Ched Evans rape case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(20-10-2014 04:44 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  Pretty sure that sounds like it could be described as a "standard" rape case, or do you think rape only happens with severe violence?

I do not think that. I think it is very rare for two people to be tried for raping a woman, both to admit to having sex with her, then one to be found guilty and the other acquitted.

Would you disagree with that assertion?

(20-10-2014 04:48 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  Is it just me or did Judy Finnegan seemed pretty casual about rape until one of her family was threatened? Perhaps if the people threatening her daughter had said that the rape would be non-violent and that they'd wait until she was drunk, then there wouldn't have been any complaints from her.

I don't think she said rape is OK if it is "non-violent".

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
Should he be allowed into football? Absolutely not. If an individual was convicted of rape, their entire career is typically destroyed -- with good reason. Why would any company or employer seek to hire a convicted rapist? Regardless of whether or not the rape was violent, it was still the sexual violation of a non-consenting individual. As for the comment about rape, it is absurd. Of course it is offensive, people have taken offense. Are the individuals threatening to rape her in the wrong? A resounding yes, because rape is an evil that should never be committed for any reason.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
20-10-2014, 10:23 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(20-10-2014 10:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Should he be allowed into football? Absolutely not. If an individual was convicted of rape, their entire career is typically destroyed -- with good reason. Why would any company or employer seek to hire a convicted rapist? Regardless of whether or not the rape was violent, it was still the sexual violation of a non-consenting individual. As for the comment about rape, it is absurd. Of course it is offensive, people have taken offense. Are the individuals threatening to rape her in the wrong? A resounding yes, because rape is an evil that should never be committed for any reason.

If someone is not allowed to resume their profession are they then beyond redemption?


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(20-10-2014 07:52 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 04:44 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  Pretty sure that sounds like it could be described as a "standard" rape case, or do you think rape only happens with severe violence?

I do not think that. I think it is very rare for two people to be tried for raping a woman, both to admit to having sex with her, then one to be found guilty and the other acquitted.

Would you disagree with that assertion?

I don't know the particulars of this case, but for more people to be charged than convicted is in fact incredibly common.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-10-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(20-10-2014 10:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Should he be allowed into football? Absolutely not. If an individual was convicted of rape, their entire career is typically destroyed -- with good reason. Why would any company or employer seek to hire a convicted rapist? Regardless of whether or not the rape was violent, it was still the sexual violation of a non-consenting individual. As for the comment about rape, it is absurd. Of course it is offensive, people have taken offense. Are the individuals threatening to rape her in the wrong? A resounding yes, because rape is an evil that should never be committed for any reason.

The thing that bothers me about this is, would we say the same thing if he were a plumber? What about cashier, or a fry cook? I don't understand why the personal affairs of athletes are any of my business. I watch sport (note: I don't watch sports) to see people run really fast, jump really high, throw balls and kick things or whatever. How they behave outside of the game concerns their acquaintances and the law and has not at all to do with me. From a legal-philosophical position, I feel that one of the purposes of a punitive punishment is to absolve the person of previous crimes. "Grudges" in a legal system are very dangerous, unhealthy, and quite unproductive.

Now I get that sponsors of a team or a league probably don't want their brand associated with a known convicted criminal, so in that sense I think he will have a very difficult time getting back into the sport either way. I don't believe that society has a right to tell him he can't play though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 10:19 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2014 01:33 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(21-10-2014 08:50 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The thing that bothers me about this is, would we say the same thing if he were a plumber? What about cashier, or a fry cook? I don't understand why the personal affairs of athletes are any of my business. I watch sport (note: I don't watch sports) to see people run really fast, jump really high, throw balls and kick things or whatever. How they behave outside of the game concerns their acquaintances and the law and has not at all to do with me. From a legal-philosophical position, I feel that one of the purposes of a punitive punishment is to absolve the person of previous crimes. "Grudges" in a legal system are very dangerous, unhealthy, and quite unproductive.

Now I get that sponsors of a team or a league probably don't want their brand associated with a known convicted criminal, so in that sense I think he will have a very difficult time getting back into the sport either way. I don't believe that society has a right to tell him he can't play though.

Before I continue, your listed jobs are not usually viewed as a "reward". As a matter of fact, society typically ignores or degrades their positions, no matter how invalid that is.

