Spursex
Alert Team
The poll choice is simple: should he be allowed to play again or should he never be allowed to pursue his profession again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11310292/Ched-Evans-must-be-allowed-to-play-football-and-society-answers-to-the-rule-of-law-not-the-mob.html
Ched Evans must be allowed to play - football and society answers to the rule of law, not the mob
Oldham have every right to sign the striker, who has served his time and must now continue his rehabilitation, argues Luke Edwards
Ched Evans
More than 10,000 people signed petition opposing Ched Evans’s arrival at Oldham Photo: Eamonn & James Clarke
By Luke Edwards
1:54PM GMT 23 Dec 2014
When Hartlepool’s manager Ronnie Moore said in December he would like to sign Ched Evans, it sparked the sort of reaction the League Two club would normally only receive if they knocked Manchester United out of the FA Cup.
Hartlepool released a statement less than 24 hours later saying they would not be signing him. In the statement they admitted they had taken into consideration the public and media reaction to the manager’s comments.
It now looks like the same scenario is unfolding at Oldham, only this time the manager has reservations and it is the club who is driving the signing.
However, the uncomfortable truth is that if they wanted to sign him, if they thought he could do a good job for them, both clubs should have done it. They were perfectly entitled to. It would have sparked criticism, some of it severe, but they should be strong enough to deal with it because they were doing nothing wrong other than contemplating giving a former convict a chance to work again.
This is not an easy argument to make but it is the correct one.
Regardless of the horrendous nature of the offence he has been found guilty of committing, Evans has every right to seek employment in whatever profession he chooses and every employer has the right to employ him, unless it is one where those on the sex offenders’ register are barred or where having a criminal record prevents employment.
This is the rule of law. It is not the rule of the mob, of the loud, supposed guardians of morality who scream and shout on behalf of the silent majority. Or those who, quite rightly, argue the woman he raped is the only victim here.
Evans is guilty. A jury of right-minded people decided he was guilty of raping a teenage girl in a hotel room in April 2012. He appealed against that decision and it was rejected six months later by the Court of Appeal. He has launched another appeal and remains determined to “prove his innocence and clear his name”.
As far as I’m concerned he is guilty, because that is what our judge and jury court system has determined. That will only change if his final appeal is successful.
I write this from the view that Evans is a rapist but one who has served the time our justice system determined he should spend in prison. He served half of a five-year sentence, because he was eligible for parole and was released early. This may seem lenient to many, not least the victim and her family, but that is the punishment he was given.
Evans has, to use legal jargon, served his time and paid his debt to society even though he will remain on licence for the next two-and-a-half years, meaning he must adhere to certain conditions, including holding regular meetings with his probation officer.
For some, prison will only ever be about punishing a criminal. Yet, the prison system is not merely about punishing people. Prisons deprive prisoners of their liberty and their freedom, but prison is also supposed to be about the rehabilitation of offenders so that, when they are released, they are able to go back into society and play a full, responsible and law-abiding part in it.
This is the same for rapists, as it is for bank robbers, tax-swindlers, shop-lifters, con-artists, murderers and drug dealers. It does not always work. Many prisoners re-offend, but the prison service tries to rehabilitate them anyway.
But society will not let Evans complete his rehabilitation. He is a free man still shackled by his crime. His fame as a professional footballer ensures that, unlike the thousands of other ex-cons who are working among us in this country, everybody knows what he did.
Evans is being punished over and over again. Because he played professional football, it is argued Evans cannot be allowed to resume his career because of the nature of the crime he committed. The ‘but he is a role model’ argument rides roughshod over the law of the land.
It is a tempting position to take. Imagine how we would feel if he had raped a member of our family or a friend, yet this is a dangerous path to tread.
The nature of the crime cannot matter under the rule of law. If murderers, drink drivers who killed an entire family, drug dealers who used primary school children, con-artists who swindled the vulnerable out of money and violent robbers, can work again on their release from prison, so should Evans.
There are even paedophiles, released from prison, working in a whole range of jobs up and down the country.
Many of the above will go back to work in the profession – if not for the same employer - they were in when they committed their crimes. If there is hostility towards them in their local community, they will move to another part of the country and get on with their lives.
British law requires them to disclose their offences when applying for a job and prospective employers can, in light of that information, decide whether to employ them or not. Evans cannot do that.
