Would you re-sign Ched Evans?

[Dead_Cat]

@Novelty_Bobble

That makes no sense at all. Lots of people lose their jobs due to criminal activities. They may not be able to continue their professions either and they have to do something else. Not sure why Evans’s
should be surprised if the same applies to him.

A professional footballer is an entertainer. Would we be surprised if Rolf Harris is shunned by all entertainment networks when he is released from Jail. I hear Gary Glitter has had trouble getting back into the entertainment business as well.

I don’t dispute the above, but that’s straying from the original question, which was would I, personally, re-sign him as a footballer? My answer to that is still yes (assuming his footballing ability still makes him an asset to the team, and he is not going to be too much of a commercial liability). And my position is that this should be the same for any member of any profession (well OK, maybe not for the chief executive of a charity supporting women who have been raped, but avoiding such extreme examples). The fact that this person’s profession happens to be relatively high profile should have little to do with it from a legal or moral point of view. As has been pointed out, there may be commercial considerations, but that’s a separate issue. We are mainly discussing the moral issue here.

Now, quite clearly you are correct that he is facing certain barriers to re-entering his profession. My view is that this is caused by idiots who wish to over-rule the British legal system by imposing a greater punishment, and that stance is incorrect in my view.

I happen to know that my boss has recently interviewed someone to join our team who has a recent conviction for GBH and has spent a few weeks in prison for this. It was a drunken assault in a nightclub, I gather. I have no say in whether he is hired or not, but in my opinion, all else being equal I would give him the benefit of the doubt and employ him if he were a good candidate in all other respects. People make mistakes in life. I wouldn’t be afraid to criticise this person in case he hit me, that would be a totally unwarranted stance on my part. Similarly, given the circumstances I don’t think the female staff of Sheffield United F.C. have anything to fear from Ched Evans, though I grant that as a male 200 miles away that’s easy for me to say.

@Mr.Kobayashi

The club has released a statement on the question of guilt, stating “The Club does not question Mr Evans’ conviction for rape. The Club is advised that: The punishment imposed on Mr Evans in connection with his conviction was consistent with applicable law.”

Well, they’re hardly going to go against the court, are they - though no doubt if his conviction is eventually overturned, they will change their view, as will most of us.

@Novelty_Bobble

I’ve purposefully avoided any comment on how secure the conviction is as I think we have to trust the original decision in order to have an opinion on what his employment status should be.
Naturally if he has his conviction overturned I’d have a different view.

I don’t think you can disregard it in this case though, as it is a key point. Offences have degrees of seriousness associated with them. To be clear, I’m not advocating rape or suggesting we forgive all rapists, I wouldn’t even say that some types of rape are worse than others because it is a horrible crime in any event. But in this case, there is considerable doubt that a crime in fact occurred. If someone is deemed too drunk to give consent, they must also have been too drunk to remember if they did in fact give consent.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@AK84

Novelty Bobble, I must disagree. While he is no role model and an all round fuckface, the fact is that if he had been Ched Evans, builder from Cardiff, rather than Ched Evans, Premier League footballer, he would never have been tried, let alone convicted.

He is one of the poster child for why Sexual Offence Act 2003 (and most post 1994 criminal legislation) was so badly thought out. Under the earlier law, his actions would not have been rape.

I understand what you say here but for the purpose of this argument I am choosing to argue from the position that it was rape, he is guilty and the conviction is sound.
Assume I’m arguing about a hypothetical case where all the above are true.

The bigger issue around what does constitute, rape, “degrees” of rape, susceptibility to false accusations etc. isn’t one I want to get into.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Dead_Cat

I don’t dispute the above, but that’s straying from the original question, which was would I, personally, re-sign him as a footballer? My answer to that is still yes (assuming his footballing ability still makes him an asset to the team, and he is not going to be too much of a commercial liability).

I wouldn’t. And that decision would be from both a moral and a commercial standpoint.