As for whether or not we should care? Think of how exceedingly difficult it is for a woman who is a rape victim. Businesses are already reluctant to hire anybody who reports sexual harassment or assault -- it is a liability to the establishment's credibility if anything like that is made public. So why should Evans be rewarded for what he did when he just made the victim's life much, much harder? And why shouldn't society have a right to say that he cannot have that job? Society has the right to dictate a vast array of things because we are social animals. From the "value" of a plumber and an athlete, to your right to vote because of a criminal record, or to whether Evans should have gone to prison. I think it is absolutely the right of society to provide the pressure either which way. Not getting the job would be a direct consequence of his crime -- if he didn't want that to happen, maybe he shouldn't have committed social suicide and raped an individual. It's not like you can make him a victim, he did all of this to himself. The negative publicity alone will remain with him for the rest of his life, and we have no one to blame but him.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
21-10-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(21-10-2014 10:19 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 08:50 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The thing that bothers me about this is, would we say the same thing if he were a plumber? What about cashier, or a fry cook? I don't understand why the personal affairs of athletes are any of my business. I watch sport (note: I don't watch sports) to see people run really fast, jump really high, throw balls and kick things or whatever. How they behave outside of the game concerns their acquaintances and the law and has not at all to do with me. From a legal-philosophical position, I feel that one of the purposes of a punitive punishment is to absolve the person of previous crimes. "Grudges" in a legal system are very dangerous, unhealthy, and quite unproductive.

Now I get that sponsors of a team or a league probably don't want their brand associated with a known convicted criminal, so in that sense I think he will have a very difficult time getting back into the sport either way. I don't believe that society has a right to tell him he can't play though.

Before I continue, your listed jobs are not usually viewed as a "reward". As a matter of fact, society typically ignores or degrades their positions, no matter how invalid that is.

As for whether or not we should care? Think of how exceedingly difficult it is for a woman who is a rape victim. Businesses are already reluctant to hire anybody who reports sexual harassment or assault -- it is a liability to the establishment's credibility if anything like that is made public. So why should Evans be rewarded for what he did when he just made the victim's life much, much harder? And why shouldn't society have a right to say that he cannot have that job? Society has the right to dictate a vast array of things because we are social animals. From the "value" of a plumber and a athlete, to your right to vote because of a criminal record, or to whether Evans should have gone to prison. I think it is absolutely the right of society to provide the pressure either which way. Not getting the job would be a direct consequence of his crime -- if he didn't want that to happen, maybe he shouldn't have committed social suicide and raped an individual. It's not like you can make him a victim, he did all of this to himself. The negative publicity alone will remain with him for the rest of his life, and we have no one to blame but him.

I wouldn't have thought you'd be the one saying someone can never be rehabilitated.
Consider

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-10-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(21-10-2014 12:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I wouldn't have thought you'd be the one saying someone can never be rehabilitated.
Consider

Where did I say he couldn't be rehabilitated? I am saying he is paying the price for what he did in social scorn. I know not whether he fully understands what he did, nor do I care in this context. For example, are you to say that a company should ignore an individuals past drug convictions because they were in rehabilitation? I don't think it should be ignored, but it most certainly should cushion the reality of the situation.

I really have no pity for Evans -- rape is a serious offense and he is paying for it. Do I think he should get a job? Of course. Do I think he should be rewarded in the sense of accomplishing his goals? No.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(21-10-2014 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 12:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I wouldn't have thought you'd be the one saying someone can never be rehabilitated.
Consider

Where did I say he couldn't be rehabilitated?

You said there were things he should never be "allowed" to do in the future, based on his past offense.

(21-10-2014 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I am saying he is paying the price for what he did in social scorn. I know not whether he fully understands what he did, nor do I care in this context. For example, are you to say that a company should ignore an individuals past drug convictions because they were in rehabilitation? I don't think it should be ignored, but it most certainly should cushion the reality of the situation.

That would depend purely on whether I believed any recidivism or new offense was likely, with the caveat that if an effect on public opinion is also likely then that effect too must be taken into consideration.

(21-10-2014 01:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I really have no pity for Evans -- rape is a serious offense and he is paying for it. Do I think he should get a job? Of course. Do I think he should be rewarded in the sense of accomplishing his goals? No.

In that case I'm quite unclear on how returning to his previous job constitutes being "rewarded". Nor do I understand what separates a job constituting a "reward" from one which does not.

I'm also not actually sure whether you're saying public stigma will restrict his future options or whether it should, but either way that is wholly at odds with the principle of rehabilitative justice.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Ched Evans rape case
(21-10-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You said there were things he should never be "allowed" to do in the future, based on his past offense.

Having worked in an environment where staff are checked for past criminal convictions, I assure you there are a ton of things he shouldn't, and wouldn't, ever be allowed to do.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: