Before beginning it’s important for me to list a number of qualifiers here and what the purpose of this essay is. First of all I don’t care about Ched Evans, I never knew who or what he was until he was released from prison after being convicted of rape and the prospect of him returning to football brought national attention (outrage). Secondly, my purpose here is not to defend him, what I’m seeking to do is highlight a numbers of wider issues that his case underscores, the nature and purpose of criminal justice and how gender polarisation poisons constructive discussion on what is admittedly an emotionally charged issue where partisan lines are quickly taken and any room for impartial discussion is effectively squeezed out. Thirdly, I’ve never been raped, to my current knowledge I don’t know anyone who has been raped and as a heterosexual man my subjective fear and the objective danger of me being raped are statistically speaking much lower than that of a woman. I am in no doubt that this matrix, intersectional and multiple layer of privilege allows me to discuss this issue somewhat dispassionately; a privilege an individual with a much closer emotional and experienced proximity to the issue can’t afford.
The Case
On 20th April 2012 several news outlets released reports detailing Ched Evans conviction on a rape charge. A co-defendant Clayton McDonald was found not guilty. The rape is said to have occurred after McDonald, a childhood friend of Evans, picked up a woman in the early hours of 30th May 2011. He is reported to have taken her back to his hotel where he later had intercourse with her. Evans is reported to have joined them later at the hotel and proceeded to have intercourse with the same woman.
When the woman woke up alone in the hotel room she found her clothes scattered across the room and is said to have reported to the police she had no recollection of the prior events. She eventually reported the incident to the police after suspecting her drink had been spiked. Evans and McDonald were later arrested. McDonald was acquitted and Evans given a 5 year prison sentence. Evans served 2 ½ years of his prison sentence before been released on license on the 17th October 2014.
Where do we start? The outrage and intense emotional feeling surrounding this case at the moment is the prospect of Ched Evans been able to resume his football career after his rape conviction. The rational of one side of the argument is this – Ched Evans is a convicted rapist, a heinous and deplorable crime, therefore he is completely unfit to continue to prosecute such a privileged occupation in which he is nationally visible and a possible role model to millions of young children.
The other side of the argument goes like this – Ched Evans has served his time (technically he hasn’t, he is out on license and still has two years of his sentence left) and paid the debt to society for the crime he committed and therefore should be allowed to carry on with his life and resume his previous occupation as a footballer. Evans’s critics are not buying the latter argument. Public backlash has meant three different clubs, including his former club Sheffield United, have had to withdraw offers for his services due to public pressure, the latest been Oldham Athletic.
The Nature and Purpose of Criminal Justice
With consultation from the criminal justice’s official website under its aims and objectives section:
‘The purpose of the Criminal Justice System… is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent.’
Conviction, punishment, curtailing of recidivism and protection of the innocent. Let’s analyse each criteria carefully and see how it applies to this case. Ched Evans was convicted of rape and is now a registered sex offender (this incidentally prevents him from working abroad). Check. Punishment? He served half his sentence and is out on license and is eligible for employment. This prospect has sparked intense feelings and emotionally charged recriminations. Inconclusive. Stop reoffending? As of this very moment Evans is yet to commit any further crimes but it’s still early days. Inconclusive. Protection of the innocent? The victim of the rape had her name revealed on twitter after and during the trial. Although the individuals who released her name were arrested the damage was already done. She has been the victim of relentless, vitriolic abuse ever since, has had to change her name and moved houses 5 times according to her father. The innocent has clearly not being protected here. Out of 4 criterias we have 1 passed criteria (conviction), 2 inconclusives (Punishment & Recidivism) and 1 failure (Protection of the Innocent). It would seem that based on its own criteria the Criminal Justice System has not sufficiently prosecuted this case. Not only from the victim’s side but potentially from the convicted, as well, as I will later discuss.
The biggest bone of contention and the scene of the most intense levels of discussion however seems to revolve around criteria 2 from the previous paragraph, punishment. Supporters of Evans believe his conviction was sufficient enough punishment whilst his detractors believe that punishment should extend into denying him a reinstated career in football. They also accuse him of lacking true remorse and contrition due to his refusal to apologise for his actions and continued protestations of his innocence.