And my position is that this should be the same for any member of any profession (well OK, maybe not for the chief executive of a charity supporting women who have been raped, but avoiding such extreme examples). The fact that this person’s profession happens to be relatively high profile should have little to do with it from a legal or moral point of view. As has been pointed out, there may be commercial considerations, but that’s a separate issue. We are mainly discussing the moral issue here.

OK so I put the same question to you as I have asked before. Do you think Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter should be welcomed back into the entertainment industry?

I happen to know that my boss has recently interviewed someone to join our team who has a recent conviction for GBH and has spent a few weeks in prison for this. It was a drunken assault in a nightclub, I gather. I have no say in whether he is hired or not, but in my opinion, all else being equal I would give him the benefit of the doubt and employ him if he were a good candidate in all other respects.

And if that candidate were a convicted rapist who maintained his innocence and expressed no remorse? would you still champion their employment to work alongside you?

To be clear, I’m not advocating rape or suggesting we forgive all rapists, I wouldn’t even say that some types of rape are worse than others because it is a horrible crime in any event. But in this case, there is considerable doubt that a crime in fact occurred. If someone is deemed too drunk to give consent, they must also have been too drunk to remember if they did in fact give consent.

Which ends up being a messy discussion because it is possible that Evans’s version of events is true and if so then this is a terrible situation for him but that wasn’t the area I wanted to stray into, valid issue though it is.
If the question was specifically about employing Ched Evans and taking the supposed shakiness of the conviction into account, then my posts take no account of those nuances.

[Red_Wiggler]

@Novelty_Bobble

Would you criticise Google if they decided to fire him? If he were a very public face of Google prior to the conviction would you think it a good move for them to take him back?

Do you think a criminal conviction should be taken into consideration at all by an employee?

A criminal record does mean that the convicted end up paying for their crime long after their release because their employment chances become more limited.

The latest news on this is that some of the main sponsors for this club have threatened to review their sponsorship deal should he be re-signed. That is the nature of the entertainment/sports industry, you can become a liability very easily.

My question isn’t directed at Google or Sheffield United. My question is directed at Google’s customers and Sheffield United’s supporters. Why is it that so many wish to see high profile individuals punished beyond what the courts dictate? We seem to be really put off if a footballer returns to his profession after serving his sentence but not a carpenter or bricklayer. It’s become such an automatic reaction from the public that I think we’ve stopped thinking about whether it makes sense or not.

Of course this will ultimately come down to United’s supporters and I don’t really have a problem with the power of the consumer (in fact, in a way I support even more the democratization of big time sports). But if we ask a United supporter why they oppose the signing of Ched Evans, what will their honest answer be?

[Acsenray]

Playing for a sports team is not like being a nameless computer programmer or factory worker.

In sports, the people who okay on the field are themselves an integral part of the company’s product. They also represent the team as its public face.

A club doesn’t just take on a person’s particular playing skull but merges its entire identity, reputation, and goodwill with the players who wear its uniform.

A team depends on the admiration and loyalty of its fans and transfers some of that loyalty to the players it signs.

It is absolutely appropriate—more than that, essential—for a club to choose carefully whether an individual player has not only the playing skill but the kind of personal reputation and character that when associated with the club’s reputation and goodwill, does no harm.

So yes any act of moral character that a player is associated with, even if there had been no conviction before the law or even if time has been served, can legitimately influence a decision.

It’s different for individual sports because in that case the player is selling only his or own personal identity, not a club’s.

[Red_Wiggler]

@Acsenray

Playing for a sports team is not like being a nameless computer programmer or factory worker.

In sports, the people who okay on the field are themselves an integral part of the company’s product. They also represent the team as its public face.

A club doesn’t just take on a person’s particular playing skull but merges its entire identity, reputation, and goodwill with the players who wear its uniform.

A team depends on the admiration and loyalty of its fans and transfers some of that loyalty to the players it signs.

It is absolutely appropriate—more than that, essential—for a club to choose carefully whether an individual player has not only the playing skill but the kind of personal reputation and character that when associated with the club’s reputation and goodwill, does no harm.

So yes any act of moral character that a player is associated with, even if there had been no conviction before the law or even if time has been served, can legitimately influence a decision.

