Money Over Morality: Ched Evans is a Rapist, Not a Victim...

I told myself I wasn't going to blog about Ched Evans, partly to deny him the oxygen of publicity he seems to so desperately crave since his release from prison (seriously, had anyone other than Sheffield United or Welsh football fans heard of him before then?), and partly because this entire sorry ordeal makes me want to bash my head repeatedly against a brick wall until either sense is restored to the world or I become so incapacitated with head trauma I no longer care about anything anyway. But then came the flurry of reignited debate over the past week or so following the news Oldham Athletic were considering signing him; the news this afternoon that an announcement of his official signing is expected “imminently”, alongside reports that his girlfriend’s father is preparing to cover the financial costs of any sponsorship the club loses as a result, however, may have tipped me over the edge…and voila! I’m blogging about it. Sometimes needs must…

The big debate over the past few weeks and months has been the issue of whether Evans, a convicted rapist who is currently halfway through a five year sentence and who has been released from prison on license after serving half that time, should be able to play football professionally again. Originally Sheffield United, his club at the time of the conviction, were going to allow him to train with them; after sponsors threatened to pull out if the deal went ahead and several high-profile patrons stood down, the club had a change of heart and it didn’t happen (this is, after all, the world of football, where money talks louder than morality). In recent weeks Oldham Athletic expressed interest in signing him; once again there was outrage, once again sponsors threatened to pull out…and the news came this afternoon that we can expect a press conference either tomorrow or Friday to announce they’re going to sign him regardless. One sponsor, Verlin Rainwater Solutions, has already ended its association with the club, saying: “we would like to take this opportunity to make clear that we feel that Mr Evans should be able to lead a life without further punishment after serving his sentence, although our feelings remain the same that this should not be within the public domain where his previous behaviour may influence the next generation. Another sponsor, ZenOffice, has said if the signing definitely goes ahead they will do exactly the same adding the club’s “current path" did not "espouse" the company's values of "family and community". Local politicians and the Bishop of Manchester have joined the calls of the more than 60,000 people to sign a petition calling for the club not to sign him; a counter petition, in support of Evans and the club, has achieved 2,000 signatures. This case has, as you can probably tell, opened up more cans of worms than a worm canning factory; it is one of the most divisive stories in the news at the moment and causes passions to run high on both sides of the divide.

Now I wasn’t in that court room when Evans was convicted and his co-defendant, Clayton McDonald, was acquitted of rape. I certainly wasn't in that hotel room on the 30^th May 2011 when the incident took place. However, the facts are thus: Ched Evans was tried by a jury of his peers, according to the law, and found guilty. He appealed. Twice. The appeals were rejected. Twice. The case is now with the Criminal Review Cases Commission and their investigation is not expected to conclude until the autumn. Incidentally, the judgement by the Court of Appeal can be read here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans 

I make no claims to be a legal eagle or anything, but even I can read between all the legalese and see the Appeal Judges were perfectly satisfied that the conviction should stand. I will admit I can see why some people are bewildered by the different verdicts; after all, if the victim was too drunk to consent, how can McDonald have been acquitted while Evans was convicted? This is something the appeal addresses directly: “It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant (Evans) knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.”

Reasonably clear, no? Ish? The jury were dealing with two separate cases which, although they had overlapping evidence, were then privy to two separate verdicts. And yes, I know the likes of the Guildford Four and Sally Clark (wrongly imprisoned for the murder of her baby son Christopher) and many others were subsequently found to have been wrongly convicted, but two appeals so far have failed to see any reason to overturn the conviction so, unless the CRCC investigation turns up anything which makes this conviction unsafe, Ched Evans remains a convicted rapist.

Throughout the whole thing Evans has maintained his innocence. Indeed, he has expressed not the slightest shred of remorse save for apologising to his girlfriend for “cheating on her”; no doubt this is because he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong. Well, to my mind – and regardless of whether or not he did commit rape – anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to lie to hotel staff to get a keycard for the room and then breeze in to have sex with a drunk girl who’s already having sex with your mate (while two others film the whole thing from outside the window – classy) needs to get a serious reality, morality check. In what universe is that acceptable? Oh wait – this one, where misogyny is already rampant and seems doubly so in the moral black hole that is professional football.

