Now just hang on a second here. I would like to know at precisely what point we became a society where this kind of hysteria was acceptable. I didn't know anything about this case, but ten minutes or so of googling threw up some very interesting facts that I am not sure anyone of these people screaming their lungs out for Judy's blood has bothered to acquaint themselves with.
- The victim in question claims not to remember anything of the attack. Not one solitary detail. From her account, she recalls being in a club and then basically waking up in a hotel room the next day with her clothes scattered about the place. No idea how she had got there or what had happened.
- There were actually two men present for the 'attack'. Evans and his friend Clayton McDonald. It was McDonald who had brought the victim back to the hotel room - booked by Evans - and who had, according to the accounts of both - initially had sexual intercourse with the victim. Evans then appeared later and apparently when asked (though they are both unclear as to by whom) whether Evans could join in, they received an affirmative from the victim.
- Neither man ejaculated during the intercourse, meaning that there was no DNA evidence. This, combined with the total lack of violence (which doesn't lessen a charge of rape, but would provide some physical evidence to link an individual to the crime) means that the only reason that the two men were on trial and one was convicted was that they volunteered the information that they had engaged in intercourse with the victim. Remember, her claim is that she cannot recall ANYTHING that happened from her leaving the club.
- The Night Porter at the hotel was listening at the door while the sexual activity was going on. His testified that he had gone to listen at the door as he was concerned that the maximum occupancy for the room was being exceeded. This apparent virtuous intent led to him hearing what sounds like several minutes worth of the encounter, which he describes as 'ooh and ahs' and at one point, a male voice 'playfully' asking for oral sex. He describes nothing that suggests anything other than consensual sexual activity taking place. Also, bear in mind that having gone and listened, he did not report the incident to the police.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not for one moment suggesting that Evans is a paragon of virtue. In fact, his night had been derailing long before he detoured to have sex with the victim - he had in fact been in a taxi en-route to the police station to give a witness statement on behalf of his brother who had been involved in an altercation with a young woman in the street. Upon hearing that his friend had 'picked up a bird', he asked the taxi taking him to the station to re-route to the hotel so that he could 'have a look at the girl'. Upon obtaining his own keycard for the room and walking in to see Clayton and the victim having sex, Evans (in a relationship at the time which continues to this day) decided to join in and have sex with her also. Having both had sex with her, they left the building and went to his house where they spent the night. These are not the actions of gentlemen, nor of men we would wish for our young boys to look up to.
But are they the actions of rapists? I think that's a valid question, yet the prevailing public wisdom seems to be that they were charged and are therefore guilty. Why was only Evans convicted? Both men were there, both freely admit to having sex with the victim. If she was 'too intoxicated to consent' to sex with Evans, why not also with McDonald?
Rape is possibly the worst crime. There is no restitution, no justice that can be served. There is nothing that can be done that will heal the victim or make them feel any better. There is no compensation that will take away the nightmares, the awful feeling of violation and the burning distrust of the intentions of any man ever. This is where people who would differentiate between violent rape and 'date-rape' often get the wrong end of the metaphorical stick entirely. A mad stranger in a mask with a knife dragging a woman into an alleyway is a terrifying and horrific experience. The rape will scar her and stay with her for life, but the man who attacked her was a monster - a beast emerging from the dark to prey on her. When a woman is raped by a friend, or even a lover, there is something else that breaks inside her - the cold realisation hits her that ANY man could be her rapist, Any normal, everyday acquaintance could be waiting to force himself upon her at any moment. She must therefore guard herself against all men in her life, no matter how long she has known them and how harmless and friendly they might seem. Her faith in an entire gender is shattered, possibly forever, and there is little if anything that she can do.
It is also the worst crime because of its very often intangible nature. In so many cases, it will come down to the word of one person against the other. Again, violence can be an indicator that makes a conviction easier, but when confronted with former lovers, who can be physically proven to have had sex, but with one claiming rape and the other consent, how do you decide? How do you objectively PROVE, with no witnesses, and no evidence other than that sex has occurred, that rape was what happened? Do we simply assume that the woman must be telling the truth because why else would she say it? Does this not presume an awful lot? Is it fair or right in a criminal justice system which otherwise relies entirely on the twin foundational principles of innocence until guilt is proven and guilt being proven beyond all reasonable doubt to simply exclude this one crime? Is it actually fair to have such an often intangible and difficult crime be tried on the same principles as other crimes? I cannot honestly say - I don't believe that there is any possible way in which cases of rape can be dealt with 'fairly' - rape isn't a fair crime. It's not even a sex crime in the true sense of the word. It's a power crime. It's an assertion of will on another. It's why men rape other men in prisons - not because they feel any sexual desire for them, but to assert their dominance over them. It is a crime that only a patriarchal society such as our own could produce. A crime that takes agency away from another in the name of simply asserting one's position.
