Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Because he was drunk as well, shouldn't she have been arrested as well?

Good old Dakka's "blame the victim" was taking too long to show up! I never get tired of reading about people defending rapists.

And I think that that fills up my bingo card for this week.

I just thought it was an interesting question. If two drunk people have sex, is it always the man who is responsible? What if the women initiated it? What if it is two gay men?
If the girl was emotionally scarred or something, then yes, arrest the guy, but from the explanation I was just given It seems it was drunk on both sides and consensual on both sides. Both people at fault for putting themselves in that situation. Rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible people, but from the description I was just given it seems to just be legal rape, not actual rape. I don't have any more information than what has been divulged in this thread. I don't even know if the girl reported rape. If so then, yes he should be punished. Hope that clears things up.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Because he was drunk as well, shouldn't she have been arrested as well?

Good old Dakka's "blame the victim" was taking too long to show up! I never get tired of reading about people defending rapists.

And I think that that fills up my bingo card for this week.

I just thought it was an interesting question. If two drunk people have sex, is it always the man who is responsible? What if the women initiated it? What if it is two gay men?
If the girl was emotionally scarred or something, then yes, arrest the guy, but from the explanation I was just given It seems it was drunk on both sides and consensual on both sides. Both people at fault for putting themselves in that situation. Rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible people, but from the description I was just given it seems to just be legal rape, not actual rape. I don't have any more information than what has been divulged in this thread. I don't even know if the girl reported rape. If so then, yes he should be punished. Hope that clears things up.

It is reasons like that which are the reason for the terrible conviction rate for rape. Last time I checked the chance of being given a sentence is 1/28. That's pretty damn low for any crime, especially as one as serious as this. Proving the lack of consent can be really hard unless you have hard evidence proving that it wasn't give.

Like I said, men cannot be raped by women, this does not mean that they cannot be sexually assaulted by them however. I think it is because that the women is the one that carries the risk of something happened that responsibility falls to the man being a gentleman and refusing. As for two gay men? They often get thrown out of court because it is nearly impossible to prove who raped who. I know of several cases where the judge has gone. "This is pointless, go away." and nothing has come of it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
Why not let him play? Dude already paid for his crimes.

Ehm...if, for example, a known child molester would move in around our neighborhood, I'd do my very best to get him to move away asap.

So the fact that a person loses years of his life for mistake that he has made isn't good enough for you? Why do you need to shun him away from society?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I just thought it was an interesting question. If two drunk people have sex, is it always the man who is responsible? What if the women initiated it? What if it is two gay men?
If the girl was emotionally scarred or something, then yes, arrest the guy, but from the explanation I was just given It seems it was drunk on both sides and consensual on both sides. Both people at fault for putting themselves in that situation. Rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible people, but from the description I was just given it seems to just be legal rape, not actual rape. I don't have any more information than what has been divulged in this thread. I don't even know if the girl reported rape. If so then, yes he should be punished. Hope that clears things up.

Men that are drunk enough that they can't give consent can't actually have sex.

And from the description, the girl gave consent to the first guy and they went to his hotel room, she can't remember anything that happened after that so she obviously didn't consent to the second guy. That is why the first guy was considered not guilty but the second was convicted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17730672

Also, for the record, I really hate the expression "legal rape"... Rape is rape, it shouldn't matter if the rapist is holding a knife to the victims throat, using his influence as a teacher (for example), or taking advantage of someone that obviously isn't in any state to decide for herself/himself, it should all be treated the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 illuknisaa wrote:

So the fact that a person loses years of his life for mistake that he has made isn't good enough for you? Why do you need to shun him away from society?

Because he destroyed another person's life?!

You should not be able to completely destroy another person's life on such a basic level and then just go back to be a football superstar...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible people, but from the description I was just given it seems to just be legal rape, not actual rape.

That, sir, is pretty unsafe water you're treading there. I actually agree that there really needs to be some delineation in how the law is defined, much more than it already is, but just be careful how you phrase that. And definitely keep that on dakka and not some of the other places on the internet!

I think how we consider rape/sexual assault in the US needs to be overhauled entirely. Because the charges are so overly broad, and the acts are so much nuance, it seems to me that there really needs to be more specificity to help charge people with the "correct" crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:


Also, for the record, I really hate the expression "legal rape"... Rape is rape, it shouldn't matter if the rapist is holding a knife to the victims throat, using his influence as a teacher (for example), or taking advantage of someone that obviously isn't in any state to decide for herself/himself, it should all be treated the same.

Well that's really the problem. None of those things are even remotely the same, and yet legally they are.

That's why we have trouble getting convictions on a lot of things.

PhantomViper wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 illuknisaa wrote:

So the fact that a person loses years of his life for mistake that he has made isn't good enough for you? Why do you need to shun him away from society?

