We examine the controversial Ched Evans case.
The issue of Ched Evans signing for Oldham Athletic may come to a close today with reports claiming the League One club are set to confirm whether they will sign the convicted rapist or not.
SEE MORE:
Nando’s Severs Ties With Oldham Due To Links With Convicted Rapist Ched Evans
Allowing Ched Evans To Sign For Oldham Will Have A Toxic Effect On English Football
Oldham Continue Talks With Convicted Rapist Ched Evans Despite Police Commissioner Condemning The Deal
The former Sheffield United forward’s proposed move back into football after he was convicted and served two and a half years behind bars for rape has been a particularly divisive and controversial one with an almost national debate questioning whether anyone who has committed such an abhorrent sex crime should be allowed to return to a lucrative and privileged position in football.
With such a hotly debated issue we look at the common arguments both for and against Oldham signing the Welsh striker.
FOR: (Views do not necessarily reflect the authors)
Evans has served his time behind bars so the next step of his rehabilitation is to reintegrate with society.
Surely the point of a prison sentence is so that a person isn’t continually punished their entire life for one crime and that they are able to learn from their mistakes and allowed to return to some modicum of normality once they’ve righted their wrongs.
The main issue many seem to have had with this argument for rehabilitation is that Evans has never shown any remorse for his crime, not even saying sorry to his victim or apologising for the harmful and aggressive smears against her by his supporters since he was imprisoned more than two years ago, but that isn’t a requirement of his sentence and he can’t be held accountable for the misplaced actions of a few internet trolls.
It is argued that by preventing Evans playing football again it shows that even the highest and powerful in society aren’t above the law and repercussions of crimes.
However, football is all Evans has known since signing as an 11 year old for Welsh side Rhyl FC so what is essentially being argued is that this man isn’t allowed to return to a profession he has been working toward since the age of 11 and one crime is allowed to affect that.
Evans himself won’t be in charge of children or vulnerable people so how could he be seen as a threat.
If we say Evans isn’t allowed to return to his position because of the success and riches it can bring; where would that thought process end and what does that say for our whole justice system in general? If you take that mindset would suddenly a role as a City stock broker be seen as too lucrative a career to return to following a crime?
By taking that point of view you could say any part of free society is a privilege to someone convicted of a crime and they shouldn’t be allowed any re-integration in society. Essentially by preventing Evans a return to football it could be seen as a complete trashing of the British penal system’s ability to rehabilitate and better.
AGAINST:
Evans may stringently deny that he raped his victim but a jury disagreed and the evidence was strong enough (and that itself is at an incredibly high standard) to convict him of the accused crime.
He is a rapist.
And that needs to be remembered following his release – if his conviction was overturned that point would clearly change but it hasn’t and English law deems he raped someone.
Whilst Evans may have recently been released from prison, he actually hasn’t served his time. He’s now on a license after he served two and a half years of a five year sentence. If he breaches any licensing restrictions such as going abroad he would immediately return to prison – which is hardly the definition of free man.
Evans’ life may have been football before his conviction but that doesn’t mean it has to be after – he is allowed to work again but rape is a crime which automatically restricts a number of careers you can have so why not football? Evans couldn’t be a teacher, doctor or police officer. And whilst he won’t directly be working with vulnerable people or children the way of football means he’d be idolised and held up as a shining example to the young. Evans will be welcomed as a hero once he scores his first goal which surely makes a mockery of his crime and his victim.
And yes, whilst Evans may have been working toward football from such a young age and not playing again may ruin his career and life – the life of his victim has been continually torn to shreds, again and again, since she was the victim of this terrible crime.
Saying that Evans has been punished and rehabilitated in prison is also a flawed one because people confuse the idea of rehabilitation.
It does not mean returning to an idyllic utopia following your release from prison or back to your normal life, indeed your normal life as the position and standing you were previously in may have, in some ways, led you to commit the crime – but that’s likely not correct in this particular case.
The main idea behind rehabilitation is about bringing you back into society and showing the world that you accept what you did, have learnt from the wrongs and now want to prove to society that you will not reoffend.
In Evans’ case however, this is completely trashed at the first hurdle because the Welshman flat out refuses to to accept he did anything wrong – how can he be rehabilitated if if he refuses to accept his crime?
The only thing he’s accepted is he cheated on his girlfriend and if he refuses to accept what he did was rape, despite a jury of his peers disagreeing, then how can he truly be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society when he has no grasp of what the law’s definition of that crime is? How can we then be sure he will not repeat offend again?
Saying sorry isn’t part of his punishment no, but an acceptance of it is which Evans has continually ignored and refused to do.
Since his conviction, the woman he raped has had to change her identity five times after the footballer’s supporters tracked her down, abused and named her on the internet. Why should Evans be allowed to rebuild his life when he’s seemingly showing no interest in trying to help his victim rebuild hers by condemning his supporters and their actions?
Mike Tyson may have been allowed to return to the top of boxing following his conviction for rape in 1991 but that doesn’t mean that wasn’t a mistake and that our sense of justice hasn’t evolved from more than 23 years ago.
This case should be judged on it’s own and it’s clear that Evans’ peers, us, clearly don’t think he should be allowed to continue playing with over 69,000 signing a petition to stop his deal it in just four days.
Society seems to be saying that such an abhorrent crime as rape should be shunned and held in contempt rather than be rewarded with the riches and fame that football brings.