My basic outlook on life is "don't mess with someone else's body or possessions unless they say it's OK, or you're acting in self-defence of your own body or possessions". So obviously it's fine to "ply someone with drink" if they want it, but if you mess with their possession (the drink) by adding something sly to it, that's clearly wrong. The girl in this case did say she thought the drink was spiked, and if that was the work of these two lads, fair play, it's rape. I think what they did was silly, but not jail sentence silly. The law totally fails to consistently take personal responsibility into account.
The bottom line is that the girl didn't commit an offence. He did. Alcohol consumption is not an acceptable defence to get you off a charge.
It takes 2 to tango. Provided he wasn't forceful at the time, if they are both equally hammered then it's fair to say it's not rape. I think Rohypnol is a bit different. Too many women using "I was too drunk to consent" as an excuse for something they wish they hadn't done. Being raped and regretting sleeping with someone are two entirely different things, but often get mixed up in a court of law.
If they are both drunk, why is it the man committing the offence? Just because he's got the penis and he's likely the one doing the work? If they are both just as drunk, then both just as guilty. Also, if she thought the drink was spiked, why is only one of the two men involved guilty of rape? I'll say it again, she probably only regretted letting Ched Evans join in.
Marko, the offence committed was that e went ahead after getting 'consent' from someone who was not legally able to agree. Therefore, she did not commit any offence whatsoever. He, on the other hand, did. It is an offence to have sex without consent,and consent was not able to be given. End of. Guilty. Only surprise was that it was only 5 years. Normally it's much longer. (then again it'll feel longer ever time he sits, has a crap or farts). No idea about the differences between the 2 guys' conduct, personally. Don't have the details.
She's either been raped, in which case both guys are guilty (McDonald is an accessory - he was involved in the act and in how the consent was given), or neither are guilty. The fact only one has been sent down suggests she only pressed charges against one because she just regretted sleeping with him for whatever reason. While rape is a horrifying offence and the victims need protecting, there are a lot of girls abusing the law to save face or get a few minutes of fame or whatever. Regretting having sex with someone and being raped because you were "too drunk to consent", two different things. How drunk you'd have to be for that to apply is, morally, a very, very grey area that depends on circumstance, which in this case I don't think she was too drunk to consent. By her own evidence she's proven she was capable of making decisions, consenting to sex with a man she later confirmed she wanted to have sex with (McDonald, or he'd have been sentenced too), therefore confirming that she's full of ****.
Marko, I think you're making a HUGE amount of assumptions. There were a lot of very clever people conversant with the law who were involved in this case, plus a jury which listened to every piece of evidence. I think you are very arrogant to say that all of these people concerned are wrong, based on the few snippets available in the media. I am very, very proud of UK justice, and have no reason to suppose that the verdicts were incorrect. I'm sure if the merest detail can be appealed against, then it will be, and the verdict will either be upheld or overturned. At the end of the day, they were very silly boys. There has been a lot of coverage by the media on the 'too drunk to consent' topic over the last few years, and they had been clearly warned. Would we be debating this if they weren't footballers? I think not. No wonder they think they're special.
I doubt it'd have registered further than a "that's a sad story" if it hadn't been footballers. While it is true that these people know what they are doing and the courts rarely get it wrong, sometimes they do. With the letter of the law, when alcohol is involved there's not really much argument for Evans case, but it is a big issue. One of the reasons there's an uproar about rape charges is that many rape cases in the past have not been taken seriously because the judge felt the girl was playing for it on the basis of regret or trying to get back at someone, or more commonly "asking for it". Where I don't agree with the concept of "they were asking for it" by dressing in any particular way or drinking too much, 9 times out of 10 a rape case involving booze, the girl will have been WELL up for it in the moment. In the case of rohypnol and other date rape drugs, the girl is put into a state where they are either paralysed or they are, for all intents and purposes, unconcious. Drink is not like that unless you drink really, really excessive amounts, for the most part you still have control over your decisions. The reason it's not fair on the guy in the case of both parties drinking, if the girl made the first move and still cried rape the next day, that is incredibly unjust if the guy gets sentenced. He'll have been drunk and just responding to healthy, natural urges involving a girl coming onto him. She consented, he consented, they were both drunk, but if she cries rape he's in the wrong. This is essentially what the law states. Suddenly her consent is invalid but his is not. It's interesting to talk about because these cases do slip through the cracks and especially if a celebrity is involved, I'd imagine there's a case of the jury or the judge having some bias against a professional footballer that they want to "make an example" of. No matter how objective any one person thinks they are being or appears to be, there's always subconcious factors in play and in a case like this, I am forced to question the validity of the claim on the basis that she only pressed charges against one of the men involved. I'd imagine if she'd really not wanted it to happen at the time she'd have felt violated by McDonald for getting Evans involved in the first place.
I think the point is that, while consenting to McDonald, she was far too drunk at the hotel to have an idea what was happening, especially when it came to consenting to Evans, who I'd wager knew exactly what he was doing (especially as he had 2 of his mates looking in the window).
Well if she's too drunk to know what's happening then she's too drunk to consent to McDonald. This is what I can't understand, the law seems to have been selective in this case.
Marko - I found that confusing too, but thought that a report stated she had consented to go back with McDonald while she was ok in the pub, so she had made previous consent. The issue was that she was much worse by the time she got to the hotel room - she would have been unable to say no to McDonald at that time, which is another interesting concept - but they say she was not in any condition to agree to Evans joining in. Not sure how they work that out. Not sure how they work out what is the level of inebriation - and prove that level - that means you no longer have control of your faculties? If a woman can be too pissed to be able to assess whether she would really want to have sex or not (so technically anyone having sex with her is raping her), is it right that a man can't be deemed too pissed to be able to take a judgment whether the woman has said yes or no? Would the judgment be that the man was too pissed to get it up, so could not commit rape? Wonder how they work out the equivalent for a woman - puking up and semi-conscious?
She agreed to go back with McDonald while sober enough to make the decision, by the time she got back she was hammered, but it was still McDonald that got Evans involved. Why is McDonald exempt from any sort of punishment? I can't help but think this is just a case of the girl not wanting to look like a slut in the press.
But the fact is she was in no fit state to consent to Evans, whereas he was in enough control to go to McDonald's room in response to the text and get his mates to watch through the window. It's rape IMO, and, while morally very wrong, McDonald hasn't committed rape.
I agree Marko (for once!). If you can have conspiracy to murder, rob etc, why not a conspiracy to commit rape. McDonald would deffo be guilty of that IMO.
Well that's the thing, people have been found guilty of enabling sexual abuse in the past - granted most of these are involved in ****philia cases, but that's not exactly worse than rape. The fact he's been found not guilty despite being directly involved in this rape, it just stinks of her being selective in who she feels she's been wronged by. It stinks of an attention seeker bending a story of regret into one of rape and targeting a professional footballer.
He deserves jailing just for saying to the police 'im loaded and can have any girl i want' or words to that effect. Why is it footballers think they can do whatever they want and dont have to pay the price?
Because normally they can. Look at Gerrard brawling how much evidence did they need, he was on CCTV attacking a barman who wouldn't give him a remote control! John Terry attacking doormen. Even if they get punished they know full well they'll probably still have a career once they come out, Marlon King, Joey Barton and the rest.
depends who presses charges. Its probably the police in this instance so you are most likely right I find it hard to have this discussion without knowing full details. Both sides of the case in this particular thread have made huge assumptions to back there own argument