It’s different for individual sports because in that case the player is selling only his or own personal identity, not a club’s.

That’s as close as I’ve seen anyone come to explaining it but it’s still unsatisfactory. I don’t think I’m going to be able to relate to rabid sports fans.

[AK84]

@Novelty_Bobble

I understand what you say here but for the purpose of this argument I am choosing to argue from the position that it was rape, he is guilty and the conviction is sound.
Assume I’m arguing about a hypothetical case where all the above are true.

The bigger issue around what does constitute, rape, “degrees” of rape, susceptibility to false accusations etc. isn’t one I want to get into.

With respect, I don’t think you can escape that issue here if you want a detailed discussion. I think you understand.

[QUOTE=Dead Cat]
I wouldn’t even say that some types of rape are worse than others because it is a horrible crime in any event
[/QUOTE]

That is ridiculous and we should absolutely say it. An attack which causes a collapsed lung and one which causes 85% paralysis are both GBH but the later is worse. The theft of 200 quid is theft just like that of 2000, but we have no problem in saying that the later is worse. By treating all rape alike, we are not helping the cause of supporting rape victims.

In this case, we have a person who even as per the prosecution version, only partook in sex. There was no violence, it was not pre planned, he did not compel her to stay, nor get her drunk (and in fact his mate who also had sex with her was acquitted), in fact all he seems to have done is have sex when a reasonable person would have known or suspected that consent was not given. If he had done any of the above things, then yeah, he should not have been released let alone rehired.

[Dead_Cat]

Damn, long post got lost when I was inexplicably logged out halfway through submitting it. I’ll try to reproduce it below.

@Novelty_Bobble

I wouldn’t. And that decision would be from both a moral and a commercial standpoint.

Fair enough - we disagree on this point. But I would be interested in any rebuttal to the following.

OK so I put the same question to you as I have asked before. Do you think Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter should be welcomed back into the entertainment industry?

Firstly, I wouldn’t use the phrase “welcomed back” if Evans is indeed able to resume his career, though I can see why some might choose to characterise it as that given the pay and other benefits given to professional footballers. More importantly, I think those guilty of sexual crimes against children have further to go to demonstrate they have changed, particularly when there are multiple allegations over a long period of time (as in the cases of Harris and Glitter) as opposed to a one-off incident (Evans). Having said that, from the little I read of it, had I been on the jury in the Harris case I don’t think I would have voted for a conviction, it all seemed a bit thin to me. In any case, even assuming their guilt is cast-iron, I don’t think that if Harris or Glitter decided to put on a concert, the appropriate way to deal with that is to ban it, or picket it. The way to protest is to simply ignore it, if you wish, just as Sheffield United FC supporters can refuse to buy tickets if they wish (and indeed this may be the reason they end up not re-signing him).

Anyway, to answer your question directly, I wouldn’t say Harris and Glitter should be “welcomed back” but I wouldn’t ban them from putting on a gig if they wanted to.

And if that candidate were a convicted rapist who maintained his innocence and expressed no remorse? would you still champion their employment to work alongside you?

Well, it would depend on the circumstances, of course. But if their case was identical to Evans’s, then yes I would support their right to work alongside me (not sure I would “champion” them exactly, but I wouldn’t discriminate against them on that basis).

Finally, and I meant to make this argument in my previous post, let’s say Evans is unable to find a club who will employ him. This will result in one of two outcomes - either he will become a burden on society (undesirable), or he will find work abroad, or in another more anonymous profession. In the latter case, how does this help anyone exactly? If he was innocent to begin with (or was in fact guilty but is now a reformed character), then he has been denied his first choice of profession for no good reason. But if he is in fact a nasty piece of work who may in fact reoffend, he can now do so under a relative cloak of anonymity. Surely it’s better he is allowed to remain in the public eye where we can keep an eye on him?

Also, those who seem to believe that football fans might equate Evans playing football with “rape means money and adulation” are talking nonsense. Anyone impressionable enough to believe that has bigger problems.

