Should he be re-hired

[jakeblu]

I don't give a hoot about the jury or the judge, because I use my own eyes.
Do you really think that SG was innocent of the offence with which he was charged?
Please do not sit on the fence, just a simple answer will do.

A jury determined he was not guilty after studying all the evidence and listening to the arguments, so yes its good enough for me to think he is not guilty and as I said the judges comments when discharging him also make me feel convinced in his innocence.

I know juries are not infallible but I do believe that they generally come to the correct verdict on the evidence presented to them. Most miscarriages of justice are due to new evidence being found or evidence withheld.

It beggars belief that he got away with that
I mean its there to see plainly on video

So, you think the jury didn't use their own eyes when viewing that video. Why do you think they decided unanimously after deliberating for only 1 hour that he was not guilty. Could it possible be something your not aware in the evidence presented or maybe they were all Liverpool supporters.

 

[POAH]

yes he should be rehired unless there is a law preventing it. he has served his punishment.

 

[viv1969]

I can see where you are coming from Ruth, but there are a few "celebrities" in recent times who have protested their innocence and appealed, and then had their appeals turned down.
There does seem to be a culture of - "no regrets, no apologies, no admitting guilt" these days.
Suarez and his team and the Uraguayan prime minister are "convinced" that Suarez didn't bite.

He has not not yet exhausted the appeals process though, so surely you would not expect to see him expressing any remorse or guilt.

 

[akr]

Cant see why an organisation in the public eye would want a convicted rapist representing them. Nor would the sponsors of that organisation.

Promotion = Money. Good striker = more likely to be promoted.

 

[cambsno]

I am surprised at the level of hatred towards Evans playing football again. He was convicted of a crime and has served his time... what do people expect him to do? Live off benefits forever?

Should he have got a harsher sentence, probably, but my worry about rape is that it can be difficult to prove and is a bit he said she said. That aside surely if you serve your time you should be free to carry on with your life. But just because he is a footballer is getting a hard time? If one of us here was convicted of the same, should we be prevented going back to work as a builder/manager/photographer... obviously there are some crimes and professions that don't go together, but people can change/reform or even have just made a mistake.

He has served time in prison, probably lost a lot of friends, lost money and valuable playing time.

 

[viv1969]

I wonder how many here would re-hire someone with a standing conviction for rape.

 

[Laudrup]

I wonder how many here would re-hire someone with a standing conviction for rape.

Mike Tyson was jailed for 6 years for rape, served 3 and his comeback fight made $96 million dollars. Once people have served their time then they should be free to get on with their life.

 

[viv1969]

Mike Tyson was jailed for 6 years for rape, served 3 and his comeback fight made $96 million dollars. Once people have served their time then they should be free to get on with their life.

And he IS free to get on with his life.
But no employer can be forced to take him on.

 

[Spuff]

If one of us here was convicted of the same, should we be prevented going back to work as a builder/manager/photographer... obviously there are some crimes and professions that don't go together, but people can change/reform or even have just made a mistake.

But isn't that the point? In the real world you would most likely lose your job and livelihood if you were convicted of rape. Certainly in any of the professions such as law, accountancy or medicine it is unlikely you'd be allowed to practice again. But Planet Football sees itself as different. If there was no money involved, I'm sure he'd be out on his ear - there was a case recently of Karl Colley playing for non-league Goole who decided to punch some fans fairly recently and as a result Goole sacked him. But Evans cost Sheffield what, £3 million? Presumably they're going to want to see some return on that.

As AKR mentioned, there are a number of past cases where players have been convicted (and in some cases jailed) for various assaults and the teams happily take them back or sell them to other teams. Assault is bad enough but is there a range of crimes that become so serious that even football teams wouldn't take them back? It seems that teams won't tolerate players that are involved with gambling offences or drugs but are quite happy with violent assaults and now sexual assaults. I wonder how they'd cope with child sex offences or manslaughter?

