Your views please

Interesting thread Stumps,
Interesting thread Stumps, there’s a number of facets to this for me:

I do agree that the concept of rehabilitation is that offenders should then be able to resume a constructive role in society, but I know that I would struggle. I’m an freelance IT consultant – I’m not a role model, I don’t work with kids (or even customers – I tend to work with other IT staff within big companies), and the type of stuff I work on is quite removed from the actual ‘business’ that my clients are in (for example, my current client is a bank, but I couldn’t derive any fraudulent/personal gain from malicious access to financial stuff). Yet, ALL my contracts include declarations of criminal record or CRB checks. Were I convicted of such an offence as Ched Evans has, I would be ruined in terms of finding new contracts. So, while some are saying “others WOULD be allowed to resume work in their chosen field, why should he be treated differently?”, I would ask “I would NOT be able to resume work in my chosen field, why should Ched Evans be treated differently?

Another aspect of course is the arguments of guilt. Many are saying, quite reasonably, that he has been found guilty in criminal court, and that’s that. He at least needs to be remorseful. He, however, maintains that what he did was not a crime and that she consented to an act with both defendants. Reading between the lines, he appears to be suggesting that they all got drunk and she was happy to participate in a threesome, which she then regretted and subsequently made an accusation. What he doesn’t acknowledge is that the current law is that the lady concerned needs to be ‘able’ to give consent, and that without this, he and the other lad are still culpable.

I’ll admit to being uncomfortable with this law, since it seems, to me, to be a step backward for equality (if the female gives consent, it’s still up to the male to judge if she is capable of doing so, as if he’s the responsible adult and she’s just the child, incapable of making her own decisions). This one-way, single-gender nature of the law is not something I think is a great leap forward.

Perhaps if he’d taken a middle ground “At the time it appeared to be fully consensual, but I now accept that, having consumed too much alcohol, the victim was not capable of making a rational decision to consent, and I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for making such a mistake and taking advantage. I will now dedicate my energies to helping others understand the consequences of such rash actions” etc etc, or even to apologise but then to campaign against the single-gendered nature of the law around rational consent. Had he done either of these things, he would likely be in rather a different position now.

As for the patrons and sponsors walking away, I admire their courage to stand up and be counted, but if Evans attempts to appeal and have the conviction overturned are sucessful, that’s going to create an unholy mess for everyone concerned. What do you do, put Jess Ennis’ name back on the stand?

While he stands firm and
While he stands firm and denies everything he was found guilty of, there is no place for him anywhere in football.

If he had be humble and accepted what he did, then he needs to start again and rebuild his career, not a Sheffield though, he needs to start again at the lower leagues and work back up. Not straight into a bigger club and huge wages.

If he appeals and is successfully (highly doubt it) then he can be free to do what he wants at the moment, but for me, at this time, he shouldn’t even be training with the club that sacked him, just because the PFA wanted that. Look at the shitstorm it has caused, Sheffield have lost patrons, sponsors and will lose more if they take him back on.

From an employment law
From an employment law perspective, it is an interesting one. It’s an exceptionally emotive subject too (and quite understandably so).

Without going into the specifics of this individual case:

People go to jail to be rehabilitated. Once they’re released, every effort should be made to integrate the individual into society. It’s one of the central pillars of our society.

Could people oppose a bin-person or salesperson returning to their position post-release? If not, why oppose someone going back to their profession – even if that happens to be somewhere high profile?

If we proscribe a list of jobs ex-cons can’t do, where does that lead us?