I don't know whether Ched Evans did or did not rape that young woman. I do know that he seems to have voluntarily admitted to having sex with her. This in spite of the fact that he was in a relationship which he must have expected to be affected by such admission. And in spite of his position as a professional sportsperson. I suspect that when he and McDonald came forward to volunteer this information, they didn't expect to be arrested and charged with rape. Now, whether that expectation was due to them actually genuinely not having committed rape, or not understanding the definition of a rape, or because they expected the patriarchal system to side with two professional footballers over the word of a drunken young woman, is a question open for debate. And debate is at the root of a problem like rape. If we don't talk about this crime, how can we hope to educate the following generations about it? If we shout down any who voice any opinion other than the popular one on any rape case, how can we be sure that all of the facts are being properly addressed?
Most important of all, if a man has been charged, convicted and served his sentence, why is it right that he continue to be punished upon completion of that sentence? Why do so many people feel that Evans should not be allowed to 'resume his old life'? People are claiming that by doing so, the wrong message is being sent out to young women, but how is this the case? Evans was convicted of rape. He served his custodial sentence for that crime. The time between that crime occurring and his being sentenced was relatively short. Plus, do you really think that there will ever be a newspaper article or online article ever written about him again that doesn't at some point use the words 'convicted rapist'? He hasn't got away with anything - he has served the state-sanctioned sentence for the crime for which he was convicted. Starting a petition to stop him resuming his old career once that sentence has been served is just mob justice, and that's not justice at all. We punished this man because he was found to have contravened the law of the land. It is therefore somewhat rich to expect to be able to punish him some more when that same law has decreed that his time has been served.
I recognise that victim blaming is a thing. I understand that it doesn't matter what a woman wears or how drunk she is or anything else, that rape is still rape. I fully comprehend that it is not up to a woman 'not to be raped' but up to men to just not be raping. But I am a little tired of 'victim-shaming' being thrown around like some kind of debate-ending grenade every time the conversation turns towards us thinking about the other side of a story and questioning the majority opinion. Judy Finnegan said that a man who has served his time should be allowed to resume his life. That she even mentioned the inebriation of the victim was ill-advised at best and downright stupid at worst, but to hail her as a 'victim-shamer' in order to try and shout down her actual point, which I feel was at least valid enough to merit discussion, is just silly. We won't solve the issue of rape with this kind of mob mentality any more than we would by stopping all young girls from drinking. And that's a fact.
Yes, it is a vexed question, but I wonder if dissecting the case does you any favours. We know that rape is one of the least reported crimes, and we know that it has one of the lowest conviction rates. This man WAS convicted. Neither you nor I was in that court, but the jury was, it heard the evidence and it found the defendant guilty.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "I don't know whether Ched Evans did or did not rape that young woman." That jury believes that he did, and he was convicted. Our justice system is imperfect, but the jury's verdict should be enough for all of us at this point.
It's tough enough being a woman, but to be a rape victim…
Of course, in theory, any convicted criminal who has served his time for any crime should be allowed to return to his former private life, and that should include his work life. In the real world that seldom happens.
I couldn't readily find stats for the UK, but in the States, 8 months after release, fewer than half of convicted criminals are in paid employment, and the majority are doing manual work for less than the minimum wage. Crime clearly doesn't pay, and when we make bad choices there are going to be repercussions. One way or another we all live with the consequences of our actions.
That was precisely my point though - the jury's verdict SHOULD be good enough for us all. Regardless of anything else, the justice system did its job and the man was convicted and served his time. To now have the mob baying for him to continue to be punished is to witness hypocrisy of the highest order. Yes he has to live with the consequences of his actions, and that might inlcude a reluctance of football teams to employ a man with 'convicted rapist' attached permanently to his CV, but that's not the same as a whole crowd of people actively campaigning for him to remain unemployed.
ReplyDeleteIn the wider context, I still think that it is unhelpful to keep lobbing the term 'victim blaming' at anyone who ever dares to try and suggest that perhaps young girls should take care not to get blind drunk to the extent that they don't know where they are and what they are doing, given that there are in fact rapists in the world who will seek to take advantage of that fact. The fact of a rape victim's intoxication is indeed irrelevant, and should not be used in any way to lessen the gravity of the crime, but that isn't the same as simply telling a young woman that when she goes out at night, she shouldn't get wasted because there are people who might then seek to take advantage of that fact.