@AK84

That is ridiculous and we should absolutely say it. An attack which causes a collapsed lung and one which causes 85% paralysis are both GBH but the later is worse. The theft of 200 quid is theft just like that of 2000, but we have no problem in saying that the later is worse. By treating all rape alike, we are not helping the cause of supporting rape victims.

You’re probably right, I was perhaps being over-sensitive, unfortunately this seems to be what some people would like. It’s a fine line - obviously we don’t want to go back to the days when raping your wife “can’t” be rape because you’re married. And no-one wants to gloss over the genuine suffering of victims. But it seems the law should perhaps be more nuanced - I suppose it is in terms of sentencing.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@AK84

With respect, I don’t think you can escape that issue here if you want a detailed discussion. I think you understand…

Fair point, I think I’ve made myself clear on the general principles. I’ve leave it to others to consider the details of the case.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Dead_Cat

Firstly, I wouldn’t use the phrase “welcomed back” if Evans is indeed able to resume his career, though I can see why some might choose to characterise it as that given the pay and other benefits given to professional footballers.

I guess one problem people would have is seeing a rapist applauded, celebrated and rewarded. In a very real sense he would be “welcomed back”, and by a very small subset of fans he will be welcomed back and celebrated because he is a rapist.

More importantly, I think those guilty of sexual crimes against children have further to go to demonstrate they have changed, particularly when there are multiple allegations over a long period of time (as in the cases of Harris and Glitter) as opposed to a one-off incident (Evans). Having said that, from the little I read of it, had I been on the jury in the Harris case I don’t think I would have voted for a conviction, it all seemed a bit thin to me. In any case, even assuming their guilt is cast-iron, I don’t think that if Harris or Glitter decided to put on a concert, the appropriate way to deal with that is to ban it, or picket it. The way to protest is to simply ignore it, if you wish, just as Sheffield United FC supporters can refuse to buy tickets if they wish (and indeed this may be the reason they end up not re-signing him).

in terms of gut reaction to the scope and scale of crimes I’d agree (though again we start to get into the strengths or weaknesses of the individual cases and that gets in the way of establishing a principle)

Anyway, to answer your question directly, I wouldn’t say Harris and Glitter should be “welcomed back” but I wouldn’t ban them from putting on a gig if they wanted to

Well I wouldn’t seek to officially ban Evans from football, nor would I legislate against Harris/Glitter et al putting on a show but nor would I want the BBC to give them another contract and I wouldn’t want Evans playing for my team or alongside me. I’m fine with them finding it hard to get work and at the very least having to bust their nuts to redeem themselves and show contrition and reparations.

[amanset]

@AK84

In this case, we have a person who even as per the prosecution version, only partook in sex. There was no violence, it was not pre planned, he did not compel her to stay, nor get her drunk (and in fact his mate who also had sex with her was acquitted), in fact all he seems to have done is have sex when a reasonable person would have known or suspected that consent was not given.

I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind this. What he did was penetrate a woman without her consent. That’s rape.

[notquitekarpov]

If you genuinely have grounds for believing you are an innocent man wrongly convicted why should you have to show “contrition” let alone “reparations”?

I am not saying Evans does have grounds but if you believe 100% of convicted rapists were guilty then you have more faith in the justice system than I do. That said, there are many more guilty rapists that were found innocent, but that is no justification for unsafe convictions. Rape is unfortunately one of those crimes that is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as one must in a credible system of justice. And even then mistakes get made.

[AK84]

^
Where the fuck did I say that it was not rape? I was talking about the absence of aggravating factors, not about whether it was rape under law which it was.

Edited: Reply to amanset

[Dead_Cat]

@Novelty_Bobble

Well I wouldn’t seek to officially ban Evans from football, nor would I legislate against Harris/Glitter et al putting on a show but nor would I want the BBC to give them another contract and I wouldn’t want Evans playing for my team or alongside me. I’m fine with them finding it hard to get work and at the very least having to bust their nuts to redeem themselves and show contrition and reparations.

