Evans is on the sex offenders register for life. As it is he's severed only half of that 5 year sentence which is odd if he's claiming he's innocent. Doesn't early release require the criminal to show remorse for the crime? Sheffield are having him back! Not surprising it's in South Yorkshire. (The only concession I have is for people who find themselves on the register after they've been convicted to urinating in public.)
"The only concession I have is for people who find themselves on the register after they've been convicted to urinating in public." Urinating in public is not a registrable offence and is classed as littering these days. You won't end up on the Register for that, but it's irrelevant anyway. "As it is he's severed only half of that 5 year sentence which is odd if he's claiming he's innocent. Doesn't early release require the criminal to show remorse for the crime?" He served what most offenders serve. The prisons are overflowing with violent, career criminals and early release is normal these days. He may have shown remorse he may not have. If he has, doesn't that show contrition? We know Evans is on the Register. So what? How does that relate to whether he should be allowed back into football? You are confusing being on the Register with being a risk to society. The point I'm making is that you don't have to be such a risk to be on the Register. Not opinion. Fact. Are you implying he's a risk to anyone? If so, how do you come to that conclusion bearing in mind the scenario in which he was convicted? I can understand people feeling morally repelled by Evans but your logic is flawed.
6 cases of urinating in public leading to people being placed on the sex offenders' register last year!
I am with valley on this. If he is allowed back into a public sport where kids and women who have been raped will see this scum bag then why not convicted ****philes or murderers allowed back as well......chad has been convicted and has served a very short sentence but he should never be allowed into public life again. He blew it nobody else did so give him a wide birth...there are second chances an there are second chances and certain ethos should not be tolerated.
The conviction was strange indeed. Innocent until proven guilty obviously doesn't count here as he was convicted as a rapist. With that being said though, how easy can it be (as a female especially) to have consensual intercourse with someone and then run out of a hotel with make up smeared over your face making false accusations? I have spoken to Taxi drivers who said they have to be so careful as women are so quick to say "take me home for free or i'll claim rape" or alternatively "drive, I have no money but I can pay in other ways *wink wink*" I wouldn't be able to say I believe he did or didn't do it as I genuinely don't know, I wasn't there. Not sure how I would feel if he played in a Wales shirt again. I personally think we are doing alright without him.
That wasn't the question though. As for comments here "going down well with ISIS" - that's just offensive. If people were put on the Register for urinating in public alone without any other offence then their lawyers aren't up to much as it's not a registrable offence. There are 21 offences under Sch 3 of the Act and urinating in public isn't one of them.
your right dragon, I suspect that most of us have been caught short at some point in our lives, i know i have more than once. certain high court convictions where it has been proven without any shadow of doubt and a custonial sentence was thought right and proper then this person should not be allowed back into public life....
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am so proud to be associated with such a saintly, perfect group of people .... it is humbling to know that I could count on so many of you for your support should I ever stray from hallo'd standards so righteously set.
If you want to debate my opinion fine. If you want to be condascending and sarcastic then I give up. But before I do let me just make my position clear. The OP asked for peoples opinion. Mine is simple the guy was found guilty in a court of law he was sentenced and part of that sentence was to be registered as a sex offender. That in itself restricts what jobs he can do ( I am not asking society to do this that is part of the punishment). You seem to be under the false impression that his jail term was his only punishment. Being on the register indefinitley is also his punishment and everything that comes with that. Personally I think being a professional sportsman which in turn makes him a role model for kids should be one of those professions. Just to be clear I couldnt give a **** if the guy never worked again and if he could only get a job bagging groceries (which doesnt exist in this country pushing trolleys would be more apt), maybe, the next time his mate texts him that he pulled and he feesl the need to leave his house with his mate and his brother drive all the way back to his mates hote, con his way into the room and then sneak out of the fire exit so nobody could see him, maybe just maybe he will think twice!! You however feel it is fine and want your kids to grow up idolising rapists good on you fella. Me personally well it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I tell you what if he cant get a job you can give him one seeing as my sensibilities seem to upset you so much.
I respect your opinion, but your position would deny a human being the right and opportunity to ply his best trade in perpetuity. Your position would continue to punish an individual in perpetuity for something society through it's laws and philosophical approach to justice has set a punishment that is bounded and finite. A punishment that has been served. If you wish to deny this person his rights to suit your sensibilities then you should be prepared to compensate him for your gain. I think that is equitable. Just because Evans is a professional footballer, it doesn't imply that any body, let a alone a child, would idolize him as a rapist. Over time nobody who recall the fact that he was previously convicted .. .... unless some meany mouthed mother f**er made a point of continually seeking to stick it to Evans by pointing out his past to people he has never harbored any ill-will or bad faith towards and therefore would not otherwise have good reason to consider ill of him.
I think Yankee's point is that many of us may (or may not) have been in a bar and chatted up a lady. Said lady, who isn't a prostitute, agrees to show you a good time but is so inebriated by the time it gets down to it that she's not really with it at all. Many guys would walk away. Many wouldn't. That's the scenario that got Evans convicted like it or not. Got no problem with different opinions at all, that's what debate is all about for goodness sake but if you're going to speak authoritatively at least get it right, Bob. Indecent exposure isn't one of the 21 offences either but keep trying. The closest is probably indecent condut towards a child and that includes flashing or urinating in front of them. If anyone was put on the register for flashing or urinating per se then they must have terrible lawyers. Really.
And if he was a teacher or a copper would you feel the same way? For me it is no different. Where do you draw the line. If he was a *****phile, murderer or terrorist would you have the same point of view? All of these are serious crimes and time served is only part of the punshment. The judge made sure of that by putting him on the register indefinitely. Why? Because when his playing career is over he could end up going for a job as a coach, teacher and so on. The restriction of future emplyment was put in place by the judge not me. Again nothing to do with my sensibilities.
Does being on the register constrain a person's employment by mandate, or is that constraint or sanction imposed voluntarily by those that read the register and act according to their sensibilities. A *****phile has, if my understanding is correct, a form of mental illness over which they may not have sufficient control - they have special issues that society should address with support as much as punishment. This, again if my understanding is correct, is not the situation with Evans. Every person once convicted has a criminal record ... being on a "register" bears no additional indignity nor punishment unless there are specific mandates attached or others choose to impose sanctions privately.
Which is why the conviction stunk, if she was ok to consent to his buddy, why was she drunk to consent to Evans?
I agree, and it's for the above reasons that you've pointed out that I think he was hard done by, the girl had agreed to go back to the hotel room, not sure whether she had agreed to have sex with both lads? but she clearly was ready for sex, and I find the verdict of the Jury incredible, and for that reason I would not have convicted him if I had been on that Jury, and subsequently have no issue with him coming back into the game, after all he was just stupid, and will surely regret ever getting involved with the drunken tart for the rest of his life.........................
