Rapist's family describe him as a role model.

[Noradin]

He was convicted for engaging in intercourse with someone who was not capable of consent according to the court due to being too drunk.

While being just as drunk himself - so maybe they should have convicted the other party as well? Because he was too drunk to be able to give consent?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, god forbid you have to deal with simple logic.



And they also deemed her to be sober enough to give consent, to another person.

Can't have it both ways.

That's the problem when your justice system is based on a jury...

[Paulosio]

It's quite clear you want people to not have any protection whatsoever if they get too drunk.

The appeal was rejected as well.

The law should protect everyone including men in this case. He also has an appeal ongoing. However due to the high profile nature of this case I doubt he has any hope of getting the conviction overturned.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you've made it clear you want to reduce the protection citizens enjoy.

Ched Evan's is a citizen too. Doesn't he like everyone else also deserve protection?

Being found guilty doesn't always mean you are guilty but sadly some people can't get beyond "he was found guilty so there is no possibility that he is innocent". I could reel off cases where people have been PROVEN innocent years or even decades after being found guilty. Sadly in a case like this there is no way to prove things 1 way or the other so being found guilty is always a millstone round the neck of anyone who is found guilty.

[Deleted]

Thank god he got out early. If he served a long-ass conviction for what is essentially a victimless "crime", it'd be horrible. Clegg is just trying to get the SJW crowd to vote for him now.

[Paulosio]

It's not my fault or any others that you're incapable of understanding consent.

Well it is very confusing if you look at the facts of the case..

She was drunk when she consented to sex with the 1st guy and it was fine because she could remember consenting and therefore under the law she was in a condition to give valid consent.

She was no more drunk when she (allegedly) consented to sex with the 2nd guy and it's rape because she can't remember consenting.

The difference in the 2 cases ? She can't remember consenting to the 2nd guy but she also can't rememeber saying no or not consenting.... That's not to say she didn't consent (only Ched Evans knows if she consented or not). I've done things that I couldn't remember the next day when drunk. Me not being able to remember doesn't mean they didn't happen.

If 1 of them is a rapist, why isn't the other ? She was in the same condition in both cases and gave consent to both (allegedly). There's no evidence she didn't consent because she can't remember herself... How is the 2nd guy meant to know that what he is doing is rape even after she consented (allegedly) unless he has a time machine to travel forward and ask her if she can remember what happened AFTER THE EVENT?

Either convict both of them of rape or neither. You can't cut it both ways.

[Deleted]

Holy shit, can you stop posting new posts for every quote that's pages back?

[Deleted]

So whats the issue here?

[Kezotar]

So whats the issue here?

He had 5 years, sits only 2.5.
To begin with they had no proof other than word vs word. Meaning, the female did nothing but say he raped her.
People argue ...

[Aeno]

how many people were convicted of rape in VA where there were DNA evidence still around:
638.
how many were part of the study:
638.
100% then so its a very good survey.

those rules you linked are for asking 100 people shit and then extrapolating to the general public.

they asked 100% of the public (public here is defined as sentenced to rape where there is DNA evidence) and 100% of the public answered, ergo we have very good results about the public.

Except the part where it is about sexual assault and not rape. And where the data is over twenty years old. And that it only focuses on VA. Rapists/sexual assault convicts only exist in Virginia? The results are pretty inconclusive given that it wasn't even about rape alone.

[Deleted]

Except the part where it is about sexual assault and not rape.

Rape isnt a crime in VA.
its all sexual assault.

And where the data is over twenty years old.

and what's your point?
what's changed since then?
apart from the fact they now run DNA evidence, but you are still lacking a argument.

And that it only focuses on VA. Rapists/sexual assault convicts only exist in Virginia?

Extrapolation.

The results are pretty inconclusive given that it wasn't even about rape alone.

it was about rape.
it was also about homicide.
The conclusions for Rape (sexual assault) was clear, i linked you the quote.
Please make an argument at some point.