 

[cambsno]

But isn't that the point? In the real world you would most likely lose your job and livelihood if you were convicted of rape. Certainly in any of the professions such as law, accountancy or medicine it is unlikely you'd be allowed to practice again. But Planet Football sees itself as different. If there was no money involved, I'm sure he'd be out on his ear - there was a case recently of Karl Colley playing for non-league Goole who decided to punch some fans fairly recently and as a result Goole sacked him. But Evans cost Sheffield what, £3 million? Presumably they're going to want to see some return on that.

As AKR mentioned, there are a number of past cases where players have been convicted (and in some cases jailed) for various assaults and the teams happily take them back or sell them to other teams. Assault is bad enough but is there a range of crimes that become so serious that even football teams wouldn't take them back? It seems that teams won't tolerate players that are involved with gambling offences or drugs but are quite happy with violent assaults and now sexual assaults. I wonder how they'd cope with child sex offences or manslaughter?

I would, but on release I could find another job and hopefully rebuild my life. In that case why not keep people caged up until they die? Should they also get a sentence saying that once they are released they can not earn more than the average wage?

People do wrong/silly things, often a long time in prison IS what is needed and as has been discussed on another thread, I am not against the death penalty, but prison is there not just to punish but to rehabilitate and hopefully ensure people live a good life. Surely if he couldn't play football for he would probably become bitter, and be more likely to reoffend.

 

[SFTPhotography]

And he IS free to get on with his life.
But no employer can be forced to take him on.

No, but in the same way, they shouldn't be forced NOT to take him on/re-employ him.

 

[Spuff]

I would, but on release I could find another job and hopefully rebuild my life. In that case why not keep people caged up until they die? Should they also get a sentence saying that once they are released they can not earn more than the average wage?

People do wrong/silly things, often a long time in prison IS what is needed and as has been discussed on another thread, I am not against the death penalty, but prison is there not just to punish but to rehabilitate and hopefully ensure people live a good life. Surely if he couldn't play football for he would probably become bitter, and be more likely to reoffend.

And he could go and get another job too, just like you and me, and try and rebuild his life. But I would say he's forfeited his right to leap straight back in to his previous club. Look at the recent case of Judge Constance Briscoe - convicted of perverting the course of justice and jailed for 16 months. She's not going to have too much to do with the law once she comes out. Is that fair? Her opportunities and levels of earnings are going to be severely curtailed. It's a price that is paid for breaking the law.

The real problem that I have with the "football industry" is that I don't believe they see anything too wrong in some of these crimes. I think there's a lot of "it's just lads being lads", a bit of a punch up on a Friday night, a bit of "well she was probably asking for it" (and I think there was a lot of that in this case specifically).

Look at Ravel Morrision - charged with assault and harassment - accused of threatening to throw acid in his girlfriend's face, have her killed and blow her house up! Has he been suspended pending trial? No - he's happily training with West Ham!! And that is the fault of the football industry.

 

[SFTPhotography]

How does a rape conviction affect a sports mans ability to play sport. A perjury conviction/perverting course of justice is a dissbarrable offence so means they cannot practice law, and being honest/upholding the law is a requirement of a legal professional in the same way having a driving licence is a requirement of a HGV driver.

Having a clean criminal record isn't a requirement of a sports person.

 

[LCPete]

I wonder how many here would re-hire someone with a standing conviction for rape.

I certainly wouldnt want to work with someone like that

 

[cambsno]

And he could go and get another job too, just like you and me, and try and rebuild his life. But I would say he's forfeited his right to leap straight back in to his previous club. Look at the recent case of Judge Constance Briscoe - convicted of perverting the course of justice and jailed for 16 months. She's not going to have too much to do with the law once she comes out. Is that fair? Her opportunities and levels of earnings are going to be severely curtailed. It's a price that is paid for breaking the law.

The real problem that I have with the "football industry" is that I don't believe they see anything too wrong in some of these crimes. I think there's a lot of "it's just lads being lads", a bit of a punch up on a Friday night, a bit of "well she was probably asking for it" (and I think there was a lot of that in this case specifically).