This is a matter which isn’t going away anytime soon. For every person who thinks Evans should never be allowed to play professional football again you will find someone else insisting that he’s “done his time” and “deserves to be rehabilitated”. Let’s just examine this for a moment. Firstly, Evans is actually only halfway through his sentence. Yes, he’s out of prison but only on license; theoretically he could be recalled to prison to serve the rest of his sentence should he do something monumentally stupid enough to warrant it.  Once the five years are up then he will have "done his time", although he'll still be on the Sex Offenders Register.  Cos, y'know, he's a convicted rapist.  Then we come to the "deserving to be rehabilitated" bit.  In theory I completely agree.  Hell, I only wish that everyone could be rehabilitated but, as my great hero John Douglas once pointed out, you have to have something to rehabilitate to.

Now I'm not putting Ched Evans on a par with Ted Bundy or anything, but the point Mr Douglas raises is kind of apropos of the situation.  How can Ched Evans possibly be "rehabilitated" when part of rehabilitating an offender is for them to accept responsibility for their crime and show remorse for it?  So long as he persists in his assertion that he's innocent and has done nothing wrong - which, after all, he is entitled to do - then how can he be rehabilitated?  Rehabilitation doesn't mean "do a bit of prison time and then waltz back into my old life like nothing ever happened", after all; if Evans was a teacher, say, instead of a footballer then there's no way in hell he could expect to get his old job back when he came out of prison for sexual offences!  Rehabilitation is also about integrating back into society, and part of that is the belief the person won't go on to re-offend.  Given his absolute insistence that he's done nothing wrong I'm not overly convinced that's something he can claim; this is, after all, a man who sees nothing wrong in gaining access to a room under false pretences and raping someone.  Oh yeah, just the kind of guy you'd want dating your daughter, what with his totally misogynistic attitudes and all that!

Of course Ched Evans has the right to maintain his innocence and to lodge his appeals; that's the beauty of our legal system.  And I'm not saying for one second that our legal system is perfect - there's enough evidence of previous miscarriages of justice to highlight its flaws to all and sundry.  If the CRCC uphold his appeal than that's fine and dandy and we will all have to respect that and deal with the outcome.  What's not fine and dandy is the number of people who have come out in defence of Evans, parroting the "oh, but he's done his time/Mike Tyson went back to boxing/he says he's innocent so why should he apologise?" clap-trap currently swamping the internet.  What's even less fine is his silence on the harassment the victim has undergone; harassment perpetuated by his so-called "supporters" and even, thanks to them posting the hotel CCTV on their "Ched Evans is Innocent!" website, by his family.  Harassment which has meant this young woman, already a victim of rape who has had to relive that experience in court already, has had to move five times, change her name three times and was unable to spend Christmas with her family through fear of people coming to get her after his friends, family and "supporters" revealed her identity on social media.

Please re-read that.  Raped.  Went through a trial.  Outed on social media more than once.  Moved five times.  Had to change her identity three times.  Had to spend Christmas alone.  Does that not sound like the worst fucking punishment in the world?  And this is a victim of a serious crime!  Meanwhile all Ched Evans can bleat about is "boo hoo, poor me; my life has been ruined and I might not be able to play football again".

Ched Evans is not the victim here.

This young woman is living in a prison Ched Evans and his "supporters" have constructed for her. 

He doesn't have to say he's sorry.

He doesn't have to say he's not innocent.

But he should have the moral decency to say to these people "not cool, guys".

If he spoke out against the harassment the victim has endured - asking his supporters to not publish her identity; to leave her alone; asking them to let the appeal run its course - then maybe, just maybe, people would be a little less vitriolic about him.  I'm not saying he needs to retract his claim of innocence; wring his hands; apologise publicly...but he could ask his "supporters" to back down and not compound the "wrong" (in his eyes) with more wrongs.

His silence on this matter is tantamount to complicity.

Nine people have already been convicted of disclosing the identity of the young woman online, in violation of the laws of the land which protect the victims of sexual crimes.  And they're just the ones who were caught.  Unfortunately we can't arrest every troll who decides to call her a slag, or say she was drunk so she was asking for it, or any of the other oh-so-predictable victim blaming comments the internet has spawned.

If, as expected, Oldham Athletic do announce this week that Ched Evans has been signed, he'll get his life back to a reasonably comparable level to his life before the rape conviction.

What a tragedy we can't say the same for his victim...