He is hounded by a social and mainstream media lynch mob. It was correct for public pressure to force Sheffield United not to re-sign the striker. Not many employers would take back a rapist on his release from prison and it would have sent the wrong message; made light of the offence.
Part of the punishment is losing your job when convicted, but you do not normally lose your profession as well, unless those on the sex offenders’ list are excluded from it.
Football does not exclude sex offenders, yet Evans is being prevented from resuming his career. Clubs are too scared to sign him because of the “negative publicity” it will generate. That is their choice. Hartlepool backed out of signing him because they felt their supporters, their customers, did not want it and Oldham look like doing the same.
But of the hundreds who expressed their opposition, many more did not.
Signing Ched Evans would be 'appalling'
It is wrong because we live in a free society, even for those who once did not because they committed crimes serious enough to have that liberty taken away.
Football has re-employed all sorts of criminals in the past, even those like Lee Hughes who was sentenced to six years for causing death by dangerous driving. He took someone’s life, but was allowed to play professionally again. So have other professions.
If we continue to hound Evans out of the game, what company will ever employ him? Should the Government change the law to say those convicted of certain crimes can work again, others can’t? It will never happen.
How or who could decide which crimes were ok and which weren’t? The law is universal, it does not see class, race, wealth or profession. It does not differentiate between them. The law protects you and me, but it also protects Evans.
For those who say Evans deserves to be more severely punished, stopping him from playing football is the perfect way to do it, but you’re not far away from saying we should have “locked him up and thrown away the key”.
The Magna Carta, written in 1215 – the first legal document in this country protecting the liberty and rights of man – prevents this. British law prevents it.
If Evans wants to play football again, he can. He will have to run a gauntlet of hate every time he steps on to the football pitch. Supporters will abuse him in their thousands and they are not renowned for their subtlety. He will never be allowed to forget what he did, even if his final appeal is successful.
When Evans is in his 60s and people hear his name, they will not think of Ched Evans the footballer, they will know him as Ched Evans the footballer who raped a girl and went to prison.
He will carry that with him for the rest of his life and so he should. But his fame should not deprive him of the same rights as the rest of us.
Evans is allowed to work again and football clubs are allowed to employ him. We should let them. We cannot allow any sort of mob justice to hold sway over the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11310292/Ched-Evans-must-be-allowed-to-play-football-and-society-answers-to-the-rule-of-law-not-the-mob.html
Ched Evans must be allowed to play - football and society answers to the rule of law, not the mob
Oldham have every right to sign the striker, who has served his time and must now continue his rehabilitation, argues Luke Edwards
Ched Evans
More than 10,000 people signed petition opposing Ched Evans’s arrival at Oldham Photo: Eamonn & James Clarke
By Luke Edwards
1:54PM GMT 23 Dec 2014
When Hartlepool’s manager Ronnie Moore said in December he would like to sign Ched Evans, it sparked the sort of reaction the League Two club would normally only receive if they knocked Manchester United out of the FA Cup.
Hartlepool released a statement less than 24 hours later saying they would not be signing him. In the statement they admitted they had taken into consideration the public and media reaction to the manager’s comments.
It now looks like the same scenario is unfolding at Oldham, only this time the manager has reservations and it is the club who is driving the signing.
However, the uncomfortable truth is that if they wanted to sign him, if they thought he could do a good job for them, both clubs should have done it. They were perfectly entitled to. It would have sparked criticism, some of it severe, but they should be strong enough to deal with it because they were doing nothing wrong other than contemplating giving a former convict a chance to work again.
This is not an easy argument to make but it is the correct one.
Regardless of the horrendous nature of the offence he has been found guilty of committing, Evans has every right to seek employment in whatever profession he chooses and every employer has the right to employ him, unless it is one where those on the sex offenders’ register are barred or where having a criminal record prevents employment.
This is the rule of law. It is not the rule of the mob, of the loud, supposed guardians of morality who scream and shout on behalf of the silent majority. Or those who, quite rightly, argue the woman he raped is the only victim here.
Evans is guilty. A jury of right-minded people decided he was guilty of raping a teenage girl in a hotel room in April 2012. He appealed against that decision and it was rejected six months later by the Court of Appeal. He has launched another appeal and remains determined to “prove his innocence and clear his name”.
As far as I’m concerned he is guilty, because that is what our judge and jury court system has determined. That will only change if his final appeal is successful.