Look at Ravel Morrision - charged with assault and harassment - accused of threatening to throw acid in his girlfriend's face, have her killed and blow her house up! Has he been suspended pending trial? No - he's happily training with West Ham!! And that is the fault of the football industry.

He could but why should he NOT play football. Obviously he cant go and be a teacher because there are restrictions on having a record, and the Judge too cannot go back for similar reasons. But why should his club do anything why has he forfeited the right - if Tesco employed him would you be angry at Tesco? He has to work somewhere!

 

[nilagin]

And he could go and get another job too, just like you and me, and try and rebuild his life. But I would say he's forfeited his right to leap straight back in to his previous club. Look at the recent case of Judge Constance Briscoe - convicted of perverting the course of justice and jailed for 16 months. She's not going to have too much to do with the law once she comes out. Is that fair? Her opportunities and levels of earnings are going to be severely curtailed. It's a price that is paid for breaking the law.

The real problem that I have with the "football industry" is that I don't believe they see anything too wrong in some of these crimes. I think there's a lot of "it's just lads being lads", a bit of a punch up on a Friday night, a bit of "well she was probably asking for it" (and I think there was a lot of that in this case specifically).

Look at Ravel Morrision - charged with assault and harassment - accused of threatening to throw acid in his girlfriend's face, have her killed and blow her house up! Has he been suspended pending trial? No - he's happily training with West Ham!! And that is the fault of the football industry.

If his club want to re-employ, that is entirely up to them. It's not really any difference to anyone else deciding to employ him. If his skills match what they are looking for, his criminal record will have no effect on his performance in his job.
You could go out on a Friday night and have a punch up, I can't see your employer being too bothered, it doesn't concern them unless you end up doing time and can't perform your job.

 

[viv1969]

No, but in the same way, they shouldn't be forced NOT to take him on/re-employ him.

They're not forced. They can employ him if they wish.

 

[viv1969]

If his club want to re-employ, that is entirely up to them. It's not really any difference to anyone else deciding to employ him. If his skills match what they are looking for, his criminal record will have no effect on his performance in his job.
You could go out on a Friday night and have a punch up, I can't see your employer being too bothered, it doesn't concern them unless you end up doing time and can't perform your job.

Please tell me you're not comparing rape to post pub fisticuffs.

 

[nilagin]

Please tell me you're not comparing rape to post pub fisticuffs.

If a crime has no relationship to the job, then what does it matter what the crime is?
If I committed a crime for whatever and received a few years custodial sentence, I would likely lose my job as my employer is not likely to give me a few years leave. Once I'm free if my employer is hiring and I'm best candidate, I'm confident I'd get the job on that basis and the criminal record would not even come into it as it would have no bearing on my job.
We have a bloke at work who's wife has disappeared, he's helped the police with their enquiries several times now, as they suspect he may have killed her and hidden the body. There's no proof as yet he has done this, people still talk to him and he still has a trusted position as a fire marshall at work. Just because someone is a footballer why should they be treated any different.

 

[viv1969]

If a job opening existed, and that position would put the candidates in contact with women.....and say one candidate was a convicted rapist and hugely qualified, but a second had a clean record but was very slightly less qualified, I would go with candidate B every day of the week.

Edit....The colleagues case is irrelevant as there is no conviction.

 

[nilagin]

If a job opening existed, and that position would put the candidates in contact with women.....and say one candidate was a convicted rapist and hugely qualified, but a second had a clean record but was very slightly less qualified, I would go with candidate B every day of the week.

Edit....The colleagues case is irrelevant as there is no conviction.

My example of the work colleague was in reference to my earlier post where someone mentioned someone who had been charged but as yet not tried, but a football club had showed no interest, my point was why should they.
Just because someone has been convicted as a rapist, this does not mean they are likely to be a serial rapist and going to reoffend. As he is more likely of becoming in contact with women when he goes shopping, perhaps he should be banned from going shopping too.