The trouble is, it is virtually impossible to show contrition and make reparations if you wish to maintain innocence [which I just mistyped as “innonce”, heh]. It’s not over for him, he may yet be exonerated. That becomes much less likely if he holds his hands up and says sorry. The most he could do is say that he is sorry it happened, but even that would be risky, legally speaking. Which is why the two issues cannot be separated. But accepting the premises from which you are arguing, I don’t think we actually disagree on much.

@amanset

I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind this. What he did was penetrate a woman without her consent. That’s rape.

Agreed, but as AK84 previously pointed out, there are different degrees of rape. Would you not agree that someone who has kidnapped another person, held them against their will, beaten them senseless, and then sexually attacked them causing severe physical injury, has committed a worse offence? As I implied earlier, that’s also rape, but I would expect such an offender to receive a much more lengthy sentence, which is how the law currently deals with such matters.

[Red_Wiggler]

Dead Cat (which is a great handle, BTW) brings up an interesting point about one of the differences between Football World and Futbol World – if the NFL decides to take action against one of its players, that just about closes all doors for him (I think even the CFL and indoor leagues would follow its lead on principle). Ched Evans may not have the protection of a strong union but he does have the luxury of offering his services to 92 pretty independent clubs in his home country alone. Failing that, he has options available to him in about 100 other leagues who disburse paychecks as well.

Sheffield may bow out of the process right now because of supporter and sponsor blowback but my suspicion is that he’ll find gainful employment elsewhere and be back at the appropriate level in FA once memories have softened.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Red_Wiggler

Dead Cat (which is a great handle, BTW) brings up an interesting point about one of the differences between Football World and Futbol World – if the NFL decides to take action against one of its players, that just about closes all doors for him (I think even the CFL and indoor leagues would follow its lead on principle). Ched Evans may not have the protection of a strong union but he does have the luxury of offering his services to 92 pretty independent clubs in his home country alone. Failing that, he has options available to him in about 100 other leagues who disburse paychecks as well.

Sheffield may bow out of the process right now because of supporter and sponsor blowback but my suspicion is that he’ll find gainful employment elsewhere and be back at the appropriate level in FA once memories have softened.

If Sheffield United are pressured into not re-signing Evans then the chances of him finding employment with another FA club are reduced drastically. He still has a chance of finding employment abroad, but those chances are also made a bit harder if Sheffield do not sign him.

[Red_Wiggler]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

If Sheffield United are pressured into not re-signing Evans then the chances of him finding employment with another FA club are reduced drastically. He still has a chance of finding employment abroad, but those chances are also made a bit harder if Sheffield do not sign him.

I’ll disagree only with the degree of your opinion. I think lower English division clubs will take a hard look at someone who could help them win promotion and for tons of foreign clubs this won’t be nearly as much as an issue as the fact that he’s an English footballer… howgoodcanhebeanyway?

[DigitalC]

Sports are entertainment, you are selling a product that goes beyond what goes on in the field. If you filled a team with convicted rapists would that be a sound financial decision even if they were incredible players? I seriously doubt it. You can’t resign Ched Evans because having him on the team lowers the appeal of your product, period.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Red_Wiggler

I’ll disagree only with the degree of your opinion. I think lower English division clubs will take a hard look at someone who could help them win promotion and for tons of foreign clubs this won’t be nearly as much as an issue as the fact that he’s an English footballer… howgoodcanhebeanyway?

Perhaps, but lower league English clubs also rely on sponsorship money. Assuming it is the sponsors who eventually pull the plug on Evans signing for United then the same will likely happen at all other FA clubs. The chances are one club home or abroad will take a chance on him, but the level of club may be well down the food chain; and a country that may be less PC. Im probably reduced to stereotyping here but perhaps the Russian or Turkish league will accept him.

I am a bit pissed at people such as Nick Clegg publicly calling for Evans to move abroad. I dont see what the difference is a rapist plying his football trade in Italy rather than England. Actually, I suppose I can see the difference, but Nick Clegg still pisses me off.

[amanset]

@AK84

^
Where the fuck did I say that it was not rape? I was talking about the absence of aggravating factors, not about whether it was rape under law which it was.

Edited: Reply to amanset

You bent over backwards to call it anything apart from what it was: rape. You sound like an apologist.