Rehabilitation of Offenders

[turbowoowoo]

Ched Evans should be able to re-integrate back into society once he has served his time, just like all other ex-offenders.

The current fashion is Mob rule, driven by the media and vote grabbing politicians finding something or someone to vilify and hound.

As someone said on QT last night, is it ok for Ched Evans to work at Sainsbury's with low paid workers, but not for a football club earning lots of money?

Surely a warped and two faced approach?

The rule of rehabilitation should be for all, unless the governing body of that profession rule otherwise.

It is tantamount to kangaroo courts!!

[TestMangler]

Think the point is that he hasn't yet served his sentence as he's still on licence after serving half.

Anyways, Oldham said 'no' but I believe he's taking it as really meaning 'yes'

[TheFaQQer]

Ched Evans should be able to re-integrate back into society once he has served his time, just like all other ex-offenders.

Come back in 2 1/2 years then. Simple.

[turbowoowoo]

Come back in 2 1/2 years then. Simple.

Ok so taking your stance then, we pay him welfare for 2 1/2 years?

[AtW]

Think the point is that he hasn't yet served his sentence as he's still on licence after serving half.

And how that prevents him from playing professional football, are there any restrictions in this respect? If there are none then he is entitled to get the job, ideally high paying to pay more tax that would support the justice system better than if he is unemployed.

The fact that he wasn't allowed to appeal is crazy, and his conviction is also in my view questionable - if you take Gerrard case when he punched block on CCTV then he somehow was deemed innocent, and nobody got a problem with that.

[TheFaQQer]

Ok so taking your stance then, we pay him welfare for 2 1/2 years?

No.

He concentrates on his appeal against his conviction for rape, and lives off his savings. Or he could live in prison and we pay for it, which I wouldn't be against.

[TheFaQQer]

The fact that he wasn't allowed to appeal is crazy, and his conviction is also in my view questionable

1) He is appealing at the moment.

2) He admits that he entered the hotel room, waited for his friend to finish, and then proceeded to have sex with the girl while she was unconscious. He does not believe that this amounts to rape, though, which is the basis for his appeal. The facts are that she was unable to consent because she was so drunk.

Whether he believes he is innocent or not, until yesterday, he had made no attempt to apologise for his actions or the actions of his friends and the impact that they had on the 19 year old girl concerned - which have resulted in her needing to move and change her identity because of the way she has been hounded.

There are plenty of jobs that he can go and do, but no-one has the right to expect that when they are out on licence they should be able to walk back into their chosen career, particularly one where (rightly or wrongly) the people are held up as models that young people want to copy. In a few years time, will there be a call for Rolf Harris to be able to pick up where he left off? I doubt it.

[Doggy Styles]

And how that prevents him from playing professional football, are there any restrictions in this respect? If there are none then he is entitled to get the job, ideally high paying to pay more tax that would support the justice system better than if he is unemployed.

The fact that he wasn't allowed to appeal is crazy, and his conviction is also in my view questionable - if you take Gerrard case when he punched block on CCTV then he somehow was deemed innocent, and nobody got a problem with that.

Well i'll be blowed. I agree with the Russian.

[TheFaQQer]

Well i'll be blowed. I agree with the Russian.

You think he wasn't allowed to appeal? And that having sex with someone when they are unconscious and so cannot give consent doesn't count as rape?

[AtW]

1) He is appealing at the moment.

No, he's got Judicial Review to permit him to appeal, that's not the same as appealing!

2) He admits that he entered the hotel room, waited for his friend to finish, and then proceeded to have sex with the girl while she was unconscious. He does not believe that this amounts to rape, though, which is the basis for his appeal. The facts are that she was unable to consent because she was so drunk.

And why his friend was pronounced innocent?

I've read in papers that the girl was 2.5 times over the limit drink wise. Well, is that enough to be BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that she was unconscious? 3 pints of beer?

Whether he believes he is innocent or not, until yesterday, he had made no attempt to apologise for his actions or the actions of his friends and the impact that they had on the 19 year old girl concerned - which have resulted in her needing to move and change her identity because of the way she has been hounded.

He just could not afford good lawyer and PR advisor as he wasn't Premiership level footballer, I am pretty sure they would not be convicted in the first place.

And what if he succeeds in getting appeal and overturns his conviction???