I write this from the view that Evans is a rapist but one who has served the time our justice system determined he should spend in prison. He served half of a five-year sentence, because he was eligible for parole and was released early. This may seem lenient to many, not least the victim and her family, but that is the punishment he was given.
Evans has, to use legal jargon, served his time and paid his debt to society even though he will remain on licence for the next two-and-a-half years, meaning he must adhere to certain conditions, including holding regular meetings with his probation officer.
For some, prison will only ever be about punishing a criminal. Yet, the prison system is not merely about punishing people. Prisons deprive prisoners of their liberty and their freedom, but prison is also supposed to be about the rehabilitation of offenders so that, when they are released, they are able to go back into society and play a full, responsible and law-abiding part in it.
This is the same for rapists, as it is for bank robbers, tax-swindlers, shop-lifters, con-artists, murderers and drug dealers. It does not always work. Many prisoners re-offend, but the prison service tries to rehabilitate them anyway.
But society will not let Evans complete his rehabilitation. He is a free man still shackled by his crime. His fame as a professional footballer ensures that, unlike the thousands of other ex-cons who are working among us in this country, everybody knows what he did.
Evans is being punished over and over again. Because he played professional football, it is argued Evans cannot be allowed to resume his career because of the nature of the crime he committed. The ‘but he is a role model’ argument rides roughshod over the law of the land.
It is a tempting position to take. Imagine how we would feel if he had raped a member of our family or a friend, yet this is a dangerous path to tread.
The nature of the crime cannot matter under the rule of law. If murderers, drink drivers who killed an entire family, drug dealers who used primary school children, con-artists who swindled the vulnerable out of money and violent robbers, can work again on their release from prison, so should Evans.
There are even paedophiles, released from prison, working in a whole range of jobs up and down the country.
Many of the above will go back to work in the profession – if not for the same employer - they were in when they committed their crimes. If there is hostility towards them in their local community, they will move to another part of the country and get on with their lives.
British law requires them to disclose their offences when applying for a job and prospective employers can, in light of that information, decide whether to employ them or not. Evans cannot do that.
He is hounded by a social and mainstream media lynch mob. It was correct for public pressure to force Sheffield United not to re-sign the striker. Not many employers would take back a rapist on his release from prison and it would have sent the wrong message; made light of the offence.
Part of the punishment is losing your job when convicted, but you do not normally lose your profession as well, unless those on the sex offenders’ list are excluded from it.
Football does not exclude sex offenders, yet Evans is being prevented from resuming his career. Clubs are too scared to sign him because of the “negative publicity” it will generate. That is their choice. Hartlepool backed out of signing him because they felt their supporters, their customers, did not want it and Oldham look like doing the same.
But of the hundreds who expressed their opposition, many more did not.
Signing Ched Evans would be 'appalling'
It is wrong because we live in a free society, even for those who once did not because they committed crimes serious enough to have that liberty taken away.
Football has re-employed all sorts of criminals in the past, even those like Lee Hughes who was sentenced to six years for causing death by dangerous driving. He took someone’s life, but was allowed to play professionally again. So have other professions.
If we continue to hound Evans out of the game, what company will ever employ him? Should the Government change the law to say those convicted of certain crimes can work again, others can’t? It will never happen.
How or who could decide which crimes were ok and which weren’t? The law is universal, it does not see class, race, wealth or profession. It does not differentiate between them. The law protects you and me, but it also protects Evans.
For those who say Evans deserves to be more severely punished, stopping him from playing football is the perfect way to do it, but you’re not far away from saying we should have “locked him up and thrown away the key”.
The Magna Carta, written in 1215 – the first legal document in this country protecting the liberty and rights of man – prevents this. British law prevents it.
If Evans wants to play football again, he can. He will have to run a gauntlet of hate every time he steps on to the football pitch. Supporters will abuse him in their thousands and they are not renowned for their subtlety. He will never be allowed to forget what he did, even if his final appeal is successful.
When Evans is in his 60s and people hear his name, they will not think of Ched Evans the footballer, they will know him as Ched Evans the footballer who raped a girl and went to prison.
He will carry that with him for the rest of his life and so he should. But his fame should not deprive him of the same rights as the rest of us.
Evans is allowed to work again and football clubs are allowed to employ him. We should let them. We cannot allow any sort of mob justice to hold sway over the law.