 

[viv1969]

My example of the work colleague was in reference to my earlier post where someone mentioned someone who had been charged but as yet not tried, but a football club had showed no interest, my point was why should they.
Just because someone has been convicted as a rapist, this does not mean they are likely to be a serial rapist and going to reoffend. As he is more likely of becoming in contact with women when he goes shopping, perhaps he should be banned from going shopping too.

When shopping, said sexual incompetent is not in contact with the same people day in day out, as he would be in a work environment.
I wouldn't be happy working alongside someone waiting to see if the term "serial" can or cannot be applied.

 

[nilagin]

When shopping, said sexual incompetent is not in contact with the same people day in day out, as he would be in a work environment.
I wouldn't be happy working alongside someone waiting to see if the term "serial" can or cannot be applied.

As you're highly unlikely to find yourself alone for long enough with them in a working environment to test that theory, I don't see it would matter.

 

[viv1969]

As you're highly unlikely to find yourself alone for long enough with them in a working environment to test that theory, I don't see it would matter.

But they're likely to learn your habits....where you live.....

 

[nilagin]

But they're likely to learn your habits....where you live.....

Same could be said about anyone, you could be working with a rapist in waiting, they haven't committed the crime yet, just waiting for an opportunity. Yet the convicted rapist may never offend or even consider offending again.

 

[viv1969]

Same could be said about anyone, you could be working with a rapist in waiting, they haven't committed the crime yet, just waiting for an opportunity. Yet the convicted rapist may never offend or even consider offending again.

The conviction would be enough.
I don't work on maybes.

 

[cambsno]

When shopping, said sexual incompetent is not in contact with the same people day in day out, as he would be in a work environment.
I wouldn't be happy working alongside someone waiting to see if the term "serial" can or cannot be applied.

I don't think many of us would happy if we knew our colleague or boss was a convicted rapist but what's the answer? Ban anyone convicted of rape from working... That will simply lead to more crime.

 

[big soft moose]

Same could be said about anyone, you could be working with a rapist in waiting, they haven't committed the crime yet, just waiting for an opportunity. Yet the convicted rapist may never offend or even consider offending again.

quite - for that matter you could be working with a serial rapist who hasn't be caught yet , its a daft argument

that said I wouldn't reemploy an employee convicted of a serious crime - not least because the amount of bad press such a hiring would bring

 

[Keith W]

Did the offence take place because of his position as a footballer? Who knows?

Would the offence have taken place had he not been a footballer? who knows?

What I do know is he was a footballer when he was found guilty of rape

So in answer to the question asked, my personal opinion would be, no his club should not re-employ him

 

[nilagin]

quite - for that matter you could be working with a serial rapist who hasn't be caught yet , its a daft argument

that said I wouldn't reemploy an employee convicted of a serious crime - not least because the amount of bad press such a hiring would bring

I can just see the headlines "--------- ---------- is given a job by --------- " Ooh the scandal! If it was a bloke on the street who had been convicted and re-employed it would go unreported. The only reason we are hearing about this case is because he was/is a footballer.

 

[Byker28i]

Look at Ravel Morrision - charged with assault and harassment - accused of threatening to throw acid in his girlfriend's face, have her killed and blow her house up! Has he been suspended pending trial? No - he's happily training with West Ham!! And that is the fault of the football industry.

Sorry, when did some peoples opinions override the very basics of uk law, innocent until proven guilty? You are privy to the full facts and all evidence of the case. If the police or cps felt he was a danger then I've no doubt he would have been held pending trial.

 

[Byker28i]

Same could be said about anyone, you could be working with a rapist in waiting, they haven't committed the crime yet, just waiting for an opportunity. Yet the convicted rapist may never offend or even consider offending again.

That could be said of any man, after all, we could all be charged with 'going equipped' in your world. That sounds quite worrying.