Rehabilitation & Reintegration
Part of the successful rehabilitation of a criminal back into society is one part the acceptance of responsibility for his actions by the convicted and how it impacted the victim and also giving the person a second chance so that they can turn their life around. This rehabilitation is complicated by two factors. Firstly, Evans still protests that he’s innocent and has to gone to the Court of Appeal twice to get his sentenced rescinded. His appeal was rejected twice and his conviction is now been reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to see if he can appeal for a third time. Detractors of Evans want him to apologise for his actions and show remorse but if he believes he is innocent and is still involved in a legal proceeding to get his conviction reviewed surely it is against his legal interest to apologise for a crime and conviction he is still contesting?
Secondly, anti rape campaigner groups and many members of the general public believe Evans should be denied re-entry into football occupation. They believe due to Evans’s conviction and the privileged position the occupation enjoys in society he in unfit to hold the position. They also state that for many victims of rape to see their assailant “carry on their lives as normal” severely damages their mental recovery. The argument presented is therefore that if Evans is to be reintegrated back into society it should be with the assistance of another line of profession and not a high profile one like football.
Due to his registration as a sex offender Evans is now bared from a whole range of professions and from jobs known as “regulated activity”; this includes teaching, social work, and posts which involve working with children or vulnerable adults. With the head of both the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) and Football League both publicly stating their approval of Evans returning to football and without any legal hurdles barring him, football is ironically one of the few professions Evans can work in without any restrictions but unfortunately for him due to its high profile nature one of the most susceptible to public pressure.
Gender Polarisation
One of the most startling aspects of this case has been the gender divide in the interpretations and therefore conclusions taken. Although the divide is by no means 50/50 the most divergent and antagonistic views have been between men and women. The issue of rape goes at the heart of relations between men and women with women often being the victims and men being the perpetrators. The issue is viewed through gender lenses and partisan lines are quickly taken. I believe empathy and mutual understanding should be at forefront of discussions like this in order to mitigate against a gender polarisation where the facts of the case is superseded by gender bias and personal ego investments.
For women this is a straightforward case of rape. Two men took advantage of a drunk, vulnerable woman, took her back to their hotel and raped her. She was incapacitated from alcohol, unable to give consent and yet the two men carried out their deplorable actions. Guilty as charged. Well, Evans at least. His friend Clayton McDonald was acquitted.
For many men who defend Evans, Clayton’s McDonald’s acquittal is very revealing. The question is why was McDonald acquitted and Evans convicted? It was McDonald who picked up the woman and took her back to the hotel where Evans then joined them later. The argument goes both of them are either both guilty or both innocent. If anyone should have been convicted then it should have been McDonald. This is an argument no doubt Evans legal team will present if given a third chance to go to the Court of Appeal.
Consent
The familiar refrain from anti rape campaigners is that no means no and that the absence of no does not equal yes. Of course. This is entirely sensible. The problem is consent in many cases isn’t as clear cut. There are instances where subjective judgment is required and the signs are not always easy to read. The sensible thing to do will be to err on the side of caution. So as soon as you hear “no” you stop, right? Well it gets tricky here because I can speak from personal experience where my lack of persistence has been derided as lacking aggressiveness or accused in other instances of lacking attraction and passion. And in some cases you add alcohol and other stimulants and the potential for the wrong judgement to be made expands exponentially.
Having said all that of course, no means no, absence of no does not mean yes and women’s wishes should always be respected. The only refrain here is out in the real world consent isn’t always as clear cut and there is often too much room for subjectivity and unfortunately in some cases the wrong decision is made. What we can do to alleviate these instances is to provide more education on the issue of sexual consent so individuals are better aware of their rights and areas they can potentially fall foul of the law.
Conclusion
If you made it this far, you have my sincerest gratitude. This is a long, comprehensive read. All I can hope is the quality of the content and overview provided justifies the word count. The debate around Ched Evans and the issue of the form in which his reintegration back into society should take will continue to rage on, an entrenchment of views on both sides seems to be the only consensus between opposing detractors/critics and “supporters” of Evans. My only hope here and if a possible benefit can be unearthed from this affair is that it sparks a broader discussion that I think society at large requires greater edification and clarity on which is better education on the nature of sexual consent, criminal rehabilitation and reintegration, faster execution and more efficient prosecution of criminal justice and better victim protection.
Thanks for reading.
Related Links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30697264
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17677969
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/purpose-criminal-justice-system
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/purpose-criminal-justice-system
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-cut-crime-and-deliver-justice-a-strategic-plan-for-criminal-justice-2008-to-2011
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-28/ched-evans-rape-victim-forced-to-move-house-five-times/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888732/Ched-Evans-s-rape-victim-forced-FIFTH-time-flee-trolls-Attorney-General-comes-fire-father.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563