тхеодоре кацзынски
Well-Known Member
Anyway, he got 6 years.
I'm off to read some internet comments. I suspect there'll be a lot of
He'll be out in half the time
Should have got life
Bring back the death penalty
and so forth.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyway, he got 6 years.
He'll be out in half the time
Should have got life
Bring back the death penalty
Details of the grounds of appeal can not be reported for legal reasons.
Interesting. We'll have to wait for the retrial.
Footballer Ched Evans
Shouldn't it be ex-footballer?
Is anyone familiar enough with the case to know how his co-accused was acquitted while Evans was convicted?
My memory is that the alleged victim was deemed too drunk to consent but both men admitted to intercourse.
Fair enough.I.think it was something to do with her having gone back to the hotel with the first guy and then Evans showed up in the room after she and the first guy had had sex.
Shouldn't it be ex-footballer?
Is anyone familiar enough with the case to know how his co-accused was acquitted while Evans was convicted?
My memory is that the alleged victim was deemed too drunk to consent but both men admitted to intercourse.
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 knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant).
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
This seems to me to be stretching the limits of consent to beyond breaking point.
I agree, but we're all right-on internet feminists or whatever; a jury is made up of all sorts, plenty of whom might be of the opinion that regardless of how drunk the victim was her going back to the hotel has an element of inferred consent. It's not an argument that I might find compelling, but there's a big game theory element to jury trials aside from simple legal argument.
Which makes me think that he has every possibility of getting acquitted this time out, given the vagaries of juries and how consent is inferred.
I don't know what kind of feminist I am. Very interested in how this consent element plays out in court though.
This seems to me to be stretching the limits of consent to beyond breaking point.
In relation to these offences a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:
- acts intentionally,
- (B) does not consent to the act, and
- (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.