So do we need to get google to look at browsing habits? Any dodgy sites visited, even just from curiosity? Ever followed a link from a friend, "hey look at this"? Maybe we should get the stats from the mods about how long people spend in nudes and glamour section...

It's a dangerous path once you start going down the maybe and if route of suspicion.

 

[Spuff]

Sorry, when did some peoples opinions override the very basics of uk law, innocent until proven guilty? You are privy to the full facts and all evidence of the case. If the police or cps felt he was a danger then I've no doubt he would have been held pending trial.

In virtually every work environment, other than the football world, you would be suspended pending the outcome of a trial if charged with a violent offence like assault. And in the case of Morrison, whilst I certainly hope he is found not guilty (which is also his plea), the legal system did find it appropriate to remand him in custody initially and has attached a number of conditions to his subsequent bail.

 

[big soft moose]

I can just see the headlines "--------- ---------- is given a job by --------- " Ooh the scandal! If it was a bloke on the street who had been convicted and re-employed it would go unreported. The only reason we are hearing about this case is because he was/is a footballer.

it would depend on what he'd been convicted of , and what he was being hired to do - if it was statuatory rape and he was hired in any job that brought him into contact with minors i think there'd be a fairly major fuss

 

[nilagin]

it would depend on what he'd been convicted of , and what he was being hired to do - if it was statuatory rape and he was hired in any job that brought him into contact with minors i think there'd be a fairly major fuss

So you're saying rapists are paedophiles.

 

[big soft moose]

some rapists are paedophiles , some are other forms of nonce (if they commit statutory rape) , some aren't - but would you be happy with someone convicted of a sexual offence or for that matter a violent one , coming into contact with your kids

 

[nilagin]

some rapists are paedophiles , some are other forms of nonce (if they commit statutory rape) , some aren't - but would you be happy with someone convicted of a sexual offence or for that matter a violent one , coming into contact with your kids

If you read my earlier posts, I did say that if the conviction had any bearing on a job, then no they wouldn't (shouldn't) be able to get that job. But we are talking about a footballer who's job description doesn't involve him coming into contact with kids nor women for that matter so no reason why as a rapist he shouldn't be able to return to his job if the club should wish to offer the position back. Not rocket science really.

 

[viv1969]

If you read my earlier posts, I did say that if the conviction had any bearing on a job, then no they wouldn't (shouldn't) be able to get that job. But we are talking about a footballer who's job description doesn't involve him coming into contact with kids nor women for that matter so no reason why as a rapist he shouldn't be able to return to his job if the club should wish to offer the position back. Not rocket science really.

He can, and he may well, return to his footballing position. But if the club give him a straight no...he has no recourse...he has, as a sexual offender, no right to expect anyone to employ him; and the only reason they need to cite is the unspent conviction. ..which will remain unspent for the rest if his natural.

 

[SFTPhotography]

If you read my earlier posts, I did say that if the conviction had any bearing on a job, then no they wouldn't (shouldn't) be able to get that job. But we are talking about a footballer who's job description doesn't involve him coming into contact with kids nor women for that matter so no reason why as a rapist he shouldn't be able to return to his job if the club should wish to offer the position back. Not rocket science really.

You clearly know the law. What sort of convictions are never spent and which ones get spent in what timescales. I think you'll know why I'm asking - it's to help fill in CRB forms truthfully.

 

[Keith W]

Any conviction resulting in a custodial sentence over 2.5 years is never spent

Prison sentence (including suspended sentences) 6 months to 2.5 years - over 18 years old when convicted will be spent in 10 years, under 18 years old it would be spent in 5 years

Prison sentence (including suspended sentences) 6 months or less - Over 18 years old when convicted will be spent in 7 years, under 18 years old it would be spent in 3.5 years

Fines, probation, compensation, community service, reparation orders, curfew orders - Over 18 years old when convicted will be spent in 5 years, under 18 years old it would be spent in 2.5 years

Absolute discharge - Over 18 years old when convicted will be spent in 6 months, under 18 years old it would be spent in 6 months