Because he destroyed another person's life?!

You should not be able to completely destroy another person's life on such a basic level and then just go back to be a football superstar...

Destroyed? Apparently the victim can't even remember the whole situation so the "destroyed life" is questionable at best. And is 2,5 years "just go back"?

 illuknisaa wrote:

Destroyed? Apparently the victim can't even remember the whole situation so the "destroyed life" is questionable at best. And is 2,5 years "just go back"?

So you think that a teenager that doesn't even remember what happened and wakes up in a strange hotel room to find out that she just had sex with two guys at the same time while other's watched and videotaped the whole thing isn't going to have any future issues?

And yes, I think that 2,5 years is a very lenient sentence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174109/Ched-Evanss-victims-new-identity-revealed-online.html

The victims had to change her name and move house, twice, due to threats and harassment over this case.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I just thought it was an interesting question. If two drunk people have sex, is it always the man who is responsible? What if the women initiated it? What if it is two gay men?
If the girl was emotionally scarred or something, then yes, arrest the guy, but from the explanation I was just given It seems it was drunk on both sides and consensual on both sides. Both people at fault for putting themselves in that situation. Rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible people, but from the description I was just given it seems to just be legal rape, not actual rape. I don't have any more information than what has been divulged in this thread. I don't even know if the girl reported rape. If so then, yes he should be punished. Hope that clears things up.

Men that are drunk enough that they can't give consent can't actually have sex.

And from the description, the girl gave consent to the first guy and they went to his hotel room, she can't remember anything that happened after that so she obviously didn't consent to the second guy. That is why the first guy was considered not guilty but the second was convicted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17730672

Also, for the record, I really hate the expression "legal rape"... Rape is rape, it shouldn't matter if the rapist is holding a knife to the victims throat, using his influence as a teacher (for example), or taking advantage of someone that obviously isn't in any state to decide for herself/himself, it should all be treated the same.

Alright then, definitely rape.
Also, by legal rape I mean stuff like a 19 yo having sex with a 16 yo is technically rape in the US, even if both sides consent. Not some sort of Atkin "legitimate rape" thing. If I had sex with a 16 yo I could be arrested (being 19) even though no rape in the non-legalese sense occurred. I think it's called constiorial rape or something like that.

Statutory rape? I consider that to be a different case, IMHO.

Age of consent over here is 14 years old (hurray for "decadent" European habits), but it can still be classified as rape if the age differential between the two participants is big enough (I can't recall what the actual number is).

Send him to the NFL, strap on some pads and he can play to his heart's content (probably as a place kicker though)




Also, depending on your jurisdiction or which laws you fall under, it IS possible for a man to be raped, however it is very rarely reported. This could be down to a low instance of actually happening or that, because of society's "macho man" principles, it gets reported very rarely.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Also, depending on your jurisdiction or which laws you fall under, it IS possible for a man to be raped, however it is very rarely reported. This could be down to a low instance of actually happening or that, because of society's "macho man" principles, it gets reported very rarely.

So there's this: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

 Medium of Death wrote:
So let him play then. It's a dodgy conviction and regardless he's served his time.

I hate all the role model nonsense, like Ouze has said, it should be based on more than somebodies ability to kick a ball.

People can like them for playing well, but I'd hardly think people actually consider them role models. They only approach becoming role models when they get older/retire. When they branch out and start helping charities and such. Like old Becks.

"Hey look kids, this guy did what he loved, did it well and made lots of money. He's now using that money to help other people. What a nice man..."

Perhaps being a role model should partly be based on someone's ability not to commit crimes, and to show remorse for them if failing the first point.

The football association certainly considers all players to be role models or there would not be a rule against bringing the game into disrepute.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174109/Ched-Evanss-victims-new-identity-revealed-online.html

The victims had to change her name and move house, twice, due to threats and harassment over this case.

There have been similar issues here with the rape victims of sports figures - Kobe Bryant's comes to mind.

 Ouze wrote:


There have been similar issues here with the rape victims of sports figures - Kobe Bryant's comes to mind.

'

Which has more to do with crazy fething people, not the actual crime itself.

And is hardly limited to sports figures.

This opinion piece sums up my feelings enough:

http://www.football365.com/f365-says/9561320/Football-Missing-Its-Chance-To-Take-A-Stand

Should football's authorities block Ched Evans from playing football? Absolutely not.

Does that mean any football club should sign Ched Evans? Definitely not.

There is a crucial difference between those two questions above: Just because something is legally permissible does not make it morally tolerable. My opinion is that Ched Evans should be allowed to play football, but that no club should make him a footballer.

Footballer is a term? i wasnt aware

Honestly he paid for his crimes. it shouldn't be held against him