outrageous. I am right behind all the Sheffield United Community Foundation Patrons who have resigned from their positions. I support Jess Ennis in her move to take down her name from the Sheff Utd stand should Ched Evans sign. I have been vocal on this board about how I believe Ched Evans should not be allowed to play professional football again, stating that a his chosen profession should be in the same category as a nurse, a doctor, a teacher a policeman or a social worker, none of which would allow him to return. Not only is a professional footballer a role model to many young members of our society, but professional footballers work alongside children and I don't know any other trade or profession that would allow a convicted sex offender who would fail a CRB check to do that. In short, I think what Evans did was disgusting. However, I also believe there is a range of severity in rape like there is with every other crime. I don't intend to go in to detail with that as I don't believe discussing the graphic nature of sexual abuse will do any of us any good. I wouldn't describe what Evans did as being at the bottom end of rape cases, I wouldn't say it's not as bad as other cases, I'd describe what he did as depraved, but concede things can get worse from there. As far as murder is concerned, a number of high profile cases have been debated on this BBS and many of us have concluded that some cases are worse than others. When Marine A was convicted of murder a lot of us were of the opinion that what he did was wrong, but found it difficult to view what he did as murder, even though we recognised that according law that's what it was. Compare and contrast what he did, under the pressure of battle, to a man who had been trying to kill him minutes earlier, to what Ian Huntley did, for example. Are all the following murder cases of the same severity or do we view some as worse than others? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cker-leaving-severed-head-village-square.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murders
Even after reading your explanation, which highlights a serious issue, I still find your use of inverted commas inappropriate. I'm not offended by them, as you suggested, I just think they undermine the role of rape support groups who, even if they don't get everything right all the time, provide a valuable service that many people rely on and should be considered a good thing, not institutions to pour scorn over.
Good post Jay, but it's really sad that you've had spend more time wording the post so as not to be accused of siding with a rapist and disrespecting women, then you have pointing out exactly what you mean although you got the point I was trying to get over perfectly.but it should go without saying that you find the crime of rape diabolical without having to point it out in your post. Some of the people on here just love to try and twist people's points of view and make them out to be the worst person to walk the planet ever.
My commas were aimed at those who misrepresent reality and not a broad swipe at everyone involved with rape victims and I am more than happy to clarify/qualify to that extent. The guidelines point is a particular bug bear because anyone involved in this area has a duty to provide clear advice and manage expectations of sentence. Don't have a problem with people criticising the guidelines or the rationale behind the categorisation but to simply ignore them and pretend that all rape offences are the same and will attract the same sentence is unforgivable for anyone concerned with victim care.
I think this all getting very confused now, opinions are getting misunderstood because some people are thinking along different lines ie levels of guilt and others on the outcome re the blunts in that he's guilty and shouldn't be allowed to play for them again. Beggars belief how anybody thinks they need to add alleged though he's been found guilty in court by a judge and jury in possession of the facts and had a right to appeal turned down so unless something changes in the future at the moment he